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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
90767 | What is this fruit, anyone knows?
What fruit is this?
Please see photos, thanks. This is from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. It is about 3 inches in diameter.
Can you add info that might help, like location, is it soft/hard, smell... Someone may recognize without it but that would help narrow things. Thanks for having leaves because they eliminate my first thought, wrong leaves for what I thought the fruit looked like.
Have you cut into it?
Could you please add the size?
It's 3" in diameter. I'll try to add a photo of it cut in half.
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
Update: Now that the OP added a photo of the inside, I think Cos Callis was right, and it's Guava, it definitely doesn't look like an apple from the inside.
It looks very much like a Pond Apple:
The form of the leaves and the stalk/stem(?) looks also very similar.
I think the leaves aren't the right shape.
Hmm, that might be right - very similar to the walnut but now I’m wondering if it is or not given the similarities to the pond apple .
@talon8 To me, the leaves look like the correct shape... +1
Those leaves look just right to me too, including the little upward pointing "curvy-crooks" to their stems. The shape of the fruit is also not exactly like most walnuts. A teensy bit too top-heavy on the roundness - but exactly like those pond apples.
It is 3" in diameter.
@Fabby, If you look at the leaf in the bottom right of the bottom picture, it's fatter (more shaped like a spade) than the one in the OP's picture.
@LorelC. Guave answer upvoted, but not removing my upvote here as I thought this one was correct at first and the Guave is top answer now.
That is a "Common Guava" (Wikipedia). When deployed to Saudi Arabia (years ago) we would get pallet loads of Guava Juice. My Puerto Rican friends were familiar with it already, it is supposed to be quite popular there (and throughout the Caribbean)
EDIT:
after looking at @arieljannai answer I felt a little more research was in order, I was unfamiliar with the pond apple and they do look a LOT alike on the outside. The leaf structure is even similar.
Britannica Has the following picture of a 'ripe' guava:
While this is the best picture of pond apple cut open:
Compared to the recently added photo of the original fruit provided by OP I am again confident that it is a guava (although, perhaps not a ripe one)
Are you sure? I think guavas are closer to limes in appearance, not a smooth outside and not with the speckles.
Yes, with OP adding the picture of it cut open it's a certainty.
Yep, it seems you were right :) I updated my answer to refer to yours
I had never even heard of a pond/alligator apple till I saw your answer, they do look an awful lot alike. Now that I'm back working at my PC I'm actually less sure.
Your picture of the pond apple cut open is cut vertically (through the "poles" of the fruit), while the picture supplied by Gidi shows the fruit cut horizontally (through the "equator"). I think this explains why a cut-open pond apple might look so different in the two photos.
I took that into account and the inside shot of the pond apple was the best could find (quickly) and the core and seed arrangement would (I believe) not produce the effect we see in the lateral slice from OP. If you can source a better photo I would be happy to reconsider.
I’m not sure about the cross section, but the skin doesn’t look right at all for a guava to me - but I’m not sure I’ve seen an unripe one?
I suspect that OP pic is not of a ripe guava. Look at the various pics on the links I provided and you can see that some have that lime like texture you expect, but others (younger I suspect) are more smooth in texture.
Annona glabra, related to Guanábana, commonly called Pond Apple in Florida.
yellow/orange when ripe, unlike most of the other species that have white pulp and are much tastier.
The fruit itself looks like a caimito: a sweet tropical fruit. However, the leaves in the picture are throwing me off a little because caimito leaves should look very much like magnolia leaves - the kind that are made into Christmas garlands. The leaves in the picture are the right shape, but I am missing the waxy dark green of the dorsal side and matted gold color on the plantar side feature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.981750 | 2018-07-03T18:26:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90767",
"authors": [
"Arsak",
"Cos Callis",
"Fabby",
"Joe M",
"Lorel C.",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"arieljannai",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67989",
"talon8",
"user67989"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116304 | Products that can be microwaved and "pop" just like popcorn
What makes corn pop and is it possible to microwave any other type of food into the form of pop-something just like sweetcorn?
The corn that you pop is not sweetcorn.
Also, puffed rice and puffed wheat are both very common breakfast cereals in the US, and I've also seen them used in packaged foods from east Asia and south Asia.
It would be good if the title itself mentioned something about popping. A microwave is a good way to cook an ear of corn-on-the-cob, and I use a hot-air popper for popcorn, not bags of microwave popcorn. So when I see that question title, my first thought is foods that come with some kind of husk which keeps steam in so they make their own container for basically steam cooking in the microwave.
Why is the question about "Products" and not "foods"?
@ThePhoton, while that's true, I've had sweetcorn in the microwave still pop, but without creating the "popcorn" look.
Popcorn should be considered one of "nature's little miracles" - & a way to make a huge profit out of air.
Yes, you can pop other dried grains/seeds, but don't expect anything quite so bag-filling as maize.
Quinoa, chia, sorghum & amaranth will all pop [in a dry pan, not sure about microwave]
See
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/puffed-grains-popped-corn_n_6107716
or
https://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/how-to/article/get-it-poppin
Mustard seeds too :)
It's kind of a stretch to call it one of 'nature's little miracles'. Maize is a plant that cannot reproduce without human involvement.
It managed well enough before we got here.
@Tetsujin The maize that was maize before we got here (ie: a teosinte, top) would be unrecognizable by comparison and most likely would not make pop-able kernels. It's amazing what 9000 years of human intervention can do to nature. Modern maize fails in the wild because it cannot effectively disperse its own seeds. It requires humans to do that part.
Popcorn doesn't pop particularly well in the microwave oven. The bag the popcorn is in has a little metal patch to make it work better. You can't just throw popcorn in the microwave and pop it. Hot air poppers and popping corn in hot oil work better.
Popcorn pops because it has a tough shell and a little spot of moisture in the center of the kernel. If you get the kernel hot enough, the water boils and flashes into steam. Steam takes up about 1700 times the volume of the water. That large increase in pressure causes the kernel to "pop." The heat and the steam cook the internal parts of the kernel while fluffing them out.
Other seeds don't have that tough shell. When you heat them, the moisture just evaporates right out – it can never pop because there's no pressure build up.
Popcorn has been bred over the years to make it pop better. Some kinds of corn (maize) naturally had the required tough shell and moisture – popcorn has been popped for hundreds if not thousands of years. Modern packaged popcorn is bred to be more consistent – it pops better and more reliably than the naturally occurring popcorn kernels.
If you want to try other popped seeds, I suggest you try popping corn in a pot with hot oil or in a hot air popper first to see how to do it. Other seeds don't come pre-packaged in the special bag that popcorn comes in for use in the microwave.
Once you can pop popcorn without burning it in a pot or hot air popper, you can try popping some of the seeds mentioned in the links of the other answer(s.)
Some seeds you may want to try:
Sorghum
Amaranth
Quinoa
I have not tried any of those, but they are mentioned in the linked articles.
Puffed wheat and puffed rice (as mentioned in comments to the question) are common breakfast cereals in the United States, but they are not popped like popcorn. Those puffed cereals are made by heating the grains in a sealed chamber, then suddenly releasing the pressure. The old advertisements claimed the cereals were "shot from guns." The heating chambers did rather resemble small cannons, but weren't really guns. The first minute or so of this video shows a small "puffed rice gun" in operation. It does indeed sort of resemble a small cannon.
It is possible that other seeds or grains could be puffed the same way rice and wheat are, but you'd have to have a pressure chamber to heat them in to find out.
You can absolutely pop regular, loose popcorn in the microwave. Ideally you want to heat the water in the popcorn, rather than transferring heat to it from the outside, and that's exactly what a microwave does. I'm not sure what "metal patch" you've seen in microwave popcorn bags -- the ones I'm familiar with are just plastic-coated paper -- but it's not required for the popping process.
I strongly refute "You can't just throw popcorn in the microwave and pop it". I do exactly this all the time. I usually end up with a small amount of unpopped kernels at the bottom, but it isn't a show stopper. There are even microwave containers for exactly this purpose.
@Sneftel: The metal patch as described in the wikipedia page on microwave popcorn.
How is this gathering upvotes? This is an uninformed answer. I have been popping popcorn in the microwave for years - without oil, without 'metal patches', and with a near-complete pop-success rate.
@JasonPSallinger because it contains other useful information
Ever try opening one of those packages before putting in the microwave? It's like a solid brick of waxy substance with seeds suspended in it. That brick liquifies while cooking and turns into something like butter, flavoring the popcorn, but it also helps distribute the heat better.
@OrangeDog Then it is incumbent upon this poster to edit the misinformation. Upvoting based on other, good information gives the wrong message.
@DarrelHoffman yes, and they've never been like that
@OrangeDog Hmm, this might be a regional thing then? Or just depend on the brand? Try a Google image search with "open a microwave popcorn bag before popping", you'll see plenty of pictures of what I'm talking about.
I think one of the more plausible theories for Maize's domestication is that popping was the original way it's natural ancestor's seeds were made edible leading to cultivation and hybridizing. If that's correct, popcorn is actually more like the original plant than other forms such as sweet corn.
@DarrelHoffman That is just to make it taste better by making it evenly flavored--even besides butter flavor, if you just add salt onto completely dry popcorn it will just sink to the bottom, so they put a little oil to make the salt stick. But in pure terms of pop, you get the same results without all that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.982152 | 2021-07-04T17:11:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116304",
"authors": [
"Billy left SE for Codidact",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"J...",
"JBentley",
"JRE",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"JimmyJames",
"OrangeDog",
"Peter Cordes",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"brhans",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92094",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66305 | How can I remove moisture from my onions?
Currently, I prepare onions to put on a pizza by using a food processor to chop them, then strain them and let them dry. Then, I put them in containers before use.
However, the onions have been too moist lately, and make the pizzas soggy when they're put on them. How can I remove some of the moisture so they don't do that?
Do you mean you're using a food processor to slice them?
Why you strain onions ? First question? And why food Processor?
I like to put dehydrated onion on my pizza. It rehydrates nicely during baking.
One technique for removing water from a vegetable, which works very well for onions, is to salt them liberally. Then give them some time to sit, preferably in a shallow layer.
The salt will extract water from the vegetable, due to the osmotic gradient between the salt outside and the vegetable inside. Some of the salt will go into the vegetable, but much will remain outside; you'll need to figure out how much salt you can get away with using before your vegetable is too salty, but it's typically a large amount in my experience.
Once enough water has been extracted, rinse the vegetable off (to remove the excess salt), and pat it dry between two parts of a towel (or two paper towels). The vegetable will now have much less moisture in it, which will both lead to crispier and quicker frying, and less moisture coming out in the cooking process.
A second option, in your specific case, is to store them in open containers. The refrigerator will dry the onions out over time. This is usually a bad thing, and you intentionally close containers to prevent this; but in your case, depending on the length of time you're talking about, it could be a good thing. I wouldn't do this for more than a few days (as it will really dry the onion), but it might be worth testing to see if it helps. This may leave your refrigerator (and its contents) smelling like onions, of course.
Alternately, you can store the onion on a mesh or grate which allows moisture to slip down below the onion; it may help prevent some moisture re-absorption and improve your results.
Note that the "open container in the refrigerator" method will lead to your refrigerator, and everything in it, smelling like onions. :)
@Marti Minor details... updated answer with that note :)
Or you could try saute em before hand then just drop em on few minutes before your pizza is done?
I worked at a pizza place for a while and most of our veggies were par cooked before they went on the pizzas.
This is what I do with anything that releases too much moisture. I find the taste more agreeable in some cases also.
You could, of course, actively dry them, in a food dehydrator or one of the many improvised versions of the same thing. You don't need to completely dehydrate them (unless, as @mrog does, you find that you like that) though if you do you can skip refrigeration. I often partially dry apples when making apple pie to get the "pie juice" thicker without resorting to corn starch or tapioca. I also mix fully dried apples with normal apples. I see no reason that the same techniques should not apply to onions and pizzas.
That would be easier with sliced rings rather than diced/chopped onion, which will tend to clump and probably be difficult to dry. I guess mixing purchased dried onion or garlic with the diced/chopped onion might work, if rings are not an option.
You might even get enough drying by spreading them thinly on a baking sheet while the oven is warming up to cook the pizza.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.982738 | 2016-02-08T00:51:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66305",
"authors": [
"Carol Schiavo",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Harshan Abeyagoonasekera",
"Joe M",
"Lynda Morrow",
"Marti",
"Menan Popstrokes",
"Michael Long",
"Mireya Galvan",
"Ronnie Doggart",
"Sarah Fuller",
"SourDoh",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"WhatEvil",
"cheryl carley",
"holly rowe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42754 | Which salsa ingredient makes it taste like dirt?
I suppose it could also be considered "earthy".
There is an ingredient that is often added to "authentic" salsas that often ends up making it taste too "earthy".
Which ingredient is it?
Is it cilantro?
People who don't like cilantro usually describe it as soapy, not earthy.
When I think of ingredients that taste like dirt, I think of baby corn ... but that wouldn't likely be in salsa.
What ever it is, it's not found in many commercial salsas. This has just been a question I've never found a direct answer to.
I think that non-commercial salsas usually taste "brighter" if anything. Where are you getting these salsas?
@sourd'oh : Every place doea their salsa different. Various 'Mexican' cafes and restaurants. It seems like the more tradional restaurants make their salsa that way. Newer restaurants and cafes tend to have 'brighter' tasting salsa, to steal a term from an above comment. :)
Could it be turmeric?
Are you sure they are pure salsas? Moles (including tomato based ones) will frequently include chocolate, which has an earthy flavor.
@rumtscho : Yea, it's normal salsa. Typically chunky and "fresh". Definitely not molè. Normally the salsas in question are pretty mild. Currently trying to decide on an answer... I'd never considered cumin or tomatillos as possibly suspects.
My partner has a very sensitive "dirt-flavor" sense... One of the ingredients that may be found in salsa that often triggers it for her is cumin.
My dad has the same thing - hates anything with cumin in it because it tastes like dirt to him.
I love cumin, but my wife thinks it tastes like mud.
So weird, cumin has such a wonderful perfume and flavor. The only way it could taste like dirt is if you were using a tin that had been sitting in your spice rack too long, imho.
As the comments pointed out, everyone does Salsa differently, but if you add chioptle pepper you will get a heated dark flavor. Also, depending on how you are charring your veggies, tomatillos can also do this - especially if roasted with their skins still on.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.983173 | 2014-03-14T18:39:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42754",
"authors": [
"3oz.",
"CarlaDownUnder",
"Cascabel",
"Emma",
"Joe",
"Kogitsune",
"Mien",
"Protect children of Donbas2014",
"Sam",
"SourDoh",
"Squish",
"Theresa ",
"barbecue",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99999",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99313 | Nut butter with water. Shelf life
I have a blender that is not very powerful, just 400 Watt. I tried to use it with nuts and it cannot do it, I notice it suffers too much. If I add some water it works well and I like the result. My question is how much time will the cream last in the fridge?
What I have tried:
- I tried to make just what I need for today. The blender needs more quantity to move everything.
- I tried to add lemon. It seems to work with savory recipes but not if I want a sweet cream, sauce or spread.
If I make a cream, sauce or spread with nuts and a bit of water, how much time will it live well in the fridge?
None of the sources commented answers the question. It is known that nut butters have long shelf life as natural oils help to preserve them. The question here is if adding water can shorten the regular shelf life of a nut butter.
I added more information to explain why those answers do not fully address my question
As soon as you mix ingredients and process them in some way (and this can be as easy as cutting) your food counts as "cooked dishes", which is covered in the duplicate question, unless you have worked from a recipe tested for producing long shelf life (e.g. if you are making pickles). Food safety does not recognize fine gradations in shelf life.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.983395 | 2019-06-02T10:59:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99313",
"authors": [
"Nrc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123853 | Mold in walnuts
I usually soak and dry walnuts. It tastes much better. Unfortunately, last time, I found that it has developed mold. I soaked them for a night, I dried them for several hours at a very low temperature, and when they were crunchy and seemed dry, I stored them in a crystal container in a cupboard.
Should I throw them away, or could I recover them somehow?
What can I improve to avoid the problem next time?
Your first question is very clear: Mold = discard.
After drying peppers, I place them in a glass container and look for condensation every day for the next week or so. If I see any inside the jar, I dry them further. I have no idea if this would be sufficient for nuts.
Storage of nuts, I generally make a couple layers. I add clean folded paper towel between each layer as I place them in a jar. After the first night, I open the jar, pour them out, check the paper towel for dampness, texture and smell. If all is well, paper towel is trashed and nuts go back in the jar. If I feel or notice any dampness, I spread them out on a clean surface, cover with clean paper towel for a few hours. Return nuts to jar minus paper towel.
Put some newspaper in the container and it will absorb the moisture first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.983530 | 2023-04-09T10:42:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123853",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55303 | Sous Vide Interrupted
I'm trying to cook beef short-ribs sous-vide at 140° for 72 hours. Imagine my shock this morning when I went into the kitchen and found the machine had turned itself off! It could not have been for long because the temp had only dropped to 80° so given the heat in my kitchen I'm guessing it was only off for an hour or two.
I've since set it back to 140° for at least another 36 hours of cooking...but any damage done from this drop? I'm more worried about bacteria and the like than any effect it will have on the meat.
Yes, according to the common food-handling procedures, having food in the 'danger zone' for some time is bad ... however, you've likely pasteurized your meat, as you only need to hold it at 140°F for 12 minutes to pasteurize pork against its normal pathogens.
Mind you, it's more than 12 minutes to get the middle up to 140°F, so it's not simply 'it needs to be cooked for 12 minutes'.
As you had pasteurized it for 24+ hrs before it was in the 'danger zone', you would've had a significant reduction in microbes, and the vacuum seal would've prevented it from being re-contaminated.
The only problem might be botulism, as you have to hold it at 185°F to kill the spores and destroy the toxin:
... so if there's garlic in the bag, and it's not in an acidic environment, you're at an increased risk.
You might be able to 'test' the contamination by holding it the warmer sections of your fridge for a week, and if the bag doesn't puff up, assume it's not at risk of botulism. Of course, if you hold it too cool the botulism won't give off enough gas to indicate that it's a problem, so I don't know if it's a 100% accurate test.
I'm not going to say that it is or isn't a problem, as everyone should make their own decision on risk. I wouldn't recommend serving it to others, especially not without informing them of the situation. You should be able to ensure safety by holding it at 185°F for 15-20 minutes, but that would likely defeat the purpose of your sous-vide cooking.
Hmm...so first of all, it's beef which I did not mention above . "short ribs" does usually mean beef, but no biggie no harm no foul. But second of all, I consulted multiple sources for this temp and they all say to cook between 138 and 142 depending on desired done-ness. Does this past answer re: botulism (or are we now more worried about e-coli) change knowing it's beef and not pork? I do plan to sear but probably not enough to get the internal temp up to 160 for any great length of time.
Botulism normally dirt, or stuff that's grown in dirt (garlic being one of the main sources), not from the meat itself. You've pastuerized it long enough to deal with most things that cause food poisoning ... but botulism takes a lot of heat to kill in the first place, and even more heat to break down the toxins that it creates. The good news is that the main issues with botulism are from storing things for a long time (ie, why to avoid puffy cans or jars whose lids have popped). I don't know enough about botulism activity vs. temp to know what's most dangerous for it.
Oh ... and I've used sous-vide on beef at 135°F for 3+ days, well within the 'food danger zone' ... and it was delicious.
Also thought this was some great accidental reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/nyregion/09cook.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Follow-up, it smelled kinda funky when we opened it. Probably the meat and not the process. So my wife chucked it. We'll be trying again with better beef.
As I understand it, botulism spores are harmless and in pretty mich everything, it's once the botulism spores has germinated, which takes a long time in an basic, anerobic enviroment (right now the only thing I can find on the internet says 3-4 days, I thought it was more like 6 weeks, I would really like to know so this is not just an answer but a question)... anyway I found this thread because my sous vide oxtail was in for 2 days at 140F & then my power was our for a day, but... its back in now so... que sera sera :)
If you want an answer, it is best to start by reading through similar threads (there are a lot of them) and if you can not find the answer, start a new question. Questions asked within answers tend to not get any response. Welcome to the site though!
Well your in that so called "Danger Zone" for 1-2 hours, but IMO it comes down to whether or not your a germaphobe or not. For me and pretty much everyone I know, that is nothing but for others they may be scheduling a doctors visit as we speak.
According to FDA standards and such, you should be mildly concerned. According to real world standards I wouldn't worry about it. It really just boils down to what your comfortable with. If your nervous then don't risk it. Nothing worse then putting all that effort into your meal and can't enjoy it because your worried.
Would the people who have downvoted care to explain why?
Another way to put this...I'm assuming I have not introduced new toxins into the vacuum-sealed bag and was cooking at 140° for quite a bit before this which is above what I understand to be temperate for germs. So does dropping back in cause toxins to...rebirth? Anyone?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.983677 | 2015-03-02T19:21:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55303",
"authors": [
"Anna Deni",
"Debra Crook",
"Debra Pesti",
"Joe",
"Lynne Noxon",
"Marcela Klocker",
"Paula McBrine",
"Raydot",
"Richard Anderson",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Sonia Nelson",
"Steven Ngatai",
"Yasuyo Jackson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"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
} |
49538 | Refrigerating warm potato salad 13 hours after dinner
I prepared warm potato salad last night for dinner. We finished around 7:00 pm and I forgot to refrigerate it until 8:30 this am. Therefore, it was left out for approx. 13 and1/2 hours. When I felt it this am; it wasn't warm and actually a little on the cool side. My AC was turned down low so the house was around 63- 67 degrees all night.
So, Is it ok to eat or should I throw it out due to bacteria and/or etc..??
Please let me know as soon as you can....now would be good...just kidding kinda... I'm just really worried because I have a son that loves it and I need to know whether we will be having that potato salad for dinner tonight or a bunch of guilt-ridden banana splits? ....hmmmm? Tough decision...
Thank you to whoever answers... It will be greatly appreciated!! :•) 8•)
Throw it away! Warm potato salad is a breeding ground for all sorts of food-borne illnesses, and 13+ hours is far too long at room temperature.
Thank you for your quick response!! I'm throwing it out right now...you are a lifesaver, literally!!!! ... :) 8•)
I think you get credit for asking the question @JeanBostick. By the way there are several previous questions on this site about food safety which give useful guidelines which have more detailed answers than mine and are well worth reading.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.984132 | 2014-11-05T16:21:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49538",
"authors": [
"Cynthia Farner",
"Dianna Delligatti",
"GdD",
"Jean Bostick",
"Matt Dunn",
"Robert Rosalez",
"Tyler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29098"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
102669 | Baked Red Potatoes cooked skin up or down (crisped results wanted)
Should red potatoes that are quartered be cooked skin up or down in the oven? (Oiled!)
Hoping to get delicious crisped results!
@aris please do not answer in comments, this bypasses all our quality mechanisms. If you want to give advice how to achieve the goal in the question, write an answer.
I find that the side against the pan (for any ingredient in a roasting situation) tends to brown more readily. So, if you want even browning, you'll have to turn your potatoes as the cook. Beyond that, it's just personal preference.
by side do you mean skin side or the other sides
Any side against the pan will brown more quickly.
what do u recommend for crispy red potatoes
@ina use the search bar! There is a lot of potato information on our site.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.984528 | 2019-10-02T00:09:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102669",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"ina",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96633 | Turkey chili from raw in a slow cooker accidentally for 10 hours on warm
Just woke up and realized the turkey chili (2 cans kidney beans, 1 can black beans, 2 cans diced tomatoes, 1 lb turkey ground) had been cooking from raw on warm for 10 hours.
I'm a bit desolate since it's all organic. I just turned it to high and set a timer for 4 hours. Can my chili still be salvaged?
This isn't a duplicate to this wiki because it is specific to chili crockpot with the ingredients above.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?...certainly, the info you need is in this question. You would need to know the temperature of "warm" in your slow cooker.
I appreciate your edit, but the ingredients are irrelevant. It is the temperature and time that are the critical variables.
Do you mean it was on the slow-cooker's "low" setting, or does yours also have a "keep warm" setting?
It has a keep warm, low, and high
Well it just says warm
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.984635 | 2019-03-01T16:44:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96633",
"authors": [
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"ina",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55833 | cake burns on bottom
Why is my cake burning on the bottom and the top is not done. I must not have the oven rack in the right place. If I want the cake to bake less on the bottom, what position should the rack be in.
Hello and welcome to the site! Could you please tell us a bit more? What kind of oven are you using? What kind of pans?
Bake with the cake pan on an "Air Bake" sheet.
also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33447/why-does-my-bread-burn-at-the-bottom-before-it-is-done/33449#33449 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19772/what-is-the-proper-oven-rack-height-position-for-baking-cakes-and-cookies?rq=1
Gas oven? Electric oven? Other oven heat source? Convection, not convection ...and where in the oven is the pan when it's burning the bottom?
A sheet of aluminum foil under the pan can help prevent burning on the bottom.
If your oven heats unevenly you can also bake you cake with can pan on a sheet pan that is doubled up as well.(two sheet pans stack on top of each other) This helps with the bottom of cake (if you don't own a glass pan) from turning too dark too fast. Of course, you should in fact bake the cake in the center of the oven at best.
Moving it up should help. Also try a glass pan not a metal pan that will slow the heat transfer into the cake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.984757 | 2015-03-18T19:23:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55833",
"authors": [
"AAA",
"Annalisa Mongio'",
"Back In Motion",
"Chad Clark",
"Ecnerwal",
"Karen House",
"Maureen Walker",
"Optionparty",
"Paul Francis",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56504 | Do they count calories in fried chicken accurately?
Personally, I never eat my fried chicken to the bone. There is always the veins left as well as some meat and skin.
In a frozen dinner, do they calculate the calories assuming the chicken was licked clean? Or do they take a more realistic approach and account for loss?
Sorry, but the difference is insignificant. Since no two chickens are the same, the amount of calories in the meal is just an estimate. Whether you eat the chicken to the bone or not doesn't matter, it won't change the estimate of the number of calories you consumed.
@rossridge sounds like an answer to me
Unfortunately the nutritional values given on packages aren't accurate enough for it to make a difference whether you eat chicken to the bone. Compliance testing in the United States and Canada only requires that an average of a certain number of servings be within 20% of the stated number. Individual servings can vary even more and still be in compliance, so long as the average of the random samples tested remains within 20%.
With something like a frozen fried chicken dinner there probably isn't going to be a wide variance in the actual numbers, but some variance is unavoidable. Chickens aren't all the same, some will be bigger, smaller, fatter or leaner. There's only so much any food processor can do to ensure that every chicken part that gets used in an product has the same weight and nutritional composition. There would also be some variation in how much batter gets coated on each part, and how much oil ends being absorbed when cooking.
On the other hand, the scraps you're leaving on the bone are probably only have tiny fraction of the total calories of the fried chicken part(s). I can't see it being more than 5% and it could easily be less than 1% of the total meal, depending on what else is included in the frozen dinner.
I should also say I think you're doing yourself a disservice by trying to fudge the numbers like this, for two reasons. The first is that when I eat fried chicken I love going over the bones trying to get the last of the meat and that tasty, tasty batter stuck to the ends. It's almost like getting to eat another piece of chicken, but one with practically no additional calories. The second reason is that you're heading down a slippery slope. Sure the nutrition information isn't very accurate, but they're the best numbers you're going to get. You don't have the information or tools to make a better assessment yourself. Trying to make up your own values will just lead you to more and more inaccurate estimates of the number calories you're consuming.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.984925 | 2015-04-09T03:15:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56504",
"authors": [
"Corinne Erickson",
"DannySandra Lewis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jill Fisher",
"Kirk Carter",
"Nathan Po",
"Ross Ridge",
"Susan Fuller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51722 | How to make wet fries?
There's a place that does 'wet fries.' They look more like English chips though, and they're basically floppy and wet from the sauce it's placed into.
The ingredients, as told by the manager, are:
Sweet chilli sauce
Hot chilli sauce
Tomato sauce
Garlic
Sesame Oil
As far as ratios go, do you believe there should be more of one particular sauce than the other? I wouldn't want to put in way more of one thing than I need.
Other than the sesame oil, it actually sounds similar to sauces you might find for patatas bravas
It sounds and looks like regular fries smothered with gravy (where the gravy can be pretty much whatever you have on hand).
See how it tastes without the garlic first. The chili sauces often have garlic in themselves.
All of the other ingredients will obviously add more wetness, in their own separate ways.
To make the fries themselves wetter, use more oil while frying them, and/or leave them in the oil longer at a lower temperature. In this case absorbing more oil makes them "wetter", but I'm not sure if that is quite what you are going for?
More oil is going to make them greasy. I'd actually recommend frying them normally, and just let them sit into the sauce until they're floppy enough. You can always add more sauce if you want them soggier.
Right, more oil will make them greasier; that's why I said that would make them "wetter [in one sense], but I'm not sure if that is what you are going for".
@Jefromi multiple separate answers in this case made sense.
I'm not a noob to Stack in general (just cooking Stack); multiple answers is a supported acceptable style on Stack in general.
See http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/104966/197173 and http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/139476/197173.
Now my separate answers about garlic and wetness are lumped together; not good as you can't tell which answer votes are for, and their conversation will be mixed together here...
@cellepo I don't have a citation offhand, but even on main meta I've seen clear advice against "one idea per answer" type things. In this case, your answers address two aspects of the question. They're not fundamentally different answers, they don't conflict, you don't have to pick one or the other. It's quite reasonable to have them together; it's very very common to have more than one idea in a single answer. In any case, I've been on cooking long enough to be fairly confident about this, but if you'd like to hear from others, feel free to post on our meta.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.985160 | 2014-12-18T17:54:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51722",
"authors": [
"Bert Austin",
"Carolyn Jones",
"Cascabel",
"Donna Leone",
"Erin Heilman",
"Joe",
"Joey Galloway",
"Max",
"Mums' Cart",
"Pamela Cosner",
"cellepo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32654",
"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
} |
103289 | Garlic wine jelly
I'm currently experimenting with making various wine jellies to be served with meat and/or cheese. Cabernet + black pepper, mulled wine jelly, and so on. I then can the result in a water bath to increase shelf life. I submerge the (sterilised and filled) jars in boiling water for ~5 minutes and then let the water cool slightly before removing the jars. After a few hours (or overnight) I check that they have sealed.
I would like to make a jelly from white wine with garlic and possibly some rosemary. I also add sugar and pectin to make the jelly. Searching the internet reveals many recipes for such a jelly, but no note on how safe it is. Just because someone on the internet has done it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Is a wine jelly acidic enough that I don't need to worry about botulinum?
Can you edit your post to specify how you are using the water bath? Also, you can, and will want to, measure pH.
I can't with good conscious give advice outside of USDA guides or similar authority as Sneftel does with the pH numbers. I will not however that in jellies, and wine, there are other factors at work in addition to pH. There is alcohol assuming it is not cooked out, and sugar content both of which act as potential preservatives. I do not have tested, authoritative numbers however to state what levels are safe in your application, that will take some research. With canned, shelf stable items I would strongly encourage doing such research however. Organizations such as local county extensions or state colleges extensions in the US for instance are prime sources and will usually be of help with answers or sources where you can get them. I would assume many other locations have similar resources, I simply can't name what they are.
I will make one other observation on your stated technique though, 5 minute water baths might be plenty to get a seal, but never have I seen any instructions saying it is adequate for canning. It there is any chance that the item being canned could be subject to botulism or other pathogens, it must be raised to and held at a higher temperature for long enough to destroy them and 5 minutes would not be enough and I would not advise that unless you can find tested authority that your contents do not need that safety factor especially with added ingredients such as garlic and herbs which are potential carries of contaminants. If the testing says you sugar, alcohol, pH levels are adequate without longer and higher heating levels, then it is still quite likely the would require substantial shelf time to make certain any pathogens are destroyed and even then remaining toxins would potentially remain.
Such questions are why we have agencies like the USDA to do that testing for us and tell us what is safe and what is not. Anecdotal evidence like people saying "I have always done it that way and never gotten sick" is not evidence. It is rolling dice and getting lucky.
The 4.6 pH advice is endorsed by the USDA. It's very much a "worst case" recommendation: alcohol, preservatives, sugar, etc. would likely mean that the actual safe pH level is not as extreme as 4.6, but 4.6 is broadly considered to be safe even without other preservative factors.
@Sneftel Agreed. The other factors may lower the pH threshold, but without authoritative numbers there is no way to endorse what is the safe number. It might be 5 or even higher, but without a controlled test by an authoritative, reliable source, can't even guess at what that safe number is.
White wine is most likely acidic enough to be safe. The standard pH level quoted for botulism safety is 4.6; if your jelly measures lower than that (after cooking and canning, not before) then you're good to go. Remember that if you were planning to store all the jars for a while, you'll need to sacrifice one jar to test the pH. Until you have your recipe absolutely, absolutely dialed in (including the brand, variety, and vintage of wine), you'll need to test a jar from each batch.
Seriously, though... consider just buying a real pressure canner. They're not expensive, they're useful for a lot of things other than canning, and they're worth the extra guarantee of safety.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.985504 | 2019-11-05T13:15:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103289",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62120 | Why won't my pudding thicken up?
Some of you might have noticed recently I am dabbling with pudding. Well - to no avail.
This is my recipe:
yolks - 1
cocoa - 30ml
sugar - 60ml
butter - 10ml
milk - 164ml
starch - 14ml
And the pudding just won't thicken. Once I even tried with double the amount of corn starch.
I have no idea what is going on, 14ml of corn starch is approx. 8.4g. I am using such tiny measures, because I am still testing it and would not like to end up with a big batch of yuck!.
In addition my hotplates are stupid and even the lowest setting is way too strong and burns anything you attempt to cook on it, that is why I decided to stir the pudding with a mixer/electric beater to ensure it will be stirred so fast - it will not have a chance to burn.
I will be getting a new oven soon, but in the meantime I would appreciate any advice.
Use a double boiler (need not be formal - a pot set on a rack in another pot with water in it will do) to prevent overheating/scorching. You make no mention of cooking times...
No chance of getting tapioca powder instead?
If you are struggling, why are you using these extra complicated recipes, or worse, creating your own (if I remember correctly from an older question)? Have you ever managed to make a standard milk-starch-sugar pudding?
@WayfaringStranger, I have no idea what that is and am willing to bet it is not readily available in my country. :/
@rumtscho, "extra complicated recipes"? It's just an egg yolk, milk, cocoa and sugar mixture that you put on the hotplate for a few minutes, what is so complicated about it? :D (btw I thought that this is a "standard" pudding recipe)
@mathgenius Sorry, Cassava root starch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapioca It's a pretty common thickener.
if you are just putting everything on the hotplate, it is no wonder it is not thickening. You are using two separate thickeners, starch and yolk, each of which requires a specific procedure and a different temperature to thicken. You are also mixing it up with cocoa and butter, which further changes the thermodynamic behavior of the mixture. Really, it's best to start simple, not with a "doubled" process. You can master the starch process first, as it is easier, then go on to yolk-thickened, and only afterwards experiment with combinations and adding flavors and enrichments.
If you can get regular tapioca, you can make tapioca powder/flour...
@WayfaringStranger, the country I am from has a very limited assortment of... well, anything, so I don't think I will be able to get that. :) But thanks, anyway!
@rumtscho, thank you for your help, but in the end I did just put everything in a double boiler and it thickened up. :) (sorry, but cooking is not that complicated :P )
You are probably stirring the pudding too much. Cornstarch starts thickening at about 205°F/95°C. Once the pudding has got to that point and has thickened, stop stirring, otherwise you will interfere with the starch formation that causes the thickening. Using electric beaters probably means you are missing the point when the pudding has thickened and quickly beating the living daylights out of any starch formation that has occurred.
It may also be the case that you are beating so much air into the pudding that it just doesn't get hot enough to activate the cornstarch in the first place. I would use @ecnerwal's suggestion of a double boiler, along with a balloon whisk, and some patience.
I thought that might be the case, but needed an expert opinion. Since that is most probably the case - I really will have to use a double boiler. Thanks! :)
UPDATE: I listened to you and @Ecnerwal, got a double boiler, put all the stuff in, and some time later poof - a pudding! :3 Thank you guys, so much!
@mathgenius happy to help!
For reference, starch breakdown from over-stirring is called "shear thinning"
Just to add an important hint for beginners reading that thread: Cornstarch needs to be dissolved in cold liquid before stirred in. Anything else will only work by accident or maybe special skill.
I just beat the cornstarch in with the eggs before adding the milk.
My pudding was not setting too despite everything perfect I thought I did. But finally I deciphered, I was using cold milk and cold egg just out of fridge. Either it should be on room temp or slightly warm milk.
You need to add eggs. About 6 tempered and beaten eggs for a quart of milk. Temper with the hot mixture of milk, sugar, and starch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.985839 | 2015-09-28T14:45:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62120",
"authors": [
"Brandy Teachworth",
"Brian Defenbaugh",
"Catija",
"Chad Smith",
"Dee Anders",
"Ecnerwal",
"Edgar Rodriguez",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kevin Mastronardi",
"Simon Catley",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"mathgenius",
"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
} |
94023 | Why do brinjal change their color when they being cut? How to keep them not to change color?
Why do brinjals (eggplant, aubergine) change their color(mostly black or brown) when they being cut? How to keep them not to change their color after cutting them?
Aubergine change colour because they are oxidizing, potatoes are in the plant family(night shades) and turn brown too. The best way to prevent browing is to immerse in water as soon as they are cut. Rubbing them with oil will help too, but not as much as soaking them in water.
Placing aubergine slices in water sounds like a great way to make them super soggy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.986226 | 2018-11-18T18:04:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94023",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107748 | I had ripe bananas so I peeled them, put them in Rubbermaid cont and in the fridge. Are they still ok to use?
They are darkish in color but not black. Still ok for bread?
How long did you leave them in the fridge?
The fridge is the best method to store ripe bananas, and should be fine for 5 to 7 days. Refrigeration will make the skin of the banana black, but the flesh will remain unharmed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.986308 | 2020-04-21T02:31:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107748",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112273 | how to make "Creme Caramel" coffee flavored?
I tried it Vietnam 3 years ago.
I prefer the Vietnamese version, there they made it with coffee flavored liquid on top
Thanks!
After @Johanna's edit, I think the question is perfectly reasonable, and doesn't need a recipe to answer it - I've linked to one only for reference, and would prefer to refer to a recipe for plain creme caramel that the OP is already happy with
@AMtwo If Seasoned Advice SE really doesn't allow recipe requests, I suggest it should.
What useful difference could anyone see between asking for help or modifications with an extant recipe, and asking for a recipe in the first place?
Is anyone seriously suggesting none of us can make up bogus recipes that don't do what we want, then ask for help or modifications that can't but lure innocent members into Posting workable recipes? Further, I just re-read the Help section and saw no reference at all to recipes, so where should anyone look for clarity?
@RobbieGoodwin recipe requests are viewed as too subjective to be on-topic, as there are many variations for a recipe and the "best" or "right" recipe can't be considered definitively answered in a Q&A format. This FAQ has more detail. It may be a fine distinction, but having a recipe for a starting point for variation with a specific goal is less subjective. If you have questions in that regard, I suggest asking on meta, rather than continuing conversation here.
Your question suggests you want to make the caramel syrup part coffee-flavoured. I'd simply replace the water used in making that with espresso (if you can get real espresso). You don't need much so if you can't make it at home, perhaps get a takeaway from a coffee bar. If you can't get real espresso, something close like aeropress espresso or moka (stove-top espresso), in both cases using a lot of coffee to the amount of water. Instant espresso powder is a last resort, or for reinforcing the flavour if it turns out too weak.
If you want to make the custard part coffee flavoured, I've had success in the past infused hot milk with ground coffee before filtering. I was going for very strongly flavoured to make a latte buttercream, but you wouldn't need to. Instead as the milk starts to warm, stir in ground coffee, continue heating, then filter (through a coffee filter paper, which you can put in a sieve for a one-off if you don't have a filter cone) before you add it to the egg. Again, avoid instant coffee. Strength will be hard to get right. My best guess would be something like a tablespoon of ground coffee to 250ml of milk, but I'd suggest aiming for subtle rather than overpowering on the first attempt, and use a little less.
I referred to this recipe; you may need to modify my steps slightly if yours works differently.
In Vietnamese, it's called bánh flan. The coffee variation of bánh flan is called bánh flan cà phê.
To add coffee flavor, there are several ways:
You make plain black coffee with a coffee filter. Filtered coffee is cooked with sugar in a pan until it's thicker (caramelized).
You make plain black coffee with a coffee filter. Sugar is caramelized in a pan separately.
You mix coffee grounds/ instant coffee with hot water.
I believe the first or second way is more proper, and the last way is invented by home cooks for convenient purpose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.986379 | 2020-10-24T10:57:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112273",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Chris H",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84355 | Creme brulee has hard top layer
As some of you may have noticed, I'm on the trails of making perfect good creme brulee.
Recently I've had great success and ended up with creme brulee of nice consistency... however there the top layer seems to be thicker and harder than the rest.
Allow me to elaborate:
After taking the creme out of the oven and allowing it to set in a fridge and before melting sugar on top I find that the top layer of my creme (about a cm's width) is hard and if I press on it it "breaks" almost like it froze on the top like surface water freezes into ice.
Below that layer the creme is like caramel, it's not hard at all and the "hardness" of this top layer is not caused by the low temperature of the fridge (I think).
Could this be because I bake my creme in a bain marie / water bath in an oven with both the top and bottom element on (i.e. the ramkins are getting heat from the top and bottom/sides)?
My recipe:
3 egg yolks
250ml whipping cream
70ml plain white granulated refined sugar (should be the same kind people put in everything)
I put the yolks, cream and sugar in the mixer bowl. Let the mixer mix them for a couple of minutes, pour into ramekins. Put the ramekins in a deep pan. Fill the pan with water so that the water covers the ramekins about halfway. Watch that no water gets in the ramekins. Turn the oven on. Put a thermometer in the water. When the water gets to ~85 degrees Celsius, leave it like that for a while. Turn oven off, let cool.
After all that the custard is still "soft". It continues to be soft after cooled to a little warmer than room temperature. Only after left alone for an hour or two does it develop this "crust".
UPDATE:
I just made Creme Brulee with only the bottom heating element turned on - same thing happened.
I should mention this happens only after the cremes are cooled - when taking them straight out of the oven there is no harder upper layer. Could it be that, akin to pudding, it dries up if you do not cover it in plastic wrap? This does not happen with crem caramel (a close relative of creme brulee).
Maybe I should mention I am cooking them for longer at a lower temperature than most recipes? But please don't jump to conclusions that this is the reason if you do not have some solid reason of thinking so.
What size are your ramekins? Are you using a thermometer to see if the custard is done (77-79 C in the center)? Can you shut off the top element? Have you tried a lower temperature for the oven? Do you have convection?
My guess would be that its a result of the top element being on and the custards receiving direct heat on top. Try turning the top element off, or if you can't do that try covering the tops of the custard (loosely) with aluminium foil.
@Batman, I don't have convection and I haven't used a thermometer but the custard was done when I tried it, my ramekins are 9cm in diameter, 8.5cm in height and I updated my question regarding the top element.
@Batman added to question
@mathgenius - that's a list of ingredients. The full recipe would include steps for preparation and how you're baking it. Also, 70 mL sugar? That would depend on what kind of sugar you had, for example.
@Batman, is it OK now?
No, you still need more time (e.g. how long you're baking it). Look at well written recipes, such as this one from Mark Bittman or this one from Theromoworks/Cooks Illustrated for how to write your recipe. You haven't even said what temperature your oven is operating at or how many creme brulees you're making. Your recipe should be detailed enough that someone who has basic cooking skills can replicate your procedure (which can't be done from what you wrote).
Also, if you're going to temp something, make it the actual custard. The temp of the water is relatively useless (to first order, this is a function of your oven temperature and the initial temperature of the water); Cook's illustrated recommends starting your bath with boiling water. Other sources may say cold. This should be a part of your recipe though. I use hot water from the tap for my baths.
If you're just playing this recipe by ear, start by following an existing recipe (the Guardian recipe or Mark Bittman one linked prior are probably better starting points than the Thermoworks/Cooks Illustrated one since the Thermoworks one requires you to have a Cooks Illustrated book) and then tweak it. This is also a good example on how to write a recipe.
I had this happen to me - it's because fat gathers on the top of the creme.
After heating the creme, for some reason, fat/oils gather at the top of the creme and when cooled become the hard layer you have described. It's just what normally happens to fat when you cool it down - it gets hard.
You can try stirring your creme before letting it cool down completely, unfortunately I do not know why this happens or how to fix it, otherwise.
EDIT:
Apparently, as @mathgenius pointed out, this happens if you use vegetable oil based cream. He reported that when using animal far cream the problem was fixed.
I recently found out in my case it was happening because I was using plant fat cream with low fat content. Once I switched to animal fat 35% cream - everything was OK.
@mathgenius, thanks, I will edit my answer to provide that information
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.986631 | 2017-09-13T00:14:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84355",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"J. Doe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61628",
"mathgenius",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75983 | Melting yellow cheese for savory pancakes or crêpes
Due to differences in cultures I will begin with explaining the terms I am going to use:
Savoury pancake - It is a normal pancake or a crêpe by US standards, but instead of being eaten with jam or similar sweets we instead use non-sweet ingredients like ham and cheese which are put on top of the (cooked) dough and subsequently rolled in it.
Yellow cheese or Kashkaval which is a specific type of cheese made from cow milk and/or sheep milk. It looks like this.
What we usually do is make a savoury ham and Kashkaval pancake. We do this by making the normal pancake mixture, pour it on the pan and when one side is ready we flip it, then we put the yellow cheese in a row on the middle of the now cooked side and while the other side is still cooking the cheese starts to melt. When the other side is almost done we add the ham on top of the cheese and wrap it all up.
My problem is that I want to add more cheese for a hefty snack. However adding more cheese means making the row thicker and sometimes not all the cheese melts. I am looking for a way to add more cheese while still getting it all to melt, that is why I thought maybe I could melt some cheese in a tiny pot and pour it onto the ready pancake but melting this type of cheese doesn't produce very good results and I don't think I can get my hands on processed cheese.
'Savory' is probably the word you want instead of 'sour'.
I'm also curious. Do you mean a crepe as a specific kind of pancake? (A crepe is a thin, rollable pancake, as opposed to a diner-style pancake which is thick and probably not something you'd want to roll.)
@JoeM that's only true in America or in American English. In the U.K. And in most European countries I've been to pancake is synonymous with crepe. A scotch pancake is what we call the things you call pancakes in America.
@JoeM : It's not quite a crêpe. Yes, it's unleavened, but it's thicker and chewier. See a discussion of pancake varieties at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13102/67 . Dutch pannenkoeken are often made savory. (eg, spek en kaas (bacon & cheese)). If an American saw them without knowing what they were, they'd likely think 'pizza' before 'pancake'.
@JoeM, ah you are correct to bring this to my attention, while I agree with Fogmeister I will add more clarification for the sake of clarity. I would also like to use the opportunity to thank Lilienthal for his edit.
One simple option is to shred the cheese. The heat moves from the surface of the pancake into the cheese - so a thick slice has to melt all at once, and from the bottom up, and it may not melt in time. Grated or shredded cheese has a lot more surface area, and warms quicker, and traps heat in the air between the shreds, and so will melt much quicker than sliced or chunked cheese - even if the layer ends up being fairly thick. Also it will help if you sprinkle it all over the pancake instead of just a row in the middle - again more surface area, the better it melts.
Another option is to warm the cheese just a bit - even if it's just room temperature it will melt quicker than fridge temperature, which might make the difference depending on just how thick the layer you want is. Of course, there's nothing that says your bowl of shredded cheese can't be put somewhere a bit warmer, like next to the stove, so that it melts really quick when you sprinkle it on the pancake.
Another option, if you know you're only making sour pancakes, is to put some of the cheese into the batter to begin with - not all of it, or it will change the texture and cooking time by a lot, but some of the cheese can be added in without changing too much, and that means the amount added on top can be less, and so will melt quicker.
You might, depending on how runny your pancake batter is, even make filled pancakes - use just a little batter, half a pancake's worth or less, and quickly spread it thin, sprinkle on some of the cheese with your other hand, and immediately top with the second half a pancake's batter (spreading or dabbing it around as best you can), and flip immediately as you've probably been cooking the first side just a tad too long. Sprinkle more cheese if you want, or add the ham then. It will work best when the batter is a particular texture, runny enough to spread but thick enough to stay in place... the point is that if you're quick and careful it can be done it is just relentlessly fast and a lot of work.
Or you can make something more like quesadillas - pour the batter, add the cheese and ham, fold in half, and flip back and forth until the center is cooked (the outside won't overcook as much if you can keep flipping it, same basic principle as an omelet).
And, of course, you can make a processed cheese, or a cheese sauce - carefully shred or grate your cheese, add to a white sauce (fry flour and butter, add milk very gradually, add cheese gradually), and add as much cheese as you wish to make it as thick as you please. The cheese sauce can be poured when warm, or spread when cool, and if you folded in enough cheese it might even be slice-able when cold (this is how processed cheese slices work, cheese thinned just a bit with milk and butter) and again, it will melt much more easily than regular cheese.
And finally, you can warm the finished product. If you're making just one, turn off the stove as soon as you flip the pancake - the second side will cook in the residual heat, but it will take longer... more time for your cheese to melt without overcooking the second side. If you're making a few pancakes, you can fold them over and set them aside as you're cooking, and once you're done set them back on the (now turned off) stove once they're all made, and let the residual heat warm them up again... it shouldn't overcook too much since the heat is lower and tapering off, but it should warm them enough to help melt any last cheese (already warmed by the pancake). And if you're making lots, turn on the oven (or have a pan on very low heat on the other side of the stove), to put the mostly-finished pancakes in, so they can finish warming and melting while you're cooking a whole batch, and you can serve them all at once.
I assumed the OP was adding the cheese grated but all the other ideas are nice, especially the sauce and the info on processed slices :). +1
@CiprianTomoiaga, perhaps I should have mentioned we add it sliced. :)
However adding more cheese means making the row thicker and sometimes not all the cheese melts. I am looking for a way to add more cheese while still getting it all to melt
One thing you can do is to cover the pancake after adding the cheese. I often cook hamburgers on a flat griddle, and if I want to make a cheeseburger I'll add cheese after flipping the burger, and then cover the burger with a pot lid that's tall enough that it doesn't touch the burger. Enclosing the burger with the pot lid causes some heat to build up and helps the cheese melt more quickly. It only takes 10 or 15 seconds for the cheese to melt on a burger, but it might take a little longer for your pancake since you probably cook pancakes at a lower temperature.
Another option is to give the pancake a few seconds under a broiler at the end of cooking. If you cook the pancakes on a small griddle, you can just move the whole thing into the oven under the broiler when the pancake is close to done.
A third option is to employ a blow torch. A small butane or propane torch applied judiciously would make quick work of the cheese, and because the pancake is full of air bubbles and therefore a pretty good thermal insulator, the pancake itself will be mostly unaffected. If you're only making a few pancakes one of the other options will probably be preferable to pulling out a torch, but if you were making pancakes with extra cheese for a lot of people, the torch could be the way to go.
+1 for the torch idea. I, of course, would use the tiny kitchen confectionary types, but still a very good idea.
The method that you describe says you put all the cheese in a row, if you make that row thick it's going to have a hard time melting. Instead of a thick line spread the cheese out evenly across the whole pancake, maybe keeping about 1cm of edge free of cheese to help reduce oozing after rolling.
Thank you very much for your input - it is exactly what I need, but I will mark Megha's answer as correct, as it is so informative.
I'm going to take something from Megha's answer and go a bit further.
I think what you want is a quesadilla. A crêpe (which is the kind of pancake I think you're referring to) is very similar to a tortilla, except that it made from a runny batter and is somewhat more at risk to overcooking and burning. It's also a lot floppier, which means that it is not going to stand quite as much cheese or similar ingredients without being damaged, particularly if you are going to transport these.
Tortillas are very easy to make, no more difficult than a crêpe really, and ultimately have a similar flavor profile if you're going the savory route. They can also be prepared in advance if you choose (either the dough can be prepared and frozen, or the tortilla can be cooked and frozen), or prepared right then; it will take a few minutes more than a crêpe to prepare, but not that much (particularly as they have fewer ingredients).
Quesadillas can be very cheese-heavy, and can of course have any number of other ingredients in them, similar to what you list above (or even steak and heavier things). They're commonly eaten in the hand and are very easy to transport since the tortilla is very sturdy.
Other than that, the way you put the cheese on them is similar. You can make a row if you want, or if you want more cheese you can shred it and sprinkle it all over (or just make thinner chunks, you don't have to shred it). Quesadillas have the advantage that they can cook for far longer than a crêpe, if you choose (though they don't have to cook all that long). They will simply brown, as long as you don't do it at too high of a temperature (so long as the fat you cook it in doesn't burn). And, they can be flipped repeatedly without risk of breaking.
Use a microwave to pre-heat the cheese. You'll need to experiment with timings for your cheese/quantities/microwave, but it's easy enough to microwave cheese until it's almost melting but not quite. Then chuck the hot cheese on the pancake.
One drawback to this becoming a "hefty snack" is that unless your cheese holds together when cooked (like halloumi), most of it is going to make a break for freedom out of the bottom of the pancake as soon as you pick it up! If you fold the pancake like a tortilla wrap then it will probably leak less, but you'll still have the problem of most of the cheese ending up at the bottom of the rolled-and-folded pancake. Whether this concerns you is your call, of course.
Depending on your cheese, you may also have problems with the melted cheese separating and the pancake leaking oil. Cheddar is particularly prone to this. Some cheeses don't though (which is why pizzas use mozzarella; half-fat cheddar also works) so it'll depend on how Kashkaval behaves. I'm afraid it's not a cheese I've used myself.
Rather than melting just a handful of cheese, you might consider making a cheese sauce. Simply make a roux of butter and flour, add cold milk slowly while whisking, then add grated cheese in sufficient quantity until the desired cheesiness is reached.
That is likely going to be too runny for an easily transportable food.
I can see nothing in the question that suggests OP will be transporting the food anywhere...
I'm making an educated guess that this is meant to be transportable.
Why? There is nothing in the question that provides any education in that regard.
I'm not saying it is, just that it might be, and that would be a consideration for anyone using your good suggestion. If someone didn't plan to transport it then a sauce is fine, if they do it may not work for them as well.
It might also be used to plug the hole in a sinking boat, but I have no more reason to think so than I do that it needs to be portable ;)
Somehow I think that between a packed lunch and emergency ship repair a portable food solution may be more likely....
Well, @GdD is right, sorta. While it is not necessary for these pancakes to be transportable, it certainly would be unpleasant to have a runny sauce all over them - it would simply drip out the way I imagine it.
I didn't raise this concern before, because I thought I can just make the sauce really thick with a lot of shredded cheese?
Sure you could make it thicker to prevent runniness, it's something to keep in mind if you do use this method
I'm not familiar with the type of cheese you're using, but based on the picture in the Wikipedia article it looks like a dry, high-protein content cheese similar to Parmesan or Gran Padano. These cheeses have a higher melting point than most. You may have better luck switching to a different cheese type, e.g. a cheddar, mozzerella, or maybe even a soft cheese like Brie or Camembert. See also: The Science of Melting Cheese.
Thanks for the link but it's a travesty you have never tried Kashkaval, it's arguably the best "cheese" out there. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.987069 | 2016-11-29T10:44:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75983",
"authors": [
"Ciprian Tomoiagă",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fogmeister",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60306 | Using eggs in pudding - yolks vs whole eggs
I wish to know what would be the difference between using only egg yolks in a pudding, compared to using whole eggs?
Yes, there are other questions on this site, asking what is the difference between yolks and whites, but I wish to know if it would be different in a pudding.
(I mean this type of pudding pic)
(link to example recipe)
What, exactly, do you mean by "pudding"?
In a pudding with starch, the egg yolks are there for flavor, mouth feel, and maybe as an emulsifier if there are extra fats.
The edit is not specific at all, there are different types of pudding which look like that. Please post the recipe.
@rumtscho, I am getting really confused. How many different types of pudding, that look like that are there?
I can think of 5-6 types of recipes, and the difference between them does have consequences for the answer of your question. This is why I asked for a recipe: if you can't determine the type for yourself, we'll do that for you, based on your recipe.
Depending on the recipe and procedures, there will be no discernible difference.
So, yes, you can use whole eggs for this type of recipe. I was trained to do this by a well respected chef, and I still use whole eggs for several of my egg based items (eg. Creme Anglaise, Creme Patissiere, etc).
Here is an example recipe that appears to be quite safe in its procedures which can easily be applied to your recipe:
https://www.melskitchencafe.com/the-best-vanilla-pudding/
Personally, I would use them at ratio 1:1, so as your recipe has 3 eggs yolks I would use 3 whole eggs.
For procedures:
After heating the milk, split the hot milk in half amounts.
Temper the whisked eggs (that already have some cold milk mixed with them) by slowly whisking in one half of the hot milk, and put the egg mixture aside.
Cook the remaining half of the hot milk with the cornstarch and sugar (etc).
Once the cornstarch mixture has thickened and simmered for several minutes, while whisking, slowly add it to the tempered egg mixture.
Put the complete mixture back on the stove over moderate heat.
While stirring to ensure the mixture doesn't stick to the bottom, raise the temperature of the mixture until you can see faint wisps of steam above the mixture (this could be difficult to see).
Once you see the faint wisps of steam, you must be careful as this is the point where the eggs will begin to thicken.
Cook the mixture without scrambling the eggs. (So just light bubbling simmer is enough, no need to try to boil profusely)
I've attempted to use whole eggs in my custard/pudding before, and since the whites cook around 140F, they always curdle. Most of the custard recipes I follow specify a final temperature between 170-180F, which exacerbates the issue. I'll have to give your procedure a shot.
the best advice i can give is to ensure that you are always stirring so that the mixture doesnt have time to cook the eggs on the bottom before the temperature of the mixture is enough to begin thickening. here is image of my favoured utensil (the flattened side gives wider scraping of the bottom of the pot): https://img.muji.net/img/item/4549738886310_1260.jpg
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.988154 | 2015-08-28T14:46:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60306",
"authors": [
"Issy Pearce",
"Marti",
"Mr Shane",
"Rusell Page",
"Susan Hess",
"Una Bullen",
"Vee Mclean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"kitukwfyer",
"mathgenius",
"papin",
"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
} |
77271 | How to garnish coffee with cream
I have some liquid cream - it's a dairy product with a high fat percentage but thin enough to flow, you can make it into whipped cream by beating it (explaining due to different cultures and languages). It can be added to coffee but is mostly used in cooking pastry.
I used to have the habit of decorating my coffee by beating said cream and pouring or scooping it on top.
However I just discovered that something is wrong and maybe I can't get the whipping right but it ends either too thick and using a spoon I can only get it into lumps on the coffee and it looks ugly or if I beat it too thin it sits sort of mushy, while I would like to achieve a more eye-pleasing effect, maybe make a little top of swirl as I could easily do with whipped cream from a can.
I am looking for advice how I can achieve my goal without using whipped cream from a can (it has a whole different taste) or using a plastic bag to pipe it on.
I think the word you want is "pipe".
@Catija you mean, instead of "spritz"? If that is the word you would use for the verb, describing applying pressure to one end of a device (spritzer?) to make the thick creamy semi-liquid to flow out in a controlled manner, often passing through a tip with a custom-shaped hole (usually in the form of a star or circle) in order to decorate a cake, then I will edit it. :)
Plastic bag with a fancy tip is a "piping bag" and the verb is "to pipe". Alternately, you can purchase a whipped cream siphon, with gas cartridges that create a product similar to Redi Whip but from pure cream. This is called siphoning. https://www.amazon.com/iSi-163001-Professional-Whipper-1-Pint/dp/B003XNPGFA
@Catija, thank you for the information! On a side note "siphoning" sounds gross. :P
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.988453 | 2017-01-08T20:29:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77271",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54071 | Why are there holes in pasta dough when it is cold
I made some pasta dough this morning and put it in the fridge. When I ran the first batches thru the roller there were some holes in the pasta after it came out of the roller. But for later batches, when the pasta heated up from being out of the fridge, there were no more holes. Why is that? I am partially asking about the chemistry and physics underlying this observation.
Viscosity of the cold dough is probably too high for good rolling. It's tearing and blobbing rather than feeding smoothly through the rollers.
I'm not finding a ref for rolling, but for extrusion:
The ideal temperature for pasta extrusion is between 45 and 50°C, as anything above 50°C will
denature the proteins, impeding gluten production and therefore resulting in a soft sticky product.
Using a cold water jacket will cool the dough and barrel too much, resulting in undesirable
dough viscosity.
Nice plot of dough viscosity vs temperatures here (fig. 4.3), but it only goes down to 30°C (86°F) Lower temperatures, including heating within the extrusion die, are likely not usually encountered.
This pasta rolling cook states:
In making pasta it is important to avoid cold so use room temperature eggs. Also, do not work on a naturally cold surface such as marble or stainless steel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.988628 | 2015-01-28T03:58:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54071",
"authors": [
"Lacy Roberts",
"Melissa Buzza",
"Michele Kearns",
"Stephanie Dahlman",
"Tim Cunningham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127176"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84011 | How to solidify melted chocolate?
I have a fair amount of 75% cocoa chocolate. I would like to melt this chocolate and mix it up with some spices, fruit, nuts, coffee of mine. I would then spread this chocolate into a thin board and let it solidify again. This last step sounds a little hard to me. I do not care too much if the board of chocolate is not perfectly rectangular of if the upper side is not perfectly flat.
I am scared that it could be hard to warm up the chocolate at a high enough temperature without burning it so that it is easy to spread smoothly.
I am scared that the chocolate will stick to the counter top (in plastic) or the sheet pan.
I am scared that it won't fully solidify. I am wondering whether the counter top should be cooled down (which is impossible in my kitchen).
Can you give me your advice on how to solidify a chocolate mix into a nice thin board in a amateur kitchen?
I have never worked with chocolate before. My kitchen is typically around 21°C but I could eventually bring it down to 18°C.
How much have you worked with chocolate and what is the temperature in your kitchen? Why are you using the counter top rather than a sheet pan, which can be put in the refrigerator?
I have never worked with chocolate. Th ambiant temperature inside is typically at 21°C but I could eventually bring it down to 18°C (although my wife might complain). Info edited. Sure a sheet pan sounds like a good idea!
Thanks for editing that info into your question! I think you'll be able to get some good help. 21 c should be plenty cool. Some people don't have air conditioned homes and the temperatures can be quite unsuitable for chocolate. As a note, if your chocolate is solid at room temperature when you buy it, it will be that way after it's melted and cooled again. :D
I am scared that the chocolate will stick to the counter top (in plastic) or the sheet pan.
Don't do it on the counter top. The best surface would be a silicone mat from a baking store - a smooth one, not the ones that seal an woven steel wool inside and so have a relief pattern. If you don't (yet) have that, plastic foil will do, you'll be able to peel it from the chocolate when cooled.
I am scared that it won't fully solidify. I am wondering whether the counter top should be cooled down (which is impossible in my kitchen).
20 C is a good temperature for cooling chocolate. Never cool the counter top. If anything, it would be best to warm it slightly so the bottom of the chocolate bark is cooled slower than its top, this gives the best shine. You can skip that though, it's a perfectionist's thing. If you are interested in a deeper explanation, see How to prevent "sweating" chocolate covered strawberries?.
I am scared that it could be hard to warm up the chocolate at a high enough temperature without burning it so that it is easy to spread smoothly.
Here comes the most important part. The problem is not even burning, the problem is distempering. The chocolate will melt at around 30 Celsius, but will distemper at around 33 Celsius. Distempered chocolate solidifies in a grainy mass. You should not let it go warmer than 33 C, better yet 32, and that's a very narrow temperature range to hit.
To avoid this, you have to work in small batches1, use a double boiler for warming up, and use a candy thermometer. Don't use the microwave, that's uncontrollable and only useful if you are going to make some kind of chocolate mixture, not if you want to resolidify it as bars or similar. Also see What is the best way to melt chocolate? and What is the purpose of tempering chocolate?.
1 At the beginning, "small" means "so little you can stomach tossing it" because you will probably get it wrong a few times, it is a skill you have to build. But not so little that it smears onto the bowl and cannot be handled, I'd say the minimum is somewhere between 25 and 50 g if you are using a small enough bowl. Later, when you are confident in your process, "small" means "as much that you don't get a heat gradient in the melted chocolate in the double boiler", it depends somewhat on geometry and bowl material, and you have to experiment with that a bit to find out what amount works well.
It sounds like you are making a 'bark'. When you said you had a 'large amount' of chocolate, I'm hoping you mean ounces and not kilos.
When I melt 16 ounces, it takes about two minutes in the microwave. Zap it in 30 second chunks. Each time, removing the bowl to stir. Be super careful. Once it is creamy, it will seize or burn easily.
Alternately, you can place a metal bowl over a sauce pan of simmering water. The chocolate melts slower and you have more control but you risk moisture getting into the chocolate from the steam.
Experiment with little amounts. It will build your confidence while not risking waste.
Parchment paper on a cookie sheet or just free form on a table will work. I have never had it stick.
Great idea. So many possibilities for flavor combos. This should be fun:)
I'd also recommend holding back a little bit of the chocolate -- if you heat it too much so it's too liquid (yes, I know, liquid is state ... too low of a viscosity), you can add a little bit back in and stir to thicken it back up some. it's best to shave it so you have lots of surface area so it'll melt quickly. (I use a vegetable peeler if I'm not getting good shavings w/ a knife)
Every year at my mother's house we make chocolate & pecan candies (look for enjambres de nuez in Google), 2 o 3kg at times.
To melt chocolate without burning, melt it in Bain Marie, is slow, but safe.
Use paper wax in your sheet pan to prevent the chocolate from sticking.
And one "grandma" trick: if you want the chocolate to solidify quick, add a very little amount of liquor to the melted chocolate, maybe one tbsp for pound. We use Brandy, it doesn't change the flavor. If you add a lot of liquor, the chocolate will solidify really fast and also the flavor will change. I don't know the exact chemical process involved in this, but it works :).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.988783 | 2017-08-30T22:23:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84011",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Remi.b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
102854 | Why is the meat closer to the bones tastes better?
I like to bake (roast?) whole chicken and whole ducks. I noticed that the best meat is always the meat the is closest to the bone (whether or not this meat is close or far away from the skin). The meat closer to the bone is more juicy and more tasty. Why is that?
Is it because those muscles have a different physiology? Is it because the bones release delicious fats (or something else) that accumulate in the nearby meat?
Is it a general observation that also apply to red meat?
I always imagine it's the bone protecting the meat from drying out, but have zero evidence or knowledge to back it up. But I wholeheartedly agree with Louis Prima. Nice question.
This contains a nice explanation of why meat is juicy and tasty, and it is due to the presence of fat and conjunctive tissue in the muscles, as well as brining and marinating.
If you take a look at bird anatomy, the chest and other major muscle masses have less fat and conjunctive tissue as they evolved to be, well, muscle masses for propelling the bird around.
The muscles "closer to the bone" have the conjunctive tissue that connects them to the correlated bone, and in certain parts, the muscles are smaller due to the need for fine movements (like the wings).
I explained in another answer the mechanics of maximizing marinade power, and one of the factors involved is the surface-to-volume ratio of the part you're trying to marinade, which is also better closer to the bone (including cavities)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.989231 | 2019-10-13T14:35:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102854",
"authors": [
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55532 | Why does adding salt to microwaved broth make it foamy?
I had a nice bowl of clear yellow chicken broth which was not salted. It was in a serving bowl when this happened. I poured the cold unsalted soup into the bowl and then microwaved it and it came out clear still. To make it more palatable, I added a small spoonful of salt and the below happened. It only became frothy after I added the salt. It was much 'foamier' when I first added the salt, then it slowly subsided.
What is causing this?
Hmm, interesting. Was it on the heat or in a serving bowl when it happened?
It was in a serving bowl when this happened. I poured the cold unsalted soup into the bowl and then microwaved it, but the it came out clear still. It only became frothy after I added the salt.
Hm. How hot was the broth when you took it out? Just quite warm or (near) boiling?
It was fresh from the microwave so probably 50-60 degrees C
Theory: Moisture is rapidly drawn out of some particle matter by the salt...
@user110084 It's really confusing to have to look for a comment to see where you got the "microwaving" tag from. Please, if there's content in the comments that is important to the question, copy it in rather than just adding tags that end up looking random.
@catija, I added the word "microwaving" to the title of the question. "if there's content in the comments that is important to the question, copy it in rather than just adding tags that end up looking random" - what should I have done instead? The question body mentioned heating by microwave.
See my edit @user110084 :)
@Catija, understood, hoping not to repeat that! Still finding my way around. Always thankful for any guidance.
Edits are always appreciated, @user110084 I hope you don't think they aren't! But we do like to make sure they make sense as well as we can. We appreciate your work.
There are likely two or three things happening.
When clear liquids come out of a microwave, it is quite common for it to froth as soon as you put something into it. A spoon, or crystals of salt or sugar forms nucleation sites for over-energised water molecules to make vapour bubbles. Water forms vapour at any temperature, not just at its boiling point.
In conventional heating, convection starts from the layer closest to the heated bottom of the pan and the hottest liquid always rises to the surface and there is plenty of movements in the liquid body. In a microwave energy goes into the water molecules directly and the container is heated by the energiesed liquid, the opposite of conventional heating. There is very little time for convection currents to develop. Molecules within the body of the liquid that are excited may not find sites to form vapour and become locally superheated. Vapour pressure above the liquid may be actually less than what it should be at that temperature until the body is disturbed. Lots of tiny vapour bubbles are released when disturbed. They look foamy until they escape from the liquid. This is the most likely cause.
Salting out of proteins could be another cause, though probably less likely. You would probably see a layer of scum on the surface that would not disappear.
Emulsion breaking. Heating and addition of salt will encourage any emulsion to split. From your picture, there is plenty of oil around. There could have been some oil droplets suspended in the water phase of the soup. These could clump together at the start of emulsion breaking giving a cloudy appearance before floating to the top as a continuous layer. Not likely either.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.989400 | 2015-03-08T13:06:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55532",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Danie Robberts",
"Georgina Read",
"Judeene Blankenship",
"Stephie",
"Trogdor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77079 | Are the citrus seeds necessary when making marmalade?
Are the seeds necessary when making marmalade to extract pectin? If so, should the seeds be whole or ground up? Is the best way to keep them separate with a cheesecloth bag? This recipe is with Seville oranges and low in sugar.
Padma could you please add the recipe (or it's link) you will be using to your question. Some marmalade recipes use/need the seeds, others do not.
I never use the seeds when I make orange marmalade. There's plenty of pectin in the peel.
@DebbieM I don't have the recipe. My mother makes it this way. But when the fruit is ground up in the food processor the seeds get ground up too and then she has to pick them out. (I'm trying to save her some work).
Without seeing the recipe and procedure, it is hard to say if the seeds are necessary, there are many recipes for Seville orange marmalade that don't call for the seeds, and some that do. There is a good chance that they aren't essential to the recipe, that being said:
There is pectin in the seeds of citrus, but there is no need to grind or chop them for it to be released. Tying them in a cheesecloth bag, that would be easy to remove after cooking, would be fine.
(If the recipe uses added pectin, then the seeds shouldn't be needed at all.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.989701 | 2017-01-03T23:21:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77079",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55915 | Cleaning burnt-on grease with ammonia
I recently ran into this (put your pans etc in a closed container {a garbage bag will do}, pour in a bit of household ammonia and let it sit for many hours) and love it. However, I also have some pans with those black plastic? handles, is it safe to do on them also? I also have a teflon pan that has some grease stuck on the outside. Since there's no way to treat only the outside {it's the fumes that do the work, you don't immerse things} is that safe?
Can you post a link to the page you're using that describes the process more in-depth?
There are many examples around. The first hit on Google: http://www.stretcher.com/stories/03/03aug18a.cfm
I mean add the version you're planning to use as information to your question.
After asking this in multiple places and finding nobody with an answer I decided to test with the gunkiest cover. The handle came through fine. I'm not going to try the teflon pan.
Do not use on teflon! I tried that and all the Teflon peeled off. I had to throw out the pans.
Do not use what? Ammonia? Barkeeper's Friend?
I will give that answer the benefit of doubt. The question is specifically about ammonia, so I assume the answer refers to ammonia too. But it could indeed be more clear.
This chemical reactance website shows that ammonia is "compatible" with PTFE/Teflon even in anhydrous concentration, so ... ?
If I'm understanding your method correctly, if you're worried about the handles being damaged you could use a smaller bag the covers the pan, but tie it tight around the handle where it joins the pan (and I assume isn't plastic). That way only your metal pan is exposed to the fumes, the plastic handle remains outside of the bag.
The other thing to try is the general advice when you're not sure if some chemical will damage some material. Dab a tiny bit on hidden or less visible part of the handle and see what damage it does.
You could try something like the above with your Teflon pan but it would be trickier. You could try using plastic wrap to seal the top of the pan before sticking it in the bag. You might need to tape it to make sure it doesn't come off.
I doubt tying it tightly would be airtight.
@LorenPechtel You don't need it perfectly air-tight any more than you need the garbage bag perfectly air-tight. The tiny amount of seepage will dissipate in the air before it damages anything.
Oh, I see, one handle outside the bag. I was picturing protecting the handle with plastic. That won't work very well on the pot with one handle on each side.
Enamel coated roaster, stainless steel & ceramic
Is safe to clean using ammonia & garbage bag. I put 1/4 cup of ammonia in the roaster & lid & tied up the garbage bag & put it down stairs. Brought it up stairs to clean a couple of days later, dumped it in the sink & rinsed everything in hot water. Rolled up the garbage bag & threw it out.
All the burnt on grease etc on the outside of the roaster & lid, it just peeled off the roaster. I rubbed a scrubbie over it all to get at the hard to reach places: handles & rim edge. All clean...... looks like new.
Can do the same with stove top pans & rings & racks from oven - I do over night for those.
1/4 cup of ammonia or less & put everything in a garbage bag & tie it up & place it out of the way over night. Come morning your clean up will be so easy. Rinse in hot water & wear rubber gloves & use a stainless steel scubbie to get at hard to reach spots for a better clean.
Use in pots that got burnt on food.... overnight ammonia & alittle water: wash with hot water in the morning.
Instead of ammonia, you should try "Barkeepers Friend" that stuff is great. It takes off the burnt on grease easily. It is very gentle of my pans. I own all clad cookware, stainless steel. It works wonders, and shines it up real nice. In response to Teflon pans, if grease is burnt on like you say, I'd say it's time to get new pans. Once food starts to stick to the pan, even after a rinse in hot water, it's non sticking powers are just about depleted.
It's just Oxalic acid. You can by it for a few dollar per Kg at your local hardware store
The grease is on the outside of the teflon pan (it was sitting next to someone frying stuff in a too-hot wok.)
@TFD do the other ingredients in BKF do anything though? Does one give up any functionality by using oxalic acid alone?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.989868 | 2015-03-21T20:22:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55915",
"authors": [
"Allan",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Darren O'Kane",
"David Nelson",
"Jerry Iloba",
"Loren Pechtel",
"Nicole",
"Ross Ridge",
"TFD",
"Theresa Preston",
"Tootsie Rolls",
"amanda b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"umar baig",
"user117529"
],
"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
} |
80894 | What is a Sauce course?
According to the article on Full course dinners on Wikipedia, the third course of a five course meal is "Sauce":
Entrée
Main Course
Sauce
Dessert
Cigars
I'm having trouble finding what exactly this is and how one makes a sauce into a course. What sort of sauce is it? Is there something else served with it, or is it just pots and spoons? Other than Nachos and Salsa I can't picture it, and that doesn't sound like a staple of fine dining.
There are no references for that on the wikipedia page, so I would not make that official..
...and it says the fifth course is "cigars". That really does not look like a legitimate standard meal plan to me, and answering your question is probably more about figuring out where that came from than anything meaningful about what people actually eat.
@Jefromi I suppose in retrospect it is a bit silly, maybe it's tiredness or maybe it's all the old fashioned / cliched movies I've seen but Brandy & Cigars just slipped by as not that 'out there' when you're talking about a 5 course meal.
Yeah, I can certainly see some people doing that, but as an ostensibly canonical example of a five-course meal, maybe a little off :)
It's almost certainly made up. A user who has edited nothing else on Wikipedia added it in this revision. There has been a lot of other vandalism in the full history, some of it caught and reverted, some not.
Cigars were added in this revision by an anonymous user, and someone helpfully capitalized it (rather than reverting, sigh) in this revision.
Without any sources cited, it's pretty difficult to tell whose version of the five-course meal this was supposed to be, but for what it's worth, before the "sauce" and "cigars" vandalism, the courses were soup, fish, main course, dessert, and cheese, which sounds pretty sane to me.
Since cigars is on the menu, I would guess sauce is slang for a cocktail/alcohol. More context would definitely help, though.
I think it's some kind of typo for "salad". Maybe somebody wrote it out in illegible (maybe even cursive) handwriting or something, and that's how it got in there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.990386 | 2017-04-13T18:59:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80894",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Max",
"MrLore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26222"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79550 | What's the difference between pickling and fermentation in cabbage?
I was discussing various "cabbage things" on Cooking chat, including coleslaw, sauerkraut, and kimchi.
One thing I noticed that confused me was that coleslaw Wiki page mentioned "pickling" the cabbage; while most other products mention fermentation.
But they all seem to follow similar process (salt and/or vinegar on cabbage).
So what's the difference between pickling and lactic-acid fermentation in cabbage?
It is no different in cabbage than other vegetables.
Pickling is preserving a food with a salt brine.
Fermenting is to allow tasty bacteria to work in a food to change its flavor and often to acidify it.
They are not the same thing but there is overlap.
Some pickled foods are also fermented. The salt inhibits bad bacteria. These tend to have more complex flavor and be more sour. Cucumber pickles, for example, can be made in just a brine or fermented.
Kimchi and sauerkraut are both fermented. The cabbage is packed in salt and let age until sour. Technically they are pickled but they aren't usually referred to that way because they are their own thing.
I've never seen a coleslaw recipe that was fermented. It also isn't really pickled because it doesn't have enough salt in it and it isn't aged. Coleslaw is usually made with just an acidic dressing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.990578 | 2017-03-31T23:28:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79550",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37492 | Does egg make the cookies rise(puffy)?
I want to make chocolate chip cookies that are chewy and thin (spread out).
I followed the recipe here however I reduced everything by half.
The result was not impressive at all. It's nothing like what you see on the website - it's thick and has a dome-like shape, not thin and spread out and without cracks.
I added more milk in hopes it might help make the cookies spread more but it still didn't.
I tried to use only egg yolk instead of the whole egg but the problem still persist.
What did I do wrong??
These are my guesses:
Over-creaming process? but it's melted butter (and melted butter is supposed to spread, doesn't it?)
Egg? Do eggs leaven the cookies?
Baking soda? Does it make the cookies puffy?
Also, how do I make them flat and have cracks on the top?
So you did melt the butter? And you used 1/2 teaspoon baking soda? Did you try mixing the egg then using half of the whole egg instead of just the yolk? Yes, baking soda will make the cookies fluffier than if you don't use it, but just using yolk might have altered that too.
what happen if i don't use soda at all?
I'm not sure. The author of the recipe thinks it will make a difference, but SAJ14SAJ is right, baking soda requires an acid to make anything rise. I'm not sure that chocolate chips and brown sugar could possibly provide that acid. I definitely would try using both parts of the egg and make sure that you're not overbaking. You might as well try skipping the baking soda if the other suggestions don't work and see what happens. Be sure to let us know!
Does mixing melted butter with sugar eliminate the whole process of creating air in cookies dough??
A lot of it, yes. For what you are trying to achieve, melted butter is probably a good option. It's not a wrong way to make cookies, it's just different.
when mixing dry and wet ingredients together, Does the speed of mixing matter?? How would it be if compare between using stand mixer and hand with a big wooden spoon?
If you're melting the butter, it won't make much difference. Just be sure that everything is totally mixed and you'll be fine. The system is going to get mad at us for the length of this conversation. I'm going to give you an upvote with the hope that you can enter chat mode. Maybe somebody else will do the same?? (hint hint) Look at the top of the screen, do you see "chat" after your name? As soon as you can, click on that and type @Jolenealaska, that will let me know that someone in chat is trying to talk to me.
@Jolenealaska I still cannot go to chat room so i hope you don't mind if we still talk in this forum.
I don't mind. It has already been flagged, so it will most likely be deleted soon (the comments, not the question or answer). Don't be upset if/when that happens, it wont effect either of our accounts. Try to come up with more good questions, or even better, answers to questions that already exist. That's the fastest way to get reputation points. And don't be shy about the language barrier, this is an international site, we understand.
@Jolenealaska thank you. quick question,when Melting butter : Should i melt it into liquid state and do i have to leave it until it cool to room temperature before i mix it with sugar? i found it took pretty long time to mix melted butter and sugar until those two blend in together and since in almost every chewy chocolate ship cookies recipe call for egg and soda.I think mixing all ingredient together is the key that stop my cookies from spreading.
You want to avoid hot butter, since it might start to cook the egg, warm is fine.
How well should i mix melted butter and sugar? until they all blend in each other completely (no more gains of sugar left to be seen)? Today i spent like 30 minutes mixing these two with hand mixer until i got slightly brown creamy butter. Is this the right way to mixing them?
No no, grains of sugar are fine, they'll melt. Even if you use the "creaming method" (using softened butter mixed with sugar) the mixture will be grainy.
ahh .. that maybe the reason why my cookies didn't spread and have spongy cake-like inside. I can imagine mixing softened butter with sugar that result in grainy but mixing melted butter with sugar. i'll take a photo next time i do it. Thank you
Here's a recipe for flat, chewy cookies using melted butter. The recipe includes a video. http://www.americastestkitchen.com/recipes/detail.php?docid=26333&incode=M**ASCA00 The site requires a membership that costs money, but they have a 14 day free trial. You could learn a lot from this site in 14 days. The people that make this site are very highly regarded and the recipes are rigorously tested.
@Jolenealaska very kind of you, Thank you very much.
The texture of cookies is a complex interaction of many factors, including the size of the cookie, the temperature of the oven, the amount of leavening, the way the fat is treated, and so on.
The flat, thin cookie with the cracks on top that you describe and desire is achieved by slightly under-baking the cookies, allowing them to rise, and then taking them out of the oven. They then cool and deflate, causing the "cracks" and thinness.
The most likely culprit is that you are over-baking your cookies, and they are setting in the oven while fully domed up. They would be fine cookies, but more of a crispy style.
A secondary, and related, contributing factor would be having the oven temperature too high. If you don't already have one, an oven thermometer is an inexpensive and helpful investment to make sure you are baking at the desired temperature, as many ovens are off by a fair margin.
Note also that these are quite large cookies, baked with a "large" scoop, only six per tray. That helps achieve the fallen state. Don't make your cookies too small, if you are looking for this texture.
To answer your sub-questions:
Creaming cannot apply to a melted butter cookie, as it requires a solid but plastic fat to incorporate air into the cookie
The egg contributes structure (from protein), tenderness, and usually a fairly considerable proportion of the overall water in the cookie dough
In this recipe, the baking soda is primarily present to promote browning, as there is very little acid for it to react with other than from the molasses in the brown sugar (it will leaven a little). Since these are "fallen" cookies, it is harder to get good browning and therefore flavor development. The soda is to promote that.
What do you think of the author's assertion that the baking soda provides leavening because it interacts with the acid in the chocolate? Did you notice that the author of the recipe here is the same one as here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36662/my-cookies-are-turning-out-like-cakes?rq=1 but the recipes are different?
so before it fully baked i should take it out then leave it and it will eventually deflate, right? never thought of that before i should try it next time. Thank you.
@Jolenealaska In the case of the 2nd recipe in the link on this question, the author is simply incorrect. Baking soda without acid cannot leaven. Even if there is acid in the chocolate, it isn't free to interact with the baking soda.
@SukanokDonot The deflation will be quite rapid as the cookies cool, certainly within 10 minutes, maybe less.
This kind of cookie should still be quite soft when you take it out of the oven, and gooey, but the correct fully-baked color.
according to http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/season3/Cookie/CookieTranscript.htm
said that more soda mean thinner cookies. Why??
@SAJ14SAJ thank you, i got it deflated this morning however it's too soft to pick up even when it cool down. Do you think re-bake them again would help??
Sounds like you went too far the other way; you want them barely underbaked. They will probably be very lightly browned around the edges.
The baking soda doesn't leaven because of the chocolate, but both egg yolk and brown sugar are slightly acidic. Baking soda also begins to undergo thermal decomposition at 122F even without acids present.
@sourd'oh What are you talking about, breaks down at 122F Into what? In reaction with what? The only thing I had heard of was this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/dining/15curious.html?_r=0
It begins to release carbon dioxide at 122F (hence going from sodium bicarbonate to sodium carbonate). If you drop baking soda into boiling, pH neutral water, it will fizz. Source
To promote spread in cookies, you want to have a fat with a low melting point and an alkaline dough. In general, butter has the lowest melting point of commonly used cookie fats, followed by non-hydrogenated shortenings; hydrogenated shortenings have the highest melting point. The low melting point allows the fat to melt and let the cookie spread before the starch gelatinizes.
An alkaline dough comes from the egg whites and using baking soda. Yolks and baking powder are both acidic and will make the dough tighter, leading to a cookie that rises more than it spreads. (The yolks won't cause much of a problem, they generally react with your baking soda to leaven the cookie. Definitely avoid baking powder if you want a cookie to spread though.)
The type of flour used can also change how your cookie bakes. A starchier flour like cake flour will lead to a taller and cakier cookie. A higher protein flour like AP or bread flour will lead to a cookie with more spread.
Finally, you don't want to add liquids like milk to most cookies. Fats and eggs won't activate the gluten in your flour, but liquids that are more watery will cause gluten development to begin. Gluten will make it harder for the cookies to spread.
As for the cracked tops, I agree with SAJ14SAJ. This is caused by the cookies falling, which can be either from being removed from the oven before the dough has set or from slightly over-leavening the cookie.
Alkaline dough, this is new knowledge for me since i have no idea why acid can make the cookies rise and without egg yolk i wonder how cookies going to test like.
about milk, i always thought that milk will help with the spreading. Next time i'll try this formula no yolks, no Milk, No baking soda. Thank you.
@SukanokDonot Baking soda will actually make the dough more alkaline and promote spreading. Baking powder contains acidic ingredients.
That's actually very easy, first you want to increase the amount of white sugar, your balance should be about equal amounts of butter, white sugar and brown sugar; for taller cookies reduce the white sugar by a little, using about 3/4 of what your recipe calls for; for flatter, crispier you increase the proportion of the white sugar a little. Eg: 1 cup butter, 1c white and 1c brown equals a standard cookie; while 1c butter, 1.25c white and 1c brown gives thinner and therefore crispier; finally 1c butter, .75c white and 1c brown will give you a cookie that spreads less. Btw, add your eggs to the butter sugar mix after its been creamed and in my 50+ yrs of experience I've never found a really good cookie recipe that uses melted butter that just separates it, not conducive to blending well, just leave the butter out overnight if you want it very soft.
I agree with the above comments.
My thoughts are that you will find halving cookie recipes give a less than desirable outcome on some recipes. So I avoid it per my trials and errors.
Another is that more than 2 eggs and adding yolks make cookies thick, puffy and cake-like, hense the reason why cakes have so many eggs in their recipes. Egg whites helps with crispiness.
Adding milk gave more moisture than the eggs already had and made them even more puffy.
Chilling the dough gives puffy cookies.
Baking soda gives a rise and spread effect. Its needed in cookies. Baking powder causes puffy soft cookies and isn't needed unless you want that puffiness.
1/4 teaspoon per one cup of flour is the ratio.
Added sugars contribute to browning, not just baking soda.
Melted butter gives chewy cookies. However if not melted properly you will get puffy cookies. Google how to make "browned butter" for chocolate chip cookies and that should help. Otherwise, unwrap your sticks of butter, slice them, spread them out on a plate and leave them on the counter 30 minutes. That will give you room temp butter for cookie recipes. Also when creaming butter and sugars you should do so by going from grainy texture to creamy texture (no graininess).
After you add the eggs and vanilla to the butter and sugar mixture, you mix until its light "in color" or pale yellow and its fluffy in texture. This shouldnt take long to achieve with a stand mixer. Next, only mix in the flour and chips 45 seconds to 1 minute on low speed to avoid gluten development causing puffy cookies. You can finish mixing with a spatula or clean hands depending on how much dough you have.
One last tip: using 1/2 teaspoon of cream of tarter to the dry ingredients will flatten your cookies, give a crackled look, crisp edge and chewy centers. Much like a snickerdoodle and it wont effect the taste. Good luck.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is a very comprehensive answer but it's a bit difficult to read. Would you please consider reformatting it into paragraphs so that it's easier for people to use?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.990732 | 2013-10-11T09:54:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37492",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jolenealaska",
"Louisa Fardon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Tony",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"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
} |
56618 | After refrigerating cookie dough overnight, should i leave my dough at room temperature or go straight to the oven?
I usually leave my cookie dough in the fridge overnight.
After taking it out, should I leave it at room temperature for a while or should I scoop it and go straight to the oven?
Fridge or freezer? Your question and content aren't the same thing.
Opp, sorry i mean in the fridge.
What kind of cookies and how do you like them to turn out? It depends on your goals, it's not "wrong" to do it either way.
i want it to be thin and chewy.Taking it out from the fridge and go straight to the oven making it thick and not spreading very much.
From the Fridge:
If you can scoop it (some doughs are too hard), go straight to the oven, though you will likely need to give them a minute longer baking time. This is actually beneficial for some doughs that spread a lot and some recipes actually call for a quick refrigeration. I like to do this with sugar cookies (particularly snickerdoodles) as they don't get quite as spready.
Be careful when you say "for a while" though... most cookie doughs have egg in them and it's best practice to not leave that out for any length of time.
From the Freezer:
I also freeze dough (already scooped) and then bake a couple (or 12) at a time when I want a treat after dinner... or lunch or whenever I want a cookie... these can go directly into the oven and will similarly take a little longer to bake. Though, if you freeze the entire batch (without scooping), that won't be possible.
I do this regularly with homemade cookie dough and I've also worked somewhere that made the Otis Spunkmeyer cookies from the frozen dough balls and the directions clearly state to bake from frozen, do not thaw.
Here is a source that supports this:
StillTasty.com
How to Freeze Cookie Dough:
• Wrap unbaked dough tightly with plastic freezer wrap or pack into a heavy-duty freezer bag or an airtight freezer container.
When you’re ready to bake the cookies, thaw the frozen dough in the container in the refrigerator. (Thawing will take a few hours.)
• If you’re making drop cookies, you can also use this timesaving method: drop spoonfuls of cookie dough onto a baking sheet and place in the freezer until the dough is frozen (about an hour). Transfer the dough balls from the baking sheet into a heavy-duty freezer bag or an airtight freezer container.
To bake the cookies, simply place the frozen dough balls directly onto a baking sheet and bake a few minutes longer than indicated in the recipe.
• If you’re making sliced cookies: form the dough into a log, as directed in recipe. Wrap tightly with plastic freezer wrap or place log in a heavy-duty freezer bag.
To bake the cookies, you don’t need to thaw the frozen dough log — just slice off what you need with a sharp knife. Bake the frozen dough for a few minutes longer than indicated in the recipe.
• Use frozen cookie dough within 4 to 6 months for best quality.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.991990 | 2015-04-12T17:17:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56618",
"authors": [
"Bjorn Vandenbroeck",
"Catija",
"Kathryn Brown",
"Kathy Santella",
"Matthew Read",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Taylor Eager",
"Theresa McAvoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"teresa case",
"user134630"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62755 | Where can I buy a pipe for a Weckmann in the US?
I want to bake a Weckmann or Stutenkerl. Traditionally, these have a clay pipe for decoration. Where can I buy such pipes in the US?
Have you looked on the web or do you want a shop in your town?
Yes, I did a web search, but had no luck. Online shop is fine, just like your link.
Doing a quick Google Search "clay pipes for Weckmann", the only shop that came up immediately is The Pipe Shoppe.com. They seem to import them in various sizes and they sell them individually. You can contact them by email if you want to buy several, presumably they may be able to give you a deal on shipping and maybe a better price if you need dozens of them... though they seem to only have 12 in stock right now in this smallest size.
The only other option I could think of is if you happen to know someone in Europe who could order them from Amazon and then ship them to you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.992261 | 2015-10-23T21:52:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62755",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Fran Knothe",
"J Restine",
"Laura Killian",
"Robert",
"Rosie Beane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"marie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85009 | Is it safe to leave mint leaves in unrefrigerated in water overnight?
Instead of drinking plain water, I would like to start drinking water with mint. I plan to put several leaves of mint in a 1.5 liter bottle filled with tap water during the night, and drink the water during the following day.
So I would like to know, is it safe to leave the bottle un-refrigerated during the night?
Sorry, but health questions are off-topic here. The safety question is fine, though.
Is it necessary to leave it un-refrigerated?
It is more convenient since my refrigerator is already stuffed..
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59766/how-long-is-mint-infused-water-safe-to-drink?rq=1
To slow decomposition of the leaves, I would suggest adding some ice, and using a thermally insulated container for this. However, a single night should be fine for the leaves overall.
If you drink the herbal water the next day, no significant decomposition will have occurred so it should be perfectly safe, healthful and tasty. I would first wash the plant material to minimize any bacteria and chemical contaminants leeching into the water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.992395 | 2017-10-14T21:01:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85009",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54017 | What is the impact of high heat on wine?
I usually use wine in my tomato sauces, which are usually slowly simmered on the lowest heat setting. I'd really like to make this recipe from The Pioneer Woman blog. However, I'm concerned about boiling the wine, especially over direct heat. Will it ruin the flavor? Is there any difference in quality/taste by heating to a boil using low heat vs high heat?
Update:
This article on The Academic Wino website gives some good data but still doesn't address intentionally heating the wine to a boiling temperature. To the current commenters, it is my thought that the pan deglazes rapidly and by the time you've poured the liquid, the pan temperature has dropped substantially. Even still, the fact that wine is used at high heat doesn't mean that it doesn't experience ill effects from that exposure.
I'm really looking more for the Alton Brown nitty gritty science of what, if anything, happens to the wine when it hits high cooking temps.
As a side note, the recipe was out of this world good, and I did in fact boil the wine I used.
I'm not sure how that Academic Wino article really applies at all. That article describes what happens to wine left at higher-than-recommended temperatures for 1-3 weeks. I wouldn't want to eat a steak that'd been treated that way for several weeks but I'd certainly want to eat a steak that was quickly cooked at high heat over the course of a few minutes.
By the way, I looked at that recipe and it looks perfect. I am going to try this weekend.
De-Glazing a pan with liquid (including wine) to make a sauce is a very common technique. It involves boiling the liquid to remove browned bits of food from the pan.
De-Glazing Instructions
This technique has been used for years and it seems move severe than what the recipe you mentioned is doing so I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Personally I cook my wine off as quickly as possible i.e de-glazing the pan. Sometimes it boils so quick it ignites. Setting fire to all the hair on my arms (happened yesterday at work).
My stew is tomato and red wine based. The stew wouldn't be the same without the wine being the principle fluid component, and no the stew doesn't taste like wine at all when it's done. It gives it a complex fruity/floral quality and helps soften the meat. The stew is cooked at simmering for 2-1/2 hours.
If the recipe calls for boiling the wine, then do it because the effect on the wine is as intended. It's not meant to be fresh wine, it's meant to be cooked.
So what happens. Well as a winemaker, heat is your enemy...UNLESS you are making a port or Madeira wine, which undergo intentional slow cooking to mimic what used to happen shipboard to wines that were being transported around the Mediterranean. It give the wines a bit more richer fruit flavor, a touch of carmelization, and reduction. If you want to know what your wine tastes like after being cooked go buy a bottle of port, madiera and old sherry wines and give them a taste, those are your three approximations of what cooked wines taste like depending on starting fruit and process. It will have a thick rich fruity flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.992516 | 2015-01-26T19:11:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54017",
"authors": [
"Alma Aland",
"Catherine Dick",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Franca Sharpe",
"Henry Walker",
"Janett",
"Janette Witt",
"Karlton ",
"Katherine Herbig",
"Kenny Morton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
38115 | How to stick oreo biscuits together to make a tower?
I am attempting a castle cake with a dragon on it. I also want to make a tower to stick and stand up on the castle. The general idea to create the tower is to stick Oreo biscuits together and then to fondant the outside to make it look like a stone wall tower.
Can someone please help me figure out how to stick the biscuits together? I tried to Google but couldn't find much.
Please don't create new tags for every question.
How are you attempting to stick them together? Shingled? Stacked (flat-to-flat)? Edge-to-edge? Each way would require a slightly different method.
@Joe: I wanted to have them stacked, so I could make them look like a tower
You are going to have to experiment, if you want to use oreos.
The problem is that you need somethign strong enough to allow you to roll the glued together tower in fondant.
I would try, in order:
Tempered chocolate, if you can do that; its pretty strong when fully cooled
Royal icing
Very thick ganache
Peanut butter
@divi I suggest coming to chat to brainstorm. See: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11994063#11994063 for some more thoughts
I really doubt whether you can really make anything approaching "tower"-height without reinforcement from a dowel or some such; problem is, Oreos don't have a hole in their middles.
Oreos are prettty strong. It might be doable, at least with tempered chocolate, I think. In both tension and compression.
@SAJ14SAJ: thanks for the ideas. I liked your suggestion of royal icing and tried that last night. I've left the biscuits to stand for a day in an airtight container. Will let you know the results tonight
Professionals use dowel or other materials to create such structures. This time of the year, you might be able to find nice, long and straight peppermint sticks that you could use instead of a dowel. Take a drop of water and moisten the center of the biscuits to soften them up so you can drill out a hole. Then stack them up on the peppermint stick with any of the "glues" suggested above.
@SAJ14SAJ: Royal Icing was great and the biscuits are glued together with no issues. Thanks
You might also try caramel, that's what's used to stick choux puffs together for a croquembouche.
@sourd'oh Yeah, one of my alternative structural ideas was caramel popcorn...
I'd recommend that unless you're just stacking oreos on top of each other, that you use something else for structure and then afix the oreos on using icing as a mastic.
Typically, you'd use one of the following:
A hollow structure made of gingerbread sheets, fastened together
A bit of dense cake (eg, pound cake), cut down to the proper size
Rice crispie treats, formed into the size you wanted
Personally, I'd go with the rice crispie treats, in part because you can just use that without any oreos. (you can either take a handle of a spoon or similar and press in the texture you want once it's mostly but not fully set).
... but you can also deal with the texturing on the fondant ... just roll the fondant out a bit thick, apply it, and then use something appropriately sized and smooth (no sharp edges) to press in the grout lines. If you have clay working tools, use those, but also the back edge of some table knives will work. You have a longer working time than trying to do this on rice crispie treats, you just have to be more careful about not tearing or cutting the fondant.
Thanks that's a great idea. I'll try this with rice crispie treats next time
This type of fancy cakes usually has inedible internal supports, such as wood rods. I wouldn't trust the cookies to remain safely upright even after being glued. My intuition would pronounce a glued tower stable if its height is 2x diameter max, anything above feels problematic. It is a different case if you create a hard tower with the cookies somehow embedded in it, but this means we are talking something like embedding cookies in hard candy, which doesn't sound appetizing and probably looks strange. In the end, it will probably work better without cookies.
The alternative would be to create maybe a four corner "basket" out of rods to put the stack inside, and decorate the stocks nicely. In this case, you can use a fairly weak glue, even some whipped cream will be OK, because the glue doesn't have to support the structure.
There are videos on the Internet for creating fancy cakes, often episodes of reality TV shows. You might want to watch them for inspiration. I haven't seen any with a cookie tower, but I have seen 3-D models of stag heads and other sculptures, you can learn a lot from them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.992947 | 2013-11-03T06:58:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38115",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BJ Safdie",
"Cdn cook",
"Divi",
"Joe",
"John Bonner",
"John T Schiffer Jr",
"Marti",
"MiniRagnarok",
"Nick C",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89846",
"preeti pragyan",
"queshawn",
"user1788092",
"user2137824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81231 | Does (how does) cake batter consistency affect outcomes?
I've made lots of cake... usually in the form of mini cupcakes.
Generally I find a full cake recipe for a layer cake or even a sheet cake or bundt cake and just put it in mini cupcake pans and bake for about 12-17 minutes, depending on the recipe.
One thing I'm starting to realize is that batter consistency is absurdly varied. Some batters are practically water, like this chocolate cake recipe I made last night. It has very little flour and (228 g) compared to 414 g sugar and 2.5 cups of liquid (water, milk, oil). Other cakes turn out batters that are practically cookie dough thick. Most are somewhere in between.
What are the benefits and hazards of these different consistencies of cake batters? Does it affect crumb, moisture, doming? In the case of cupcakes rather than layer cakes, will one consistency produce more stereotypical cupcakes than others (e.g, say that thin batters make for little doming in the cake, that would be bad for cupcakes, which you want a nice dome on).
For the sake of clarity, let's say that the "target" for cupcakes is one that is:
moist but holds together for hand-held consumption
well-domed rather than flat-topped
releases from wrapper easily
And, as a corollary, how can I determine (when picking recipes) which recipes will create different consistencies of batter - is there a liquid to flour ratio common to different consistencies?
It's a great question as we all like to have some way of predicting outcomes. Having thought about it for a few days and compared it with parallel desires in pottery glazing amongst other things, I am heading towards a "no". There is too much chemistry going on during the baking to allow any kind of correlation with the appearance of the batter. Visually, we are limited to judging viscosity, colour and perhaps a few other properties which tend not to betray much of the chemistry that is yet to happen.
Similar question, though this one is broader and more detailed.
I'll take a stab at this, based on my experiences and general knowledge of cake science. I don't know of any reference resources that directly address this question broadly.
Does cake batter consistency affect outcomes? Yes.
Can we straighforwardly predict the type of outcome based solely on consistency? Generally no.
Well, you can make some very broad generalizations about how thicker batters all other things being equal are frequently used to produce denser cakes, but even then it depends on what you mean by "consistency." (For example, some types of batter can be highly viscous but contain a lot of air, leavening agents that will produce such air in the oven, and/or lighter ingredients.)
But something brought up in comments is basically the problem -- there's too much "chemistry" to predict anything definite from batter viscosity (and whatever else is included in the term "consistency") alone. A thick batter with adequate leavening can make a light final cake. A thin batter without leavening can result in a dense "hockey puck." Moistness is subjective and hard to predict too, because it depends on bake time/temperature (which will determine amount of evaporation during baking), as well as the amount of rise (more air can make the final product seem "drier") and other ingredients (e.g., fats, proteins, and sugar content can have an affect on how we perceive "moistness" or how it is held in the baked structure).
Part of the problem is also what makes the batter "thin" or "thick," etc. This addresses the final question about whether ratios are predictable. They are to some extent. But unlike, for example, many types of "lean" bread, cake batters frequently have a complex set of ingredients that aren't easy as easy to predict as basic "hydration level" in bread. Aside from liquid like milk or water, you often have moisture content from eggs, as well as things like liquid fats which don't contribute to consistency the same as water but nevertheless also contribute to "thinness" of a batter. (And this doesn't even include possible other additions like fruit, syrups, etc.) Air content will also greatly influence apparent consistency, so it's not just whether you add butter or eggs or whatever, but do you beat them as well? How much air do they retain when the batter is fully assembled?
It might be possible to create a sense of appropriate/predictable ratios for specific types of cakes with the same general mixing method. But I think there's too much variety among cakes overall to generalize for all cakes.
The final two points concern wrapper sticking and doming. The former is perhaps related to moisture, but it mostly has to do with having enough gluten or other binding agent so wrappers can be pulled off without the cupcake crumbling apart. Since so many different ingredients can contribute to hold the cake together, it's difficult to relate that directly to consistency.
Lastly, doming: again, batter consistency is very important here, but it's only one factor. A persistent dome requires several things to happen:
Leavening amount has to be calibrated to be enough to cause the batter to rise, but not so much that only large bubbles are formed that rise and burst out of the top of the batter while baking. Batter viscosity is important here, because a batter that is too thin will allow too much bubbling out, but a batter that is too thick may not rise adequately under the weight. (Thin batters will obviously thicken during baking, so leavening has to survive until batter viscosity increases enough to create structure.)
"Crust" begins to form early enough to trap bubbles inside the top center of batter.
"Crust" must be flexible enough (not thick or firm) to allow the center to keep expanding.
Expansion of internal gases (either due to temperature rise alone or in combination with leavening-produced gases) must continue long enough to provide support while the structure beneath the dome "sets."
Oven temperature and browning agents must be calibrated so the batter sets completely internally before the exterior burns. Also, some structural proteins can shrink significantly as they lose moisture, so baking must be completed before too much of this can occur.
Bottom line is that there's a lot of consistency-related factors in this process, but very different types of batters can still produce a sufficient rise and a dome (as well as "moistness" and other factors in the question).
Other factors such as climate and location also matter - for example recipes authored by someone in sub-tropical Japan would produce a similar looking batter to that in Arizona, but even with identical ovens, the results are radically different. This is a perpetual frustration, worst when there are tips from authors that would not work globally.
@user110084 - Indeed. Good point. And let's not forget seasonal variation, which frequently brings changes in the humidity and temperature in one's kitchen (as well as ingredients themselves; flour can dry out in a low humidity environment over time). I'm often surprised at how much batter/dough consistency can vary depending on the season and my local kitchen "climate" that day.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.993368 | 2017-04-25T18:56:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81231",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105066 | How can I make regular rice more sticky?
I have two children under four and the little one (15 months) likes rice a lot but he has trouble eating it because the grains separate, making it difficult to pick up with his uncoordinated fingers.
To help with this, I was thinking that I could make my normal (long grain) rice stickier than it usually is and press it into small balls that would hold their shape. I'm not, to be clear, trying to make "sticky rice", necessarily... just regular rice that will clump more easily and hold up to a little handling when made into balls.
It seems like there may be a few ways to go about this:
don't rinse the rice (or rinse less) - I generally rinse 3 times or so
add a little extra water (how much extra?)
give up on long grain and switch to short or medium
use water only (I often add stock in place of some of the water)
I use a "fancy" rice maker, a Zojirushi with "fuzzy logic" and I'd like to use that because I do whole meals (I add vegetables and chicken to the rice cooker and steam everything together).
So am I on the right track? How can I make this work?
Another method used to make long grain more sticky is to soak it, up to 1/2 hour before cooking. I have used this in trying to get rice to behave more like sushi rice.
Oh, that's interesting... and the rice maker has a timed cook function so that you can prep it ahead of time... so I could do that pretty easily.
I have not tried that with stock where the fat may tie up with the starch and I would tend to not rinse or rinse only lightly to not lose the starch, but update us in that helps with stock too.
Those are all good ideas, and will work together.
For "use more water", what you really want is to use more water but not end up with wetter or softer rice. (For rice I want to be sticky I'll generally use about 1.25 volumes of water to one volume of rinsed and drained rice, but this will vary widely with cooker and amount of rice.) A good way to do that is to stop cooking after the prescribed length of time rather than when your rice cooker detects that all the water is gone, and then spread the rice out on a plate immediately after cooking, to promote evaporation. (You can also do stuff with stirring and fans - check out videos of preparing sushi rice - but it's probably not necessary.)
I've never gotten rice to be sticky if made with stock or any sort of fat.
Long grain rice won't be as sticky as short grain rice, but it won't be far off either.
Finally, if you just want to cheat, sprinkle some rice flour in with the rice. Like not rinsing, but arbitrarily moreso.
If the starch of unrinsed rice isn't enough - you can always add starch water solution, or honey but the latter is a more acquired taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.993901 | 2020-01-30T22:21:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105066",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55305 | How to tint powdered sugar (icing sugar)?
I'm looking for a way to tint powdered sugar without wetting it.
I know that there are powdered food colors but I think that part of what activates the color is the fact that they get wet when you add them to an icing or batter.
I'm also afraid that they're so concentrated that, even if I get the color I want, I'll end up dyeing the mouths of the people who eat the cookies/cupcakes/whatever that I dust with the powdered sugar.
Is blending/processing colored sanding sugar and adding a bit of cornstarch an option? Will it ever mimic actual powdered sugar?
Edit: I've tried the above (sanding sugar with cornstarch) and it does not make a good solution.
To grind granulated ("sanding") sugar down to the fineness of powdered sugar, you really need a coffee/spice grinder. Most food processors, even mini ones, will just whirl the sugar around without having any effect on the grind size.
Would you be willing to invest $20 in a rotary coffee grinder (I got mine at a thrift store for $5)? If so, I'll experiment with making colored powdered sugar.
@Jolenealaska Sorry, been super busy and going a bit nuts. I have a coffee grinder, actually... just don't think about using it because of it being really coffee flavored... I'd have to get a second one. I'm certainly willing to try it in the grinder to see if it works. I did actually find that the powdered coloring does work and isn't too horrid for dying people's mouths... but I'm testing it out with red, so it may just be blending in.
From my experience coloring regular sugar with ordinary food coloring, drying it, and then crushing it in a mortar yields good results. Be careful to not use too much food coloring though, or it will never dry properly! I haven't tried to see if cornstarch might save it, but as long as you do the drying properly and don't overdo the amount of color it shouldn't be necessary.
As for the powdered food coloring option you suggested, I found a source that said they don't have to be wet to take effect, but it doesn't say anything about whether the eaters will be colored =)
I'll have to suspect that the mortar and pestle will do a much better job of really crushing the sugar fine, as opposed to a food-processor/spice-grinder/coffee-grinder) - then you could run it though a really fine sifter/screen and regrind whatever didn't go through.
I think there is more to be said on the subject, but only 2 answers are eligible for the bounty, so I awarded it. I'd still like to see a more complete answer.
I think i can help you here if anyone is interested. It's an easy process that costs almost nothing. No grinders are required.
The issue with using liquid colours is they cause the icing sugar to clump, hence the need to dry the sugar and then grind it. Using powdered colours still require a liquid to be added so you're back at step one.
Grinding whilst colouring is the answer. Here is the trick:
Take some rice and add the food colour to it. You'll need a slightly more brightly coloured rice than you want the sugar but make sure the rice is not wet. With a gloved hand, completely mix the colour into the rice. Add the icing sugar and thoroughly mix. The rice will break the sugar down as it clumps whilst at the same time giving you the colour.
Now you just sift the rice from the icing suagr and Viola!
Colored sanding sugars can be run through a spice grinder to gain this effect. Note, you will lose much of your intensity of color.
PS - Make sure your spice grinder/coffee grinder is VERY clean.
I appreciate the answer. I did this using my mini Cuisinart and just got colorful regular sugar. It didn't have the fluffiness of powdered sugar.
I see. I was thinking fine, you were thinking fluffy. For fluffy, I would try cornstarch. For an interesting taste/tang, powdered citric acid is the primary 'sour' flavoring, and if memory serves me right, it is EXTREMELY light and fluffy. Good luck and let us know how it works out.
I've tried cornstarch in addition to the sanding sugar as well... it doesn't make it fluffy, unfortunately. I suppose it's possible that I am not processing it enough.
Commercial powdered sugar is made using mechanical means. I also believe that tricalcium phosphate is what is used in place of starch in commercial production. Have you tried using a generous amount of sugar to ensure the blender is churning properly? Maybe put on a show while the blender runs in case it takes absurdly long? The last random idea that comes to mind is that the moisture level of the sugar is too high and that it needs to be dried out in a cool-to-warm oven. You could also try with plain sugar, then with sanding to see if the texture is inherent to the dye addition.
You could try using decorating dust such as cake decorators use to apply color to flowers and other decorations on cakes. I know it is most common in metallic colors but it does come in other colors as well. Just be sure to look for dust that is labeled as "food safe," as some are not intended for eating.
Taken from Edible Glitter
To make colored sugar:
1/4 cup granulated sugar (not brown, not confectioners, castor sugar or superfine sugar is ok)
1/2 teaspoon of liquid food coloring
1: Mix the sugar and food coloering
2: spread out on parchment paper (I added this step)
3: bake at 350 F for 10 minutes.
4: store in air tight container
you can also do the same with Salt if you want to make colored salt. If you use castor sugar or superfine sugar, it won't have that same white background that confectioners provides as a backdrop for the coloring, but you could put confectioners down on your treat first, then put the colored sug
The question is about powdered or confectioners sugar, not granulated :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.994143 | 2015-03-02T19:46:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55305",
"authors": [
"BrownRedHawk",
"Catija",
"DL Bailey",
"Derpy",
"Ecnerwal",
"Elaine Mynott",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martha Aladegbola",
"Marti",
"Patricia Ledesma",
"Patrick Kilgallen",
"Robyn R",
"Saagar Patel",
"Sara John Varkey",
"Tim Vander Valk",
"Trice Lac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54193 | How to keep a chocolate fondue in a liquid form?
I'm trying to make chocolate fondue for dessert to serve in a restaurant on Valentines Day. What should I do to prevent the chocolate fondue from burning during heating, and setting as it cools.
Fondue or fondant?
it's a fondue .
what should i do to prevent the fondue solidfication
@Doug - Do you think it's worth it to add back the information that this is for restaurant-scale use? The answers may not be as helpful if it's assumed that it's just for a couple to use at home.
I'm a young cooker in a restaurant actually . I'm trying to find out some solution for prevent fondue from solidification
Might have been slightly over zealous with the trimming. I have approved it by the way it's just not come through.
You can either maintain the heat level through a heat source served with the food at the table or you can add a neutral-tasting oil to the chocolate mixture such as canola(rape seed) or vegetable oil. Adding another fat will also help in preventing scorching of the chocolate.
Also the addition of some dairy to create a chocolate "sauce" can be a solution as well, but remember that fondue is about heating(and even cooking) food. A cold bowl of chocolate, even if it is liquid at room temperature, probably isn't going to be as enjoyable for your guests.
So , it is possible if i maintain the heat level in a pot so it will be always ready to serve ? of course i will keep stirring it .
@KelseyLoyHangXiang, if it will be on a buffet you have a lot more flexibility. You can simply have pure chocolate and as long as you keep stirring there won't be any problems if the heat is low enough or you could cycle the heat on and off. The problem is if you do it like a traditional fondue where each table gets their own small bowl of the fondue sauce.
@Stephie, that's the cheap stuff... In the better establishments the chocolate sauce is quite hot and makes for a much more enjoyable experience when the marshmallows just start to melt and the biscotti get softer and the warm fruit releases different flavors...
@Stephie, that was my original thought too until I read the OPs latest comment. So I'm not sure.
Look at the original question, not the edited one.
My bad sorry. I forget we aren't all working in restaurants sometimes... :/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.994619 | 2015-01-30T17:32:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54193",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Doug",
"Janice",
"Jaslin Sohal",
"Kelsey Loy HangXiang",
"Leon Beardmore",
"Marsha Worley",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Spammer",
"Tara Earley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33178"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70852 | What makes pink salt pink?
What are some of the names of chemical compounds (minerals our what not) which make the healthy (sandless) pink salt pink?
There seem to be at least three products that can be called "pink salt"... can you be more specific about which of them you're talking about?
If you're talking about Himalayan Pink Salt, this question has already been answered here.
I think that would be Himalayan salt, since it comes from ancient mountains. Thanks.
Wikipedia is your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhalite
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.994933 | 2016-06-20T23:35:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70852",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"David Marshall",
"Jack Maddington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36386"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58251 | How to bake cake and pastries without oven?
I don't have an oven and I am not planning to purchase one but there are lots of recipe that need an oven. My question is, is there any way I can get the same functionality on a gas burner stove by some use of utensil or trick or hack!
Taking the cost and effort and the (most likely poor) results into account, for a general substitution: no. For specific cases (-> please elaborate in your question), there might be a solution.
I want that my food to be cooked , not rotten and I want the cost to be 1/4 of what an oven cost .I just want to make pastries and I don't have an oven thats it.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22889/67
@L-X - have you considered buying a second hand / used oven? I'm sure you could meet your financial goal if you are persistent.
Point is I am at home for only 2 months , And i was planning on learning cooking and making exotic dishes shown on TLC shows afterward I will be off to college so there will be no use of oven that's why I needed an alternate way
Bake at a friends or neighbor, they may enjoy it also.
[Lifehacks.SE]!
i vote for the cast iron dutch oven with a wire rack inside. If you have a gas stove top you can get a piece of plate steel and put it on the burner and the dutch oven on top of that you even heat another piece of steal and place it on top. the steel with retain and transfer heat better longer. i keep one in my oven. Counter top toaster over would be easier.
There's a couple alternatives here - the use of a clay tagine, or dutch oven with insert, or several (thick) pots with an insert assembled to make a stovetop oven, are all possibilities - each with their own strengths and limitations, of course, but might be enough to try recipes out with
@Alaska man still better than trump. I guess there is a reason these are called dutch OVENs :)
If you live in Vegas like me you can cook them in your car in the summer.
When I was young in Asia, my mom would bake a cake on a coal stove in a cast iron pot. Hot coals were then added on top of the lid as a secondary heat source.
That cast iron pot would probably be a form of dutch oven.
No, no standard recipe for baking will work on a gas stove.
There are a few forgiving types of baked good (like some quickbreads) for which you could find special-tailored recipes which can work on a stove. The recipes are fussy, the result is not as good as oven baked, and they are exceptions. User2052413's answer is an example for one of these recipes. Almost all of the things you could bake in an oven (such as pastries) cannot be made this way at all.
If you want to bake cakes, you need an oven of some type, the standard domestic electric oven being the easiest solution. There is no way around it.
There are countertop ovens, meant for this sort of situation, although they don't hold their temperature quite as well. There's also toaster ovens, but they're even less precise. And there's also the relatively new 'multi cookers' (slow cooker + hot enough to sear on) that claim you can use them as an oven).
@joe Oh, countertop ovens are quite good, I have used almost exclusively a countertop oven for the past 10+ years. I just count them as a subtype of "domestic electric oven", so I didn't mention them as an option on their own. Ovens sold as "toaster ovens" are, in my experience, a replacement for a broiler, but you can't fit a cake inside anyway (not even 15 cm pan), they're either not deep enough or not tall enough depending on style.
I am disappointed in some of the answers given to you. Without an oven, the best place to get cooking cakes, biscuits, bread, etc. is on an internet camping site. Try Pininterest or any camping blog, or camping cookbook. You will find out you can cook almost everything without an oven. Some recipes will need a little modification. But cast iron skillet, 10" pan and dutch oven with lid, should enable you to make almost anything you want.
Peggy
Will those sorts of recipes work in a skillet or dutch oven on a stove, heating only from the bottom, as opposed to a campfire, with more heat all around?
There is a pan like thing from the Czech republic called a remoska that has a heating element in the lid, and apparently is surprisingly good for things like pies.
There is also the option of a Dutch oven which could go on your hob, or for some specific purposes a pie iron, which can be used over a fire, but also probably on your stove.
I found this question/answers after making pastry for a quiche and then finding that the oven didn't work. Subsequently I had reasonable success with two deep baking trays inverted one over the other on the hob, with some metal skewers under the enclosed muffin tray to raise it slightly and prevent burnt base. I also put a large lidded pan of just boiled water on top to stabilise the temperature. The remoska would be much more energy efficient.
I don't have the use of an oven at the moment either. I can't just go buy a new oven or bench baking thing etc. I attempted to pull a toaster apart and put it back together again in an old fish smoker so that I had like a top & bottom element, or just a top one. It worked really well... once... I managed to get my flaky pastry to rise and turn golden brown, and looked fantastic. Well, until blackish smoke started to pour out of it and a horrid burnt aluminum smell filled the air. But keep thinking or use heaps of cigarette lighters.
Welcome! Considering that your "solution" didn't end up working very well, I'm not sure this is an answer, particularly as you haven't really fully explained your solution in a way that might be useful.
I have done so in a gas grill. Lid down. You need to be able to hold even heat. put on top rack in a double baking pan. For a few simple things. But be cheaper to use a oven & better.
Use a large Baking tray on top of the gas burner hobs, place what every you want to cook on the backing tray then cover with aluminium foil, making sure the whole tray is covered and tuck the foil around the edges. Not too tight though, you need to ensure that the foil can rise. Ive used this method with mulitple vegetables,chicken, fish and recently, puff pastry mini pizettes :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.995028 | 2015-06-15T04:37:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58251",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Autumn Troka",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cesar Bielich",
"Ellyn Hay",
"Heather Serruto",
"Jake Levesque",
"Joe",
"Marian ODonnell",
"Megha",
"Optionparty",
"Sanjeev",
"Stephie",
"Tom Lazzara",
"Tony Cartwright",
"Universal Electricity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68185",
"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
} |
59174 | Can you make caramel with evaporated milk?
So I love cooked sweetened condensed milk (caramel, dulce de leche, all that). It's really simple to make - just cook the stuff for a while - and it tastes awesome. That said, I could really stand it being a little less sweet (not a carb thing, just a taste thing). So I was wondering - can I use evaporated milk to make something similar? And if not, is there a way to make cooked condensed milk with a bit less sugar?
Very related (Cajita is dulce de leche made with goat's milk), so the answer is yes, it can be done: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46129/cajeta-with-powdered-goats-milk-or-evaporated-experiment-results The amount of sugar you add is up to you, it will take some experimentation to find the amount that is perfect for you. Too little, and you may see not enough caramelization.
Milk contains lactose naturally, so there will always be a minimum amount of sugar that any condensed milk will contain.
Having said the above, the recipe for making lowest-possible-sugar condensed milk, is evaporated milk (which still contains all of the lactose), so that's still sweet as well, but not overpoweringly so like condensed milk.
If evaporated milk is not sweet enough to your taste, keep adding vanilla sugar to it while heating gently and tasting frequently till it reaches the exact taste you want!
Actually, condensed milk and evaporated milk are synonyms semantically. What you're really talking about is "condensed sweetened milk" ;-)
In the US, sweetened is implied if you use the word "condensed". So condensed milk is always "sweetened condensed milk" here.
@Jolenealaska: as Misha didn't specify a country in its profile, I prefer to give a global answer and don't assume he/she/it's from the US. ;-) Condensed milk is thick and syrupy and evaporated milk is thick like light cream anywhere you go! >:)
I made no such assumptions (as a matter of fact I've seen that English is not Fabby's first language), but I wanted to point out that for some, "condensed" does necessarily mean sweetened.
Condensed milk can have up to 40% more sugar in it than regular evaporated milk. I just made this recipe--an hour ago--using condensed milk (it was all I had). Then I cut out one cup of white sugar. It looks fine now that I'm done, but it took a long time to cook and the flavor is a little bland. I think it needed more sugar in it to properly carmelize. While the condensed milk was sweetened with some kind of sugar, it wasn't the right kind. I need to learn a lot more about the science and chemistry of sugar.
I prefer caramel made with evaporated milk as opposed to condensed:
1 stick butter
1 cup sugar (use less sugar if you don't want it as sweet)
1 can evaporated milk
pinch salt
Put this on a shortbread base and top with chocolate chips for the best millionaires shortbread squares.
Just don't ever boil a can of condensed milk as the BPA lining of the can will leach into the caramel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.995561 | 2015-07-19T02:32:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59174",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"J TA",
"Joanne Lopez",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karina Jankowska",
"Lesley Keslin",
"Melissa Mason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"susan Martin"
],
"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
} |
83611 | Holes inside a sweet potato
We bought some sweet potatoes from the store and a few days later we chopped them up to make some roasted veggies.
To our surprise, the insides of the potatoes were full of holes or cavities. There was also a small amount of milky white substance that would gather in tiny droplets around the edge of the cut.
I had no idea what was going on so we threw them out. What's the deal? Were these bad? Was throwing them out the right thing to do?
The outside looked pretty normal, so I'm not sure how to identify this in the future.
It might be related to hollow heart, but I have never seen it look quite like that. Might want to take it to gardening if someone here cannot identify. In any case, it looks extensive enough that I would not have considered the sweet potato salvageable. Guess would be growth related, but it is possible that was bacterial and unlikely the taste would have been right in any case.
The milky substance you referred to is normal. It is the sap. Many times when baking whole sweet potatoes this sap will ooze out and look like syrup. It's quite sweet. Many years ago we were told that the more sap a sweet potato has, the sweeter it would be.
Hi JPhi1618, we prefer titles to be boring and informative. I know that it is fun to write them with puns, and that they are better clickbait. But this makes it very difficult to find the question again in the search function, or to see at a glance what it is about when it is shown in a list in the sidebar, and such functionality is the main way of making Stackexchange more informative than other platforms. So sorry, but I had to edit it.
@Cindy, Thats interesting. I've never seen it seep out like that after cutting. Maybe the cavities concentrated it near the surface?
@rumtscho, No problem, totally understand. I have a high rep on some other branches. It literally was a holy potato so I thought that might fly.
Technically, you mean "holey". :P There is a difference.
To be honest, I don't see it as much nowadays. Back years ago it was normal to see a lot of it when cutting or baking them. I think what makes the difference is the commercial methods of storing. Farmers used to cure and store them for long preservation. I was always told that the longer they were cured, the sweeter they would be.
On the milky sap, I think that can vary by variety, and definitely for how well they were hardened off. With this type of defect in the tuber I would not be surprise if it was more concentrated.
Okay, after looking around a bit, I think the proper description of the sweet potato in your picture is 'pithy'. And I saw some pics where this condition had progressed much further than it had in yours. It seems that what causes this is temperatures too high during the storage time. I found references to this in several places.
From the University of Arkansas :
Sweet potatoes: proper curing improves quality, shelf life
By Will Hehemann
The Cooperative Extension Service
U of A System Division of Agriculture
PINE BLUFF, Ark. – Sweet potatoes are not very sweet when initially harvested, Shaun Francis, extension horticulture specialist for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, said. Farmers should cure their sweet potato crop for a period of time to ensure the correct taste and a longer shelf life.
“Sweet potatoes remain metabolically active after they are harvested,” Francis said. “As the tubers continue the respiration process, their starches are converted to sugars, hence the sweet taste.”
Another purpose of the curing process is to heal any abrasions or bruises the sweet potatoes sustain during harvesting, he said. As the potato cures, a corky layer of cells develops just below the surface of the abrasions, which serves as a barrier against disease-carrying organisms.
The curing process can begin immediately after sweet potatoes are harvested. First, remove them from the field as soon as possible to prevent sunscald damage.
“If you are harvesting during moist conditions, allow the soil around the roots to dry for an hour or two,” Francis said. “Though you can remove excess soil around the roots, remember not to wash freshly harvested potatoes.”
Store the potatoes in a warm, humid room for four to seven days. Ideal conditions for curing are a temperature of 85 degrees Fahrenheit and a relative humidity of 90 percent.
“As these conditions may be difficult to establish inside a household, consider using a shed on the farm or a garage,” Francis said. “Some farmers can achieve the correct conditions for curing in a room with a space heater, thermostat and humidifier.”
If the temperature decreases during the curing process, increase the number of days the sweet potatoes spend curing. If it is 80 degrees Fahrenheit outside, let the potatoes cure for up to 10 days, he said.
Good ventilation is also important in the curing process, as it can prevent a buildup of the carbon dioxide that is released by the tubers. The circulation of air also enables excess condensation to escape, which prevents rotting.
After sweet potatoes have cured for the correct amount of time, they should be stored at an approximate temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and a relative humidity range of 85-90 percent, Francis said.
“Keep the storing conditions constant, as fluctuations will cause the deterioration of root quality,” he said. “Low temperatures cause the potatoes to develop too tough a center, while high temperatures will cause the roots to sprout, shrivel and become pithy.”
Francis said sweet potatoes stored in cool, constant conditions have a shelf life of up to several months.
For more information on cultivating and preserving sweet potatoes or other tubers, contact your local county extension agent or visit www.uaex.edu.
(Emphasis mine.)
So, while they probably wouldn't have hurt you, they were obviously inferior quality and most likely wouldn't have tasted very good. Good call on tossing them!
The skin wasn't broken, so I didn't really think it was insects or mold, but like you said - I assumed they wouldn't have tasted good, and we wouldn't have been able to stop thinking something was wrong.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.995813 | 2017-08-09T15:12:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83611",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"JPhi1618",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63774 | Why do light and dark roux have different effects when thickening sauces?
When you are using a roux, the darker it is, the less it acts as a thickening agent in a sauce and, vice versa, if the roux is quite light, it has more of a thickening effect.
Why is this?
Related question about quantifying the difference: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21329/1672
You can visualise it like this: starch is the way that plants store energy, you can see it like long chains of glucose molecules. If you have these long chains, they lock in water at high temps (gelatinisation), and so they bind sauces. If you burn them, what you do is break those chains into glucose (or maltose), and that glucose you caramelise..that is what makes it brown...and the proteins are in the Maillard reaction..that is "caramelising" of proteins instead of sugars, but that is less relevant for the binding power of starches. So, you are breaking and burning the chains that you need to catch water, basically. (and please do not correct this text from UK to US spelling, thanks...)
The primary thickening agent in flour is the starch. The browning of Your roux is a chemical reaction that uses up starch that can be used to thicken to make delicious ness.
In what way does it "use up" starch? What is it turned into?
sugars which in the maillard reaction combine with amino acids. There is also caramelization which is a completely different reaction which produces a whole host of aromatics
Maybe edit your answer? The extra detail makes it a lot better (compare to the current top answer).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.996292 | 2015-11-23T21:30:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63774",
"authors": [
"Alex Pollock",
"Andrea Cobb",
"April Perry",
"Cascabel",
"Deivanai Sritharan",
"Jody Grexton",
"Kathleen Parker",
"King-Ink",
"Merle Terblanche",
"Michelle Simmons",
"Pat landy",
"Thermidor 259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64644 | Fried pies lose their shape
Family recipe for Vollinas.
4-5 cups flour
4 egg yolks
1 cup milk
1 pkg yeast
1 stick sweet cream butter
1/2 cup sugar.
After mixing & kneading & rising overnight, golf ball size pieces are pulled off, rolled out into an oval shape, filled with nuts, & folded over into a pie shape. The edges are sealed. When fried in oil they tend to increase in size & lose their fried pie shape. Any thoughts why they increase in size & how to remedy that?
Do they behave the same when other family members make them?
I'm the only maker.
"Filled with nuts" and "edges are sealed" - this is normal to happen with such a food. The filling produces steam, which blows up the pie. You should use less filling and pierce it in a place or two before frying, so you'll have less steam, and what is in there will escape.
You should try freezing them before frying. I saw thats how Momofuku Milk bar does it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.996493 | 2015-12-21T17:19:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64644",
"authors": [
"Amanda Taylor",
"Laura Smith",
"Lisa Burlile",
"Oscar Noble",
"Ryan Clark",
"Stephie",
"Vincent Carril",
"heyyyuuu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77959 | What is the point of roasting salt?
This recipe for ginger-garlic paste roasts the salt before putting it in the paste. Now, I never thought I've seen someone roasting salt before. What is the point of this? How does it change the flavor or properties of the salt?
I have absolutely no idea. There is no chemical reaction that would make salt "change its color to blackish golden". Maybe it's getting crusted with stuff leftover in then pan, especially if it's a cast iron pan.
Might be something to do with the moisture in the salt?
About the only effect that could exist in the salt itself is drying. NaCl is a very simple chemical, unlike most things used in cooking. More likely is picking up contamination from the pan, as @JoshuaEngel suggests.
I just tested with salt in a clean pan and it sure did not change color.
Boiling salt down (with seaweed) is a thing (Japanese Moshio) but that's not roasting, and it was the seaweed being reduced to ash, not the salts...
I have a few chinese recipes that call for the salt to be roasted before use. I believe in this case it is to make sure it is 100% dry so that it can be ground to a very fine powder without it clumping together. As the other answers have said, no chemical reaction will occur and nothing will happen to the flavour of the salt
The recipe from Atul Kochhar doesn't even include salt. Nor oil. Just water (10% of the total weight). I'll trust him over any random person capable of making A Blog. Which is pretty much everyone nowadays...
The recipe calls for heating a "pan" on medium heat. Without knowing what type of pan this is, there is no way of knowing what reaction is going on there. Let me venture a guess, though.
I guess the pan is cast or mineral, seasoned, iron. The salt will react with some of the compounds from the bottom of the pan, making it "change its color".
Other types of pans will, most likely, do nothing. Non-stick, steel, aluminum don't react with salt.
As to the function of browning the salt, I can only guess that the flavor changes slightly from whatever you sautéed in the pan. You could pick up fish or meat or vegetable flavors.
As a side note, salt is used to clean cast or mineral iron skillets.
Salt in Asia is almost all sea salt, which can contain many things in addition to NaCl, up to 10% by weight according to processing method (or at least Wikipedia's page on sea salt says so). Korean roasted salt is roasted at temperatures of up to 800 C and is claimed to be less bitter, so I guess that at least some of the non-NaCl compounds are (a) volatile at high temperatures and (b) bitter-tasting.
I can't access the original recipe linked by the OP, but I'm guessing that the roasting is a step in traditional Chinese recipes that isn't necessary for cooks using modern factory-processed iodized salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.996628 | 2017-01-31T19:23:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77959",
"authors": [
"FlukyFood",
"Joshua Engel",
"Leliel",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54190",
"paparazzo",
"thrig"
],
"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
} |
67225 | Cooking meat/fish without Maillard reaction(a.k.a. browning)
Maillard reaction (browning) is the chemical reaction that occurs during frying. Almost all the recipes on cooking meat/fish are all about frying. Even if it's not frying it still mostly incorporates frying and/or browning. Most recipes of stewed meat suggest frying before actually stewing. Recipes for soups require frying everything before adding it to the soup. Recipes for baking mostly require to pour oil on top of everything to use browning.
Are there any good methods to cook meat/fish without browning?
Welcome German to Seasoned Advice. Unfortunately as your question stands, it will most likely be closed as either too broad or primarily opinion based as there are way too many different types of fish and meat preparations that doesn't include browning the meat first. Additionally, meat and fish do not under go caramelization which only happens when there is sugar. They instead undergo the Maillard reaction.
related http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/56831/67
Take one of those soup recipes (I suggest a vegetable one to start with), try just throwing everything in together, and simmering for a little longer than your recipe says. It should be edible but not nearly as tasty. Onions may be an issue. The point is if you want to do something unusual, test it.
@Jay, Athanasius's post seems not as long though still pretty exhaustive. There are not as many generic methods as there are the recipes after all.
Steam fish in Singapore I tried is one of example with no browning you need. http://www.pinkypiggu.com/2014/05/sik-bao-sin-eating-house-desmonds.html
I agree with Joe: wet methods are generally good for preventing browning.
The general policy is just to use temperatures which are as low as possible (while ensuring food safety and cooking until "done"). The other thing you want to avoid is very long cooking, since browning reactions can still occur if you cook something long enough at a low temperature.
Wet methods are often best both because they naturally keep the temperature of the food below boiling, and the circulating liquid helps to raise the food's temperature faster (which tends to allow quicker cooking). Compare that to roasting (or similar techniques) at a very low temperature -- in that case, it will often take much longer for the food to get up to a "done" temperature (which can sometimes be a food safety issue, particularly in large hunks of meat).
Acids can also inhibit browning a bit, though low temperature and shorter time are most important.
The sous vide technique is perhaps the optimal method for preventing browning, since you cook the food in a sealed bag to a low temperature (and usually one specified to ensure food safety). You also contain all the juices, etc. of the meat, rather than other wet methods where they tend to be lost to the surrounding liquid. (If you are going to consume the liquid as well, that can be good, though.)
The main problem with all of these techniques is that some meats are considered much less appetizing without any browning. For example, many people love a steak cooked to a perfect "medium rare" inside, but they brown the exterior -- and even that thin layer of browned bits is enough to give a lot of flavor to a bite of even a thick steak. If you didn't brown the outside and just had the whole thing "medium rare," it would be a different experience. Think of the interior of a medium rare prime rib -- in that case, many people often tend to use some salty flavorful "jus" or another kind of sauce to add flavor while eating the meat. So in some cases you might look for recipes that add a sauce or other complementary flavorful foods to go with the meat (and replace the missing flavor from browning).
Any wet method of cooking will keep the temperature down to prevent browning (which includes caramelization ... but that isn't what actually happens with meats):
steaming
stewing
braising
poaching
You don't need to brown meat before stewing or braising it -- you'll not develop the same flavors, but you're specifically trying to avoid those reactions.
Fish is often steamed or poached -- you don't need to fry it, either.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.996880 | 2016-03-08T13:43:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67225",
"authors": [
"Annette Herman",
"Chris H",
"Gherman",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Kyle",
"Lavinia Koutsouradis",
"Needta Nobasis",
"Nicole Carroll",
"Pete David",
"Sandra Perera",
"Sobia Aftab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"vasin1987",
"w Salesmint"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67703 | Substitute for Nestle Semisweet Chocolate Chips in Australia?
I am living in Australia and having a hard time finding a good substitute for Nestle semisweet chocolate chips. What should I look for in a good quality semi-sweet chocolate chip in Australia and where can I find them?
You say you're "having a hard time"... does that mean you've already tried a couple of brands? If so, which brands have you tried and what do you find unsatisfactory about them?
Just use any old chocolate chips, there's nothing special about nestle's product.
Semi sweet equates to our garden variety dark choc chips in Australia. If like me You're wanting a bit more of a cocoa hit try looking for 70% cocoa cooking chocolate or choc chips. I know Aldi get them from time to time and our Super IGA gets them so I'm guessing the other supermarkets will maybe have them or try european style delicatessens for them.
I might go for the "bit more cocoa hit" but that (as you've said) is not going to be a direct substitute for Nestle's ho, hum, middle of the road, perfectly ordinary chocolate chips ( with a heavy dose of marketing. ) So long as I've avoided "chocolate flavored chips" (a horrid product that appeared for a while in the USA) I've been quite satisfied with "generic" chocolate chips as being the same exact product, with less marketing to pay for.
My mother in law has had the same troubles as she uses the nestle semi sweet morsels for chocolate crack cookies. The cookies just don't crack the same with other chocolate chips. She tells me it is due to the quality of the cocoa butter. She has experimented and found a half-half mix of cadbury dark choc chips and milk chocolate chips does the job.
That makes semi sweet chips just deconstructed. Makes Sense. But Nestle does taste a bit more bitter than the Cadbury. But Cadbury is more creamy don't know if it has to do with the butter or not. But I am pretty sure there is no semi sweet in Australia unless you get them from a USA import store. At least we haven't found anything close. From a American living in Australia.
Costco Semi sweet chocolate chips come close and does the job for me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.997375 | 2016-03-23T23:25:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67703",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel B",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Judy Raddue",
"Marcia VanSwoll",
"Melissa Richards",
"Michael",
"cheryl simmons",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90857",
"julio nunez"
],
"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
} |
68231 | Could I use chili powder in a homemade hot sauce recipe?
My boyfriend is allergic to the skins of chilies, peppers and tomatoes, which he's found means he can have chili powder (and variants), but not dried pepper/chili flakes or fresh versions of the aforementioned.
So could I use chili powder/paprika/maybe cayenne pepper in a hot sauce recipe instead of true chilies?
Thanks
I'm confused... Paprika and cayenne are types of chiles... is there something about the powder form that's ok?
Yes, that has confused him too! Seems to be drying eliminates the thing that causes his reaction - although he does seem to have a very slight reaction to cayenne pepper so I try and avoid that now.
That is interesting... particularly as you say that it's only the powdered, dried version that is OK... whereas whole dried chiles are not. So is it the skins of all three types of fruits or only the skins of tomatoes?
He can't have the skins of all 3; but it was diagnosed when he was younger, so it might certainly be worth him getting it checked out again by a doctor, as it might have worn off (hence he can have the powders).
Chili powder has the skins included, so should be the same as chili flakes.
Sure, you can do that. It'll be a slightly different style of hot sauce than you'd get with fresh green chilis, less bright and fresh pepper flavor, more of a deep, rich flavor. If it's just a plain pepper and vinegar hot sauce, with the peppers providing a lot of the bulk, the texture isn't going to be the same, though.
If the lack of that brighter pepper flavor is an issue, you might seek out recipes that already have plenty of non-pepper ingredients. Acids like lime and vinegar, fruits, and herbs could all help fill in the gaps.
Also, I don't know how severe your boyfriend's allergy is, but if you end up experimenting a lot, I'd suggest being careful to have him try chili powders before you use them in large quantities. I've never heard of chilis being peeled before made into powder, so I wouldn't be too surprised if not all chili powder is actually okay for him.
Thank you! I shall certainly have a go at a small quantity here and there. The worst that can happen is someone else gets given a jar of homemade hot sauce and we try and come up with another substitution :)
Fortunately I only ever use the powders to flavour things, not in huge quantities, but I have to use about half what I normally would else it can be too chili-i for him.
Keep an EpiPen handy, for safety reasons. Or at least Benadryl.
@FaithfulJewel: did he get any allergic reactions? Because otherwise I've got an idea of making your own spicy oil without skins.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.997621 | 2016-04-12T16:16:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68231",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Fabby",
"Faithful Jewel",
"GdD",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44985"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71531 | Are stainless steel saucepan glass lids dishwasher friendly?
All in the title really...
Are stainless steel Saucepan glass lids dishwasher friendly?
Probably depends on the brand. You should refer to your manufacturer's website.
The lids are most likely dishwasher safe.
Factors in dishwasher safe designation:
Will the item be damaged by high temp water? (probably not, this is a pan)
Will the item be damaged by the drying cycle heat elements? (probably not, it was designed to take high heat)
Is the item susceptible to the corrosive detergents used in dish washing?
I think most better brands would pass all three factors.
The corrosion from the detergent is the wildcard. On a lesser quality brand of kitchen ware:
Might the hardware (screw and washer) that attaches any handle knobs be a low quality metal?
Might the glass be soft and susceptible to abrasion? Is it really glass?
If a steel ring surrounds the lid edge, is it low quality metal?
I agree with comment: check with the manufacturer.
OT because we're talking lids here: but, most non-stick pans are not dishwasher safe. And of course: don't put your well seasoned iron cookware in a DW.
I've been putting non-stick pans in the dishwasher for 10 years. That's not what kills them, though if the coating is scratched right through it will flake off in the dishwasher faster than washing by hand.
Then you have very high quality non-stick pans.
On the contrary, we've just bought some decent ones but some had survived since student days (though not in daily use) so were about as cheap as you can buy.
It's not always specified, but plain glass is dishwasher safe, and the knob and its fastenings must be able to take steam. That's not to say there won't be a bit of an issue - on some of ours there's a gap under the knob that fill with water in the dishwasher - and not necessarily clean water. This is especially true if the screw needs tightening. Ours always go through the dishwasher as we essentially have a policy of "it either is dishwasher safe or it wasn't" except for items with sentimental value. Very little actually gets ruined.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.998235 | 2016-07-19T23:09:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71531",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71277 | Can I replace eggs, oil and water with apple sauce or just eggs?
So I am wanting to make chocolate zucchini bread and I plan on buying muffin mix from the store. I generally use apple sauce to replace eggs but I know the muffin mix also asks for water and oil. Do I add extra apple sauce to replace those two as well? If so, how much?
I know there are a lot of reasons people try to avoid eggs and oil, but why are you trying to replace the water? Do you just want more apple sauce in the bread?
I don't want to replace the water, I just wasn't sure if I still needed the water and oil after I replaced the eggs with applesauce. If not, do I still put in the amount given on the box or does that change because of the apple sauce? I hope that makes more sense!!
You may want to look on the box of the mix -- it may have an applesauce substitution written on it for preparation.
You can replace any of the three with applesauce, or all of them - with the caveat that it will change the taste and texture of the final product, with more difference from more substitution. You do not have to substitute all of them if you choose to substitute one of them - the substitutions would be independent of each other (other ingredient amounts stay the same), although the results will stack together.
Substituting eggs with applesauce is fairly common - the pectin replaces the binding action of the egg. One egg can be substituted with a quarter cup of applesauce. The effects on the recipe are usually minimal if only one egg is substituted in this fashion, the more eggs in the recipe that are replaced, the bigger the change (tending towards denser since egg lifts and fruit sauce weighs down).
Substituting applesauce for oil is apparently trickier, since they both inhibit gluten but oils additionally act as binding agents in the dough, while applesauce is largely watery and does not bind the dough. It is usually recommended to substitute out only part of the oil - and not more than a quarter cup total (in a one-to-one ratio) per recipe unless tested.
Substituting applesauce for water is more easily done since the purpose of the water is only to provide moisture, which applesauce has. It can be substituted one-to-one (though as it is thicker, more liquid might be needed depending on how wet the dough needs to be). Again you might end up with a slightly denser product, since you are essentially adding solids (more mass) to the recipe and fruit tends to weigh the bread down.
Overall, if you replace all three with applesauce your final product will be heavily apple-flavored, a great deal sweeter, and probably very dense and crumbly. It will not have the lift from the egg, or the binding from the oil. It will dry faster, and will suffer more if over-baked.
In the end, I do not recommend replacing all three ingredients in the same recipe. Replacing one will probably give you the best result, or the result most like the original recipe.
If you really want a recipe with all-apple-everything, you should probably look up a applesauce-bread recipe to begin with, or perhaps look at some of the recipes for banana bread that use a very high ratio of fruit to bread ingredients.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.998453 | 2016-07-08T00:23:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71277",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Madelyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47907"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70554 | How can I prevent little balls of oil in my ice cream when I'm using milk + butter instead of cream?
So I found a substitute for cream and I used it in ice cream:
I put 14 oz of milk and 1/2 cup sugar and 1/3 cup butter and 2 caps vanilla extract heated it to get the water out it made a thicker milk and the ice cream was creamy but it has a little balls of oil from the butter that are not that great. If I can get them out that would be awesome.
Easy solution... use cream.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34341/67
Adding butter to milk does not make it creamy. Your ice cream probably got a good enough consistency from the milk alone. That's not unusual, most commercial ice cream producers don't use cream either.
If you are asking what to do for the next batch: don't mix butter and milk, this is not just pointless, it leads to the fat globules you noticed. You can use cream for a richer ice cream, or milk if the creamless one is sufficient for you.
If you are asking what to do with this batch: The chances are not good. You can try melting it in the fridge, straining the ice cream base and churning it again. But the quality will be worse when churned for a second time, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.998745 | 2016-06-08T20:28:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70554",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
68668 | What constitutes a 'waxy potato'
Potato salad, dauphinoise, sauteed, with potato cooked but firm and keeping its form with a wonderful waxy texture. Common all over France but a rarity in the UK.
What varieties should we be looking for and where to find them?
You can get Charlotte or Desiree potatoes at Waitrose in the UK, both of which are waxy and will hold their structure well when cooked.
As a rule, potatoes that are colored (red, gold, blue) tend to be waxier than white potatoes (red being the waxiest), and fingerling potatoes are the waxier than other sizes. A more complete list can be found here.
Also, boiling your potato without peeling it first helps maintain waxiness.
In addition to choosing younger, colored potatoes, your cooking method can have an effect.
The pH of the water they are boiled in can change their texture - adding vinegar helps keep them firm, baking soda for mashing.
This affects all types of potatoes, so a bit of vinegar will help regardless of variety.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.998874 | 2016-04-29T22:14:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68668",
"authors": [
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69300 | Baked eggplant is bitter - is there a way to fix it?
Do I have to throw away bitter eggplant after I have baked it? Can something be done or do I have to throw it away?
IME, peel it beforehand is the only way that works.
Some extra salt will help hide the bitterness, but obviously that only goes so far before it's too salty.
I was roasting cubed eggplant and cherry tomatoes in the oven. Took one out to taste it and it was very BITTER! I did not have time to salt them first before cooking. I removed them from the roasting tray and put the eggplant into a hot frying pan with olive oil and constantly stirring it to encourage all the moisture to leach out. Then I added 1/4 teaspoon of granulated sugar and 2 Tablespoons of milk and 1/4 cup parmesan cheese. It removed and disguised all the bitterness. Hope this helps.
As already baked, I don't think so, it is possible to remove the bitterness. But you can make a curry (check some Indian recopies) with baked eggplant. It may help.
To avoid this problem in future:
Cut the eggplant in a salty water. Then drain it and bake it. Salt water will reduce its bitterness.
[edited based on the comment. Thanks Stephie]
The question clearly asks for dealing with bitterness after baking. While I agree that your method works in raw eggplants and hence helps *next time the asker prepares them, it does not solve the problem at hand.
Try Chinese eggplant next time. Very little or no bitteress. They are the long and thin one usually found at Asian groceries.
While this might be good advice for next time, how does it help now?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.998992 | 2016-05-27T16:42:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69300",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Stephie",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"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
} |
78436 | How do I properly substitute flour and water for sourdough starter?
I have a sourdough bread recipe that I want to try. The recipe calls for 2 cups starter but I do not have that much. It says I can use less and to just make up the difference with equal parts flour and water. If I use 1 cup of starter does that mean I use 1/2 cup of flour and 1/2 cup water? or 1 cup flour and 1 cup water?
This is my first sourdough bread attempt and I don't want to waste my starter with a stupid mistake. I have worked too hard at keeping my starter alive to mess it up now.
Welcome! I've redone your title so that it actually explains your problem more directly. I've also removed your overly self-critical content. We've all been in your position. There's no reason for you to fret that you're asking a "basic" question!
Starters are typically maintained at 100% hydration. That means equal parts water and flour. So, in your case, mix equal parts water and flour. Measure 1 cup of that, and add it to your mix. Of course, this will mean that all of your starter is gone. Alternately, feed your starter (equal parts water and flour) with more than you need, and let it sit on counter over night. Then you you can save the left over to use again next time.
@Stephie just happened to be poking around the same time you were...
Most starter recipes are using equal parts flour and water to cultivate the yeasts and lactobacillae. So yes, if you have to "top up", use a mix of half water, half flour.
I hope you are not going to use all of your starter for your bread, but are using some of it to keep cultivating it? A tablespoon is actually enough for a cup of water/flour slurry... Note that most starters need a few weeks (or months) to reach their full potential and good balance of yeast and bacteria.
I have 1 1/2 cups of starter that's why I need to use less than the 2 cups that the recipe call for. I want to keep the 1/2 cup I have left to keep my starter going.
@GJ.Baker Good! You said "basic question" and, believe it or not, we had users that thought they had to go through the whole "starting a sourdough from scratch" process for each bread.
I hate to admit it but I thought that also at the beginning of my bread baking. Thank goodness I figured it out before I made that mistake.
Because of the need to go through time to reach maturity, I would even be reluctant to use the start when I only had 1 1/2 cups. I would tend to feed it up first and only use extra after feeding. I never liked to go less than 1 1/2 to 2 cups left after use.
@dlb that much? I've rarely used more than a tablespoon to sustain my culture. (With extra feedings to increase the amount if I intend to bake.)
@Stephie May have been the climate I was in the last time I had starter, was alkaline water in Arizona, but if I went low, I would lose all sourness and it would be like I was starting from scratch. I need to try again now that I am more in sourdough country. Third time mine turned pink I gave up a few years ago.
You've got another problem - you have less than 2 cups of starter and you're about to use it all?
The answer to your actual question is as follows:
You can't really do it this way. This is a good example of why weight is a more useful measurement than volume in baking. A cup of inactive starter will weigh more than a cup of bubbly, active, rising starter, because the active starter has lots of air in it. Adding flour and water will increase the weight, but not the volume, and when you're using sourdough starter to bake, it should always be bubbly and active, usually about 3 hours after its last feeding.
Solution:
The next time you feed your starter, take the portion you remove from the main batch, weigh that removed portion and put it in a bowl. Feed the main batch as usual, then feed the removed portion too (as a general rule, the feeding process involves equal amounts by weight - e.g., 4 ounces starter gets 4 ounces flour and 4 ounces water, but you can increase the amount of flour and water a bit without causing problems). Loosely cover the bowl with plastic wrap or foil or a clean cloth, then let it sit at room temperature until it is very active, bubbly, and rising.
A cup of active, ready-to-use starter should weigh roughly 7 ounces (~200 grams). A cup of flour weighs about 4 1/2 ounces (120 grams). A cup of water weighs about 8 ounces (~236 grams). You want to end up with about 14 ounces (~400 grams) of starter.
For your specific needs, when you put the removed portion of the starter in the bowl, subtract iits weight from your desired total (14 ounces/ 400 grams). The resulting number is what you have to add - half of the weight in flour, half in water.
For example: If you put 3 ounces of starter in the bowl, you need to add 5.5 ounces (160 grams) of flour and 5.5 ounces (160 grams) of water to it.
Wait about 3 hours or until the starter in the bowl is bubbling happily, and has visibly risen a bit. Now your starter is ready to go, and you can either measure it out with a measuring cup to make sure it is 2 cups, or weigh it to make sure it weighs 14 ounces (400 grams).
There's a better way to do all of this next time you want to make something with your starter: the last time you feed it before you start baking, skip the part where you remove some of the starter. Just feed it with the amount of flour and water you normally would, wait a few hours for it to bubble and rise, then take what you need for your recipe1. You'll have enough for your recipe, and you'll still have starter left for future use.
Notes:
1 There's a reason you're supposed to remove most of the starter before feeding - if you just keep pouring flour and water into the starter without getting rid of some first, the amount of yeast and bacteria increases until the amount of flour and water isn't enough to feed them all. It makes the yeast and bacteria less active - and less able to leaven bread - and it throws the starter's ph levels out of whack. You can't feed without removing some starter every single time you feed it, but doing it every now and then when you are about to bake with it is fine.
Do not use all of your starter.
You should not have to "waste [your] starter" when making the bread, and generally speaking, starters require very little maintenance to keep alive. The main thing you have to do is use it occasionally and keep the consistency right (kind of like pancake batter, maybe a little more runny).
If you do not have enough starter, just feed it some more.
It is generally bad practice to use up all of your starter, because how will you make your next loaf? Just add some flour and water to your starter the day before and presto, you have more starter. This isn't even usually necessary though, as you can add a greatly varying amount of starter to your bread as it will leaven your dough over time. If you used less starter than your recipe called for, just let your dough sit a little longer.
Sourdough is an art, not a science.
If this is your first time using sourdough, which seems to be the case, I highly recommend finding someone versed in its use, and learn some tips from them. My bread "recipe" is more like a suggestion, but I change it every time based on how my sourdough seems to be doing. Humidity, activity, and flour type are all factors that can influence how it behaves. That being said, sourdough is easier than you might think - it's hard to mess up, but getting that perfect loaf just requires experience and an intimate knowledge of your starter. Give it a go and don't worry too much. If it doesn't turn out exactly like you wanted, make some adjustments for next time. Just don't use all of your starter so there will be a next time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.999170 | 2017-02-15T20:30:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78436",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GJ.Baker",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54545",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77589 | Making homemade seitan for stew recipe, do I need to cook the seitan first, then cool it, then use it?
There are several homemade seitan recipes available, and all call for boiling the seitan in some kind of broth for a bit, then letting it cool. I'm making seitan for this "vegan beef stew" recipe.
Do I need to boil the seitan first, then let it cool, then use it in this recipe? Or can I just make the seitan and use it "raw" since I'm going to be boiling it in the stew anyway? Is seitan something that wants to be twice cooked or anything along that line?
Raw seitan can work in these kind of dishes, but it needs a different kind of temperature regime than "just boiling" it.
You want to avoid heating it through above the boiling point of water before it is well set, otherwise you will get a lot of expansion and a brain-y/fluffy texture that is far from meaty. Also, raw seitan pieces tend to recombine (it is glue protein after all). You will eventually need to heat it to boiling point to "finish" the texture.
The surface can be a bit "slimy" in the end result, probably due to remaining starch coagulating on it - this is not a problem in thick sauces but can be in thin and soupy dishes.
A strategy I found working well:
Cut raw seitan, so your thinnest dimension is a cm or less.
Sear surface with an open flame (brulee torch, stove burner...) to get some browning and to stop it from being sticky. Avoid overdoing it, you neither want strong expansion nor a strong burnt-hair taste. Do not saute instead, this will cause too much expansion.
Have your cooking liquid (broth,sauce,soup) ready, set up for a long simmer at a stable temperature. A rich or even emulsified liquid is preferrable, so add any fats (or things like coconut milk) now. Avoid adding strong acids or anything that could act as a protein tenderizer yet. It should be well out of the food safety danger zone but safely BELOW ANY BOILING. 70-90°C. Repeat: You do not want it boiling even for a moment before the seitan is well set.
Add the seitan. Add anything else that benefits from long stewing. Make sure there is enough liquid to well cover it, some expansion can still happen. Leave alone to simmer for 3 hours.
Finish - bring to boil, and boil anything that needs boiling alongside, so you have a 15-30 min boiling phase. You will get some expansion but not overexpansion of the seitan pieces.
I would first try this by cooking the seitan separately. I think that it needs time and heat for the protein chains to form and create that wonderful 'meaty' texture. Also because beef would have flavor of its own, I'd think your end product would be more flavorful if you cooked the seitan per it's directions and flavorings, and then added that to your stew ingredients.
I'm kinda thrifty tho so I would cook the seitan first and probably try to use the leftover 'stock' from the seitan recipe in the stew. Just to save money and time.
You can use the raw seitan in the stew like it says in the recipe. Please be sure to knead it properly first to get the glutens nice and firm/strong before adding it to the other ingredients - if it seems too soft or wet, let it sit for 10 minutes or so and then knead it again until it is firm. I've made it using the recipe's method several times in the past for similar dishes. It should be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.999716 | 2017-01-19T01:13:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77589",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76308 | Vegan egg substitute in sweet roll dough
Every Christmas we have home made sweet rolls. The recipe calls for 1 egg. Is there anything I could use to replace the egg so the new vegan people in the family can still eat the rolls? Or can I just leave the egg out?
I myself have no idea, but I'll bet the experts who will be reading this shortly will be asking you for the rest of your recipe, so they can intelligently suggest replacements for the egg.
Thank you, Lorel C. It is - 2 pk dry yeast, 2 C H2O, 1/2 C sugar, 1/4 C shortening (using vegan butter), 1 egg, 6 1/2 to 7 C flour, light salt.
Please use the edit button to add that information to your question.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. You're really asking for a vegan sweet roll recipe, and recipe requests are off-topic here. But, Googling "vegan sweet rolls" got me this; I'm sure you could find more.
I really think ah2oman already has a recipe which the whole family enjoys and has adopted as a tradition. The question is only about a substitution for the egg. Ingredient substitutions are entertained here frequently. If the zeal shown on this site for guarding against recipe requests were applied across the internet, we could eliminate hate speech, racism, and terrorism from "cyberspace" by the end of the year.
@DanielGriscom Questions about adjusting existing recipes are generally acceptable
You can use either chia seeds or ground linseed.
Mix a tablespoon of chia/linseed with 3 tablespoons of water and let it sit on the counter for about twenty minutes.
That mixture will replace the egg in almost any recipe for bread/mixed cake.
The rest period is important, as it allows the water to soak up the sticky proteins from the linseed/chia.
Going out on a limb here, because I'm not a bread expert, but since your recipe includes plenty of water, yeast and flour, which are known --by themselves-- to produce delicious results, my feeling is 1 egg can safely be left out without causing a massive disruption in the balance of the rest of the ingredients. Common sense tells me any loss of richness from one missing egg will be barely noticed in a mixture with 6.5 to 7 cups of flour.
Eggs add oily richness, so sometimes it helps to throw in a teaspoon or so of extra vegetable oil to help with that homey yummy "oomph", but in this case, the caring gesture of inclusiveness toward the new members of your family will probably more than compensate for the loss of an egg. (My 2 cents worth.)
Soy flour, chickpea flour or other legume flours (mixed in with the main flour at 1:20 to 1:5 by weight) work well for some recipes - experimentation needed.
These are strong,sticky binders (a slurry of chickpea flour can be turned into a viable omelette); how they will effect the final texture is quite dependent on leavening methods etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000090 | 2016-12-10T05:31:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76308",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Lorel C.",
"ah2oman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52687"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76579 | Can I make a pineapple upside down cheesecake in a springform pan?
I'm making a pineapple upside down cheesecake in a springform pan. Will it leak out? I haven't found a recipe for this. Any suggestion I'm going to put a crust just around the edge of the spring pan to possible stop leakage.
It might leak out. I don't think the crust is would be strong enough. You could possibly make a crust that will work, but when it cooks it may come unattached from the pan and the liquid will leak out. Can you share a picture of your pan? The answer might depend on how wide the edge is.
It depends on the pan. If you assemble your pan and put some water in it, does the water leak out? If not, you're certainly fine. If it leaks slowly, then you're probably fine (but put some foil under it when you bake it). If it leaks quickly, then you've got a problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000346 | 2016-12-18T00:02:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76579",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76892 | How to store a 5 gallon bucket of pickle slices?
A family member just gave us a 5 gallon bucket of kosher hamburger dill slices (for frying). I moved the shelves and shifted everything around, and found room for it. The shelves are tempered glass, so I placed it on the bottom shelf, above the vegetable drawers. If the shelf doesn't break, then this will work, for now. The bucket says to keep refrigerated. Any ideas on other options for how to store it?
I'd transfer to pint mason jars and store in the refrigerator -- at least until I figured out what to do next.
I found room for it, for now. I think splitting it into mason jars would take up more space. I didn't think the fridge was big enough for a five gallon bucket, but somehow it fit.
Given the rectangular shape of a refrigerator, I'd transfer into rectangular, stackable, smaller containers that can lurk at the back of many shelves, rather than one big hulking bucket on the bottom shelf. This also limits contamination as you open the container to get some to eat, makes it easier to decide to get some to eat, and allows the fridge space used to shrink as you use up each container.
I'd also suggest eating (frying? pickles? OK...?) a bunch. Have a fried pickle themed new years eve party.
As far as I know you can't can them for room temperature storage without pretty much ruining their essential difference from pickles that come that way - as I understand it, kosher dills are naturally fermented and thus always kept under refrigeration.
Alternatively, find an additional fridge (perhaps one with wire shelves) and make it the pickle fridge ;-) it could live somewhere out of the way (like the basement) and you'd take your smaller container from the kitchen fridge down when it ran out to refill from the big bucket. But this may be a bit overkill unless this will be a recurring bucket of pickles.
Battered, fried pickles are a common appetizer in my area.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000441 | 2016-12-28T21:00:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76892",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Sebastian Hahn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53191"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74797 | Unused cookie dough
I arranged my cookie dough on the pan when I noticed I was out of gas. I put the pan in the freezer and ended up without gas yesterday.
Its the next day now and the cookie dough is still arranged on the pan (in the freezer). The recipe has egg, baking powder and baking soda. I have gas now but I'm worried the dough is wasted,
Is it still good? can I still use it? is there any remedy?
What you've done is perfectly fine, and your cookies will bake as usual, although they make need an extra few minutes in the oven. As a matter of fact, the method you've used is what is recommended for scooped cookies, when you you want to prep in advance and bake days, or weeks, later. Since your baking sheet has also been chilled, you might let it sit at room temperature for a bit, rather than transferring it directly from freezer to oven.
Thank you so much for this answer. Will do just as you have said.
Little comment i forgot to mention though, the cookie dough is rolled and flattened on the pan, its not in a ziplock or any other storage.
@Bo-Learner that's fine, too. By the time the sheet goes into the oven, the dough will be defrosted, or nearly so. Just watch the baking, as you usually would, so that they don't overcook.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000615 | 2016-10-17T11:32:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74797",
"authors": [
"Bo-Learner",
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51276"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97013 | Dry Cookie Dough
I used this recipe to make chocolate chip cookies. I’ve made it many times and it usually is a hit! This time, I decided to use brown butter instead of room temperature. The dough turned out very dry, to the point where I had to add egg whites and squish the dough into balls to even get a cookie shape.
I chilled the cookies in the freezer for about 2 hours before baking. As they were baking, the cookies wouldn’t spread. I had to bake them for at least 15 minutes, much longer than normal. The final product tasted good, but they were still dry.
Where did I go wrong?! Any tips to substituting brown butter into chocolate chip cookie recipes?
What were you trying to accomplish using brown butter in your cookies?
Delicious cookies??
So the intent was to change the flavor of the cookies by changing the flavor of the butter? Did you notice a change in the flavor of the end result, and if so did you like it?
Yes, I used deeply browned butter. It makes the final result rich and almost nutty. I would recommend it! The cookies were a hit.
I think the problem is that the browned butter lacked water the recipe was relying on. the only sources of liquid in the recipe is the eggs and the butter, so losing one of those sources would make a big difference
Butter ordinarily has some water in it, I've seen numbers like 16-20% water, the rest being fats and milk solids. That water has to be evaporated out to make browned butter - it won't get hot enough to brown until enough water's gone, since evaporating water keeps the heat down.
So I think measuring in browned butter instead of regular butter, meant you ended up with more fats and less liquid that the recipe called for (by that same 16-20%).
I expect you can fix this by just re-adjusting the water ratio, putting in ~80% of the butter called for and making up the rest with water, milk, whatever liquid you want.
This would be pretty much the same adjustment needed to sub butter and oil, for the same reason.
Thank you so much!! That makes sense - I didn’t think of the evaporation. I’ll try again with the suggested adjustments. Thanks again!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000744 | 2019-03-21T01:53:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97013",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Neegan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73604"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104239 | Bakers semi-sweet chocolate packaging
In baking chocolate marshmallo logs, the recipe calls for 3 sq of semisweet chocolate. In the new packaging box, how many squares do I now use?
Squares of classic Baker’s chocolate were usually 1 oz each so, regardless of the brand, if the recipe calls for three squares, you should use three ounces of chocolate.
You can see in the image above that there are eight individually-wrapped one-ounce squares in the box.
The box should indicate the weight for each square or rectangle. If it doesn’t, check for the total weight of the box in ounces and divide by the number of squares. So, as an example, if you have a four-ounce bar divided into eight squares, each square is 1/2 ounce. To have three ounces, you need six squares.
Since you don’t state what your box has, I can’t tell you specifically but this should get you to the answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.000943 | 2019-12-21T20:44:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104239",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116427 | Chicken breast out of oven after cooking a while; can I return it to the oven to continue cooking?
I cooked boneless chicken breast at 350 F (175 C) for 30 min, then took it out of the oven. I left it out for 30 mins or so; the temperature was 104. Can I return it to the oven to cook to a temperature of 165 now?
Was that the temp when you took it out of the oven or after it sat for 30 min? You might not need to cook it more if that was the temp after sitting for so long.
@Kat I highly doubt that a chicken breast will go from a safe internal temp to 104F in 30 min.
In safety terms, yes. It's been in the 'danger zone' for a short enough time.
For texture, I'd say 30 mins was already borderline over-cooked, so it's only going to toughen up still further.
I agree, in principle, but tough to make a recommendation on this given the wording. Remember, time in the danger zone is cumulative. This assumes the chicken was never in the danger zone before cooking. It would be helpful to have more information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001035 | 2021-07-15T22:09:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116427",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88537 | Can I substitute chocolate chips for cacao nibs in a cookie recipe?
I found a recipe for Chocolate Brownie Cookies and am wondering whether I can substitute semi-sweet chocolate chips for the 3 TB cacao nibs? I'm going to be serving this at a party so I don't want a bitter taste.
Chocolate Brownie Cookies Recipe
3 cups gluten-free powdered sugar
¾ cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1 teaspoon kosher salt
2 large egg whites
1 large egg
4 oz. bittersweet chocolate, chopped
3 tablespoons cocoa nibs
I saw that this question was asked previously but the answers all assumed that the bitter taste of the nibs was preferred. I tried to post a comment but don't have 50 points!
I was curious about the gluten-free powdered sugar. I thought all powdered sugar was gluten free. But, I looked it up, and apparently there are a few brands that include some wheat products in the blend. Thanks for helping me learn something new!
You can.
It will be a different cookie, but chocolate chips are conventional in chocolate cookies -- more so than cocoa nibs in fact. I assume they're simply stirred in to the mix after the other ingredients. The texture of the surrounding cookie (and the cooking time) may be affected a little, but only within normal batch-to-batch variation.
If the bittersweet chocolate is added in the same way (as opposed to melted), I'd just scale that up. You may instead want to use a contrasting chocolate. You could even replace the nibs with chopped nuts.
Yes, the bittersweet chocolate is folded in along with the cacao nibs.
I really like the idea of using nuts or a contrasting chocolate. Milk chocolate chips would go really well with the bittersweet chocolate, and it would reduce the overall bitterness of the cookies. Keep in mind that you should increase the amount significantly. (3 tablespoons of chocolate chips won't do much for your cookies.)
@mrog the increase is a good point. I was tempted to suggest white chocolate for the visual effect, but it burns so easily it would need extra carer
@ChrisH You're right about the visual effect of white chocolate. That would also be a good choice.
Absolutely you can as long as they're not being melted into the dough. Cocoa nibs are smaller than chocolate chips, if you use chips you'll run into bigger chunks of chocolate. Cocoa nibs are also a slightly different flavor, more complexity and less powerful chocolate flavor, so you'll get a different result.
If you don't have cocoa nibs but you want to replicate the consistency and shape you could shave some chocolate on a grater, or chop it into small chunks with a knife.
Some brands also offer mini-chocolate chips... that's what I usually use since I make smaller cookies. :D
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001149 | 2018-03-22T20:24:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88537",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Deborah Scheimer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65984",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88729 | Can I use an electric smoker without wood chips as an oven to cook a ham?
I'm cooking a big dinner. I am wondering if I can use my electric smoker without woods chips like a second oven so I can free up space in oven inside. Will it cook my ham well? I don't want to smoke my ham.
I wouldn't recommend it, but that said your ham by definition has already been cured and all you are really doing is heating it.
Smokers are optimized for smoking meats at a lower temperature than a traditional oven or fire. They use a combination of smoke and water moisture to make great moist smoked meat. You could easily make your own ham by taking a pig's leg bone and "smoking" it with or without wood chips.
You should always use a smoker outside, and not indoors. Why can I have an indoor pizza/wood oven, but not a BBQ or smoker? (or can I...?)
Happy Easter!
This uses a rather specific defintion of ham; many meats sold as ham joints in many countries do need cooking.
Yes, they are often marketed specifically for the purpose of being portable outdoor ovens.
They are usually not well insulated and are aimed at lower temperatures. It would be tricky to bake a cake in one. But meat is less fussy and it should work fine. Just keep an eye on the internal temperature (ideally, with a probe thermometer) so that you can adjust it before it overcooks.
I would use the electric smoker as an oven for things like your side dishes..ones that wouldn't need high searing heat. For example.. roasting baked potatoes, or sweet potatoes, carrots and parsnips anything that can be done at a lower temperature like 250? You can also start like a pot roast or pulled pork roast ( if you aren't smoking it) in your regular oven and then move the meat to the electric smoker and use it as a "low and slow" oven... braising is usually done lower temps. You could also use the electric smoker as a hot box to keep food warm as well. I actually got a free electric smoker when buying furniture and plan on using it this Thanksgiving to free up oven space.
I have used my electric smoker for warming a ham I put mine in a foil pan put all the rub on it the brown sugar put water in the bottom covered it with foil left it in there for about 2 hours at 2:50 maybe three depending on how big it is and it worked out fine
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001368 | 2018-03-29T16:35:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88729",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"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
} |
78434 | My yeast looks lke brown water
I am making bread and my yeast is not foaming. I am using water at 110 F and my yeast is good - I recently used it a couple of days ago, and it worked fine. This time, it looks like brown water; it has dissolved, but never foamed. I keep my yeast in the refrigerator. Instead of using it right after I have removed it, should I pull it out and let it warm up first? I don't think I pulled it out and let it warm up the last time, but I am unsure.
110F is almost too hot for the yeast. 100F works just as well and leaves a threshold of safety.
You do not have to warm the yeast before placing it into the water.
Try 1/2 tsp of sugar in 50 grams of 100F water to start the yeast. It should be a party in there within 10 minutes. If not, you've got dead yeast.
The pinch of sugar to kick start should do the trick for you. I have also had issues getting the buggers to wake up if my yeast bowl had soap residue with chlorinated water. I always keep my yeast refrigerated though, and even freezing should not kill it, the tepid water should wake it with the sugar kick starter.
@GJ.Baker : To test the water temp, I run the hot tap against the inside of my wrist -- when it feels warm (above body temp), stop the tap, then grab your measuring cup and fill it. (it helps to have an old house w/ copper pipes that takes a little while to warm up for this one)
Indeed, I think peak activity is more like 90F, so playing the high end of yeast viability is not even beneficial...plain ol' room temperature works just fine i you are not in a hurry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001559 | 2017-02-15T19:38:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78434",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"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
} |
81235 | How can I keep the crust of my breads from getting too dark?
Some of the breads that I bake the crust gets too dark. Is there something I can put over it to prevent this from happening? I was thinking that foil might work but I'm not sure. Will this affect the taste? And if it's ok to use, do you put it on tightly or loosely?
This question about the opposite issue might have some information that's useful to you about browning: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75443/how-to-reduce-cracking-and-increase-browning-in-sourdough-loaves/75943#75943
Foil will reflect heat, and I have a canonical answer on here someplace about using it to modify baking in ovens that have issues with, say, burning the bottom of a loaf.
But if the whole loaf is affected, the problem is one of temperature or ingredients (or the intersection of the two.) Less sugar in the dough will reduce browning of the crust, and lower temperature will also reduce browning of the crust. Assuming you are happy with the overall taste, I'd start with turning the oven down, not attempting to shield the whole loaf with foil. You may need to increase baking time at lower temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001713 | 2017-04-25T23:15:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81235",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86085 | Does heavy cream "go further" than light cream or milk in soup
I know the chief difference between light and heavy cream is the amount of fat in it. What I'm wondering about is the flavor. The fat will give it texture, but I'm not sure that in a soup it would make that much of a difference. When I'm searching for substitutions online the answer is along the lines of "Sure! Just use that ____ instead!" but that's not exacty what I'm asking for. High cholesterol runs in my family and I very much would like to use a lighter cream when possible, but that isn't always possible. I don't always have it, and I'm not in a position to run out and get some, like just now when I had a pot on the stove and it's late at night.
So the question is, will the flavor be the same if I use, say, a 1:2 substitution for heavy to light cream. That is, can I use half as much and still get the same flavor?
This is a general question, but if you want a specific example, I was making a potato, kale and sausage soup.
Also, know that I make my soups more like stew, with very little in the way of "free" liquids.
If you are worried about fat content, why use cream at all? Just take a cup of your soup (without the sausage), puree it, and add it back to the soup. While cream adds a richness you can't replicate, I doubt you would miss it.
For soups like this also consider evaporated milk. It contains only about 8% milkfat, so it has significantly less fat even than half and half, which contains between 10% and 18% (cream of course has more). Evaporated milk also comes in a can, so its easy to keep handy. Texture-wise, because its so much thicker than regular milk, it makes an excellent replacement for cream. As far as taste goes, I think in soups and other strongly flavored dishes where the cream is present only to provide creaminess you won't notice a difference. In something more delicate or where the cream itself is a flavor component you may need to do a little experimenting, but generally I would say you could substitute it 1:1 for cream.
For your original question: "will the flavor be the same if I use, say, a 1:2 substitution for heavy to light cream. That is, can I use half as much and still get the same flavor?" I think it would depend on the quantity. Generally, the larger the quantity called for in the recipe, the less heavy cream you might need to achieve the same result. So, if the recipe calls for 1-2 tablespoons, I would bet that you would want to use the full amount. However, in something that calls for a cup of light cream, you may be able to get away with 1/2-3/4 cup of heavy cream, depending on the dish and your taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.001820 | 2017-12-03T02:55:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86085",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82977 | Alternative for Swenson condensed milk. I'm diabetic
I'm diabetic. I've been given a receipt for ice box pie that uses this milk. What can I use to replace it with less sugar than receipts shown? It's made with Kool-Aid and cool whip.
Welcome! Can you post the full recipe and method?
There are actually many recipes for making your own sugar-free or low-sugar sweetened condensed milk. They generally involve combining non-fat milk or powdered milk and water with a sugar substitute like Splenda. Alternately, if it's sufficiently low in sugar, you can add Splenda or another no-calorie sweetener to evaporated milk.
We don't share recipes here but I encourage you to find one that works for you with your preference of milk product and sugar substitute.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002035 | 2017-07-14T01:48:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82977",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86528 | Lemon Butter Sauce too acidic
My Lemon Butter sauce was way too acidic. What can I use to mellow the sauce? I started with 1/4 cup lemon, added shallots and garlic and reduced by half. Then added 1/2 stick butter, cherry tomatoes and fresh bay scallops, and served over angle hair pasta. It was very lemony and acidic.
It doesn't help after the fact -- but consider using less juice, but include the zest (either grated or finely chopped, or large pieces to remove before serving).
If that is 1/4 cup lemon juice, that seems like quite a lot and reducing it is also probably making it taste even more lemony. If you want to keep about the same amount of liquid, try softening the shallots and garlic in 1 t olive oil and then adding 2T dry white wine and reducing. Add 1T lemon juice and bring to boil again but don't reduce, add in the cherry tomatoes, scallops and the 1/2 stick butter. You could also reserve half the butter to swirl in after the scallops are cooked through.
Depending on what you want to achieve (decreasing the acidic taste or increasing the pH) it could be as simple as adding a dash of honey or baking soda respectively...
I did both, added a touch baking soda and honey, cut the whole sauce in half, added broth and water and finally added capers and butter as originally planned.
Worked well
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002125 | 2017-12-19T01:12:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86528",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
} |
78031 | How to make softer frozen whipped cream?
I recently found out that a few decades ago frozen whipped cream was a thing and my mom liked it. It was similar to normal whipped cream only a bit harder frozen (but still softer than ice cream) and could last for ages in the freezer.
Now I tried to make some for her and it was good, however mine is always too hard while frozen compared to what she loved. When it warms up it is fine and personally I don't find it too hard but whatever.
The process I use is simple, mix cream (36%), some sugar and vanilla extract whip until done and either freeze in one piece or in smaller ones.
Any ideas how to make it softer while frozen and ideally hard when it thaws? I've thought about adding some milk (it's to late to buy one with less fat) to reduce the fat content or not whipping it as much. Do you think any would work and if so which would you recommend?
Have you tried varying the amount of sugar?
I put in one bag of vanilla sugar and one table spoon of normal per 250ml. Are you suggesting less or more? Less makes it not sweet and disgusting so would just exchange one problem for another. More I can try, how much do you suggest? I also have some fake sweeteners which will dissolve in water? How about that?
I really don't know, otherwise I would write an answer, but my thinking is if this was a commercial product back then, it very likely had plenty of sugar in it. So I wondered if experimenting with just a little bit more sugar than you normally would add might make a softer product. Sugar does seem to add to the liquid content when mixed with liquidy stuff, rather than drying it up as flour or other dry things would, and it also seems to inhibit freezing (think of frozen lemonade mix or grape juice concentrate: I think it's the sugar that keeps it so soft in the freezer)
I called her and asked if she'r rather have that which I can't guarantee will be like it was or if she'd rather have some whipped cream with a Nutella like spread and walnuts I can guarantee will be good.. She picked the latter. And it is (or mostly was) awesome.
But thanks for the help I'll do more experiments and get it right one of these days.
I know that there's a no churn ice cream that uses condensed milk and heavy cream, it seems to stay pretty soft, you might want to give that a try.
Is it possible that when your mother enjoyed it in the past it simply came from a less cold freezer?
More fat, not less, will make it softer while frozen.
My advice is to use inverted sugar
Inverted sugar helps to avoid crystallization and the frozen cream will be substantially smoother.
Can you use corn syrup?
Corn syrup, contains maltose, while inverted sugar contains glucose and fructose. They have different properties and different nutritional content. Inverted Sugar cannot be substituted with corn syrup in this application (avoiding crystallization of frozen cream)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002352 | 2017-02-02T18:44:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78031",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"GdD",
"Lorel C.",
"Mr. C",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jscs",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79423 | How to figure the calories in a boxed cake mix if applesauce is used instead of egg and oil?
How can I calculate calories in a cake if I use applesauce instead of egg and oil? Because on the box it is counted using the egg and oil.
look up calories for egg, look up calories for oil, look up calories for amount applesauce, add and subtract from the number on the box?
The nice thing about calories is that they are very constant, mixing or combining things does not change the sum of calories.
So in short, calculate the calories you add (the applesauce) and the calories you leave out (eggs, oil). Add and subtract these from what the box says and you're done.
If the box gives calories per unit or serving, you'd first have to calculate the calories for the whole box, then do the adding / substracting step, then, if wanted, divide the results into servings again. (The Rule of Three comes handy in these cases.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002593 | 2017-03-27T01:21:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79423",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78818 | Substitute for jaggery in chutney
I'm making an Indian tomato and ginger chutney. What can I find in Brisbane to use as a substitute for 200 grams of jaggery?
I believe you meant "Jaggery" (aka Panela) a unrefined cane sugar product. If so, I would suggest a "Muscovado" sugar, as it is whole or partially unrefinued cane sugar. You may need to experiment and blend between dark and medium muscovado to get the taste you desire. I suggest either try a medium brown muscovado or a 1:1 ratio of dark and medium brown muscovado sugar.
Also palm sugar or dark coconut sugar can be used, with a similar taste. Though these may be as hard to find as jaggery
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002698 | 2017-03-01T23:34:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78818",
"authors": [
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65594 | What causing royal icing to get stringy?
When I try to make small dots on my cookie decorations, sometimes the royal or syrup icing gets stringy so it leaves a trail instead of coming off the dot clean.
As Escoce mentioned, it's partially technique.
After you finish your dot, you want to move the tip in a quick circle while keeping the tip against the dot, then lift off. This will help to minimize the peak created.
If it's only a peak, and hasn't put icing all over the place, you can take a damp brush and knock down the peak.
'Threads' might be too fine for this, but typically if icing has gotten where you don't want it (eg, typos in words), it's often better to wait for it to harden, gently break it free with a toothpick, and then brush it away with a soft brush. If you really mar the surface in the process, cover it up with a flower or other decoration.
I suspect that the cause of this problem is the corn starch -- it has some strange properties when hydrated in certain ranges. But if you jerk it around quickly, it'll break rather than stretch.
I had this problem piping rosettes. It came out stringy.
I think the icing might have been too soft. I put it back in the fridge in the bag, for a few mins to firm up. Or take it out of bag and remix it.
If that doesn't work, there might be air bubbles in it. Take most of it out of the bag and remix it. Take your small spatula and remove the mess.
But, in my case, I firmed it up in fridge and it worked.
Also, having a cold cake or cupcake makes it easy to clean up mistakes.
Two things, it's perhaps too thin, and technique (trial and error and practice) has a lot to do with it.
When it's thick enough it will break off before it makes a string.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002778 | 2016-01-19T02:26:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65594",
"authors": [
"Amita Patel",
"Cindy Mendenhall",
"Jack Lowenstein",
"Jennifer Gray",
"Joe",
"Robert Holding",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156837",
"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
} |
67990 | Substituting canola oil in salad
I have a recipe for Asian salad using canola oil and rice vinegar. Is there a substitution for canola oil that will not be changing the flavor? I would prefer to not use vegetable oil.
What do you mean by "not vegetable oil"? — Canola, corn, safflower, peanut, coconut, soy, etc., etc., are all vegetable oils. Non-vegetable oils would be either animal or mineral. Some types of fish oil are purportedly quite healthy, but I imagine they would impart a strong flavor. I also don't think you'd want to dress a salad with mineral oil.
We don't discuss health topics here. We can recommend oils but not make any claims about health.
@ElmerCat I'm guessing the op means the product sold in the US as "vegetable oil". Depending on brand it can be a wide variety of bases.
usually virgin olive oil works perfectly with salads, and it is very healty. can u specify at least what ur salad contains to help u find some oil that goes with it?
@Zeina olive oil is not flavorless. It is very flavorful.
@Catija yes sorry ddnt pay attention for this part in the question...
Canola oil is a neutral oil (meaning it has little/no flavor of itself) so you need another neutral oil to work. If you want to avoid vegetable oil (which in USA usually means soybean oil), you can try peanut oil, sunflower oil, or safflower oil. These are all neutral oils and should not change the flavor of the recipe.
The closest I've found to an oil that imparts no taste to foods is grapeseed oil. It's my go-to even for making fries.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.002972 | 2016-04-03T21:57:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67990",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"Zeina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67085 | How do you dry homemade pasta so that it stays straight?
I did a big batch of homemade pasta (linguini) with stand mixer + pasta cutter attachment. But they all warped during the 24h drying process. I then need a huge bag to store them as they take up a lot of space.
Is there a trick to make them dry straight?
How did you dry them? Flat? On what sort of surface? Please give us some base stats so we know what didn't work for you.
I hung them on a clothes drying rack !
Hang-dry pasta on a pole will result in the most straight pastas.
the finer (smaller) diameter pole you can find will result in smaller curvature in the pasta where they bend on the pole.
I've seen people use a metallic cloth dryer or metallic coat hangers (hanging on a pole of some sort)
Generally, I agree... but at this point, that could be what the OP already did and is unsatisfied with the results.
If you're really anal retentive, you might be able to fit stuff hung on a smaller diameter inside that hung on a larger diameter, if you really wanted to get it into as small an area as possible ... but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
@Max I did hang it on a metallic rack. The problem is not the curvature induced by the rack pole in itself, but the pastas actually warp afterwards when they dry, making storage very problematic. I have 1,5 kg of pastas but they fill a whole grocery bag because they are not straight like pastas you can buy in boxes.
Drying on a pole/hanging is an invitation for curving, unless your indoor humidity is quite high. The outer surface dries faster than the core, creating stress. The stress caused by uneven moisture makes the curves. You want to briefly surface dry so the pasta does not stick together, which can be done on a rack. After some minutes, put the pasta on a tray(s) you can cover with a box to slow dehydration. Allow the outer surfaces to equalize with the cores by very slow drying. Lift the box every few hours to allow wet air to escape. Cover the pasta again. Repeat. The goal is to dry as slowly as possible but avoid mold.
If you freeze home made pasta, you get a much better fresh-pasta taste and texture than by drying it- plus it doesn't go wavy.
Coat the pasta liberally with flour then shake off the excess, put it in a plastic bag and pop it in the freezer. When you want to use it, let it defrost in the fridge for a few hours. This works for gyoza wrappers as well.
While this may be true, it doesn't really answer the question.
Thanks for you advice. I'll try it out, I just don't have enough space in my freezer !
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.003115 | 2016-03-04T17:38:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67085",
"authors": [
"Alix VandenBrink",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Judy Kerr",
"Ludovic C",
"Mike",
"Phil Blundell",
"Shana Barger",
"ellen kavanagh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jason sennett"
],
"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
} |
82485 | Confusion about chicken leg & thighs nutrition facts (calories)
First of all, the nutrition facts given by USDA doesn't make sense to me. I'll refer only to skinless facts. Chicken breasts have 120kcal and chicken legs have the same. I know chicken breast have more protein and less fat, however I think chicken legs are much fattier.
When the are roasted, chicken legs have a higher caloric value (174 kcal) than breasts (165 kcal). The same applies for chicken thighs, which have very similar values.
I tried to calculate the amount of nutrients/calories in a chicken leg, but I got incongruent results.
I weighted full chicken headquarters without skin and it was 266g. I bake it in the oven at 400F/200C for 40 minutes and it reached and internal temperature of 200F/93C.
Cooked weight was 225g. Bones was 64g. Therefore:
Raw meat: 266-64 = 202g ; 202g * 120kcal/100g = 242 kcal
Cooked meat: 225-64 = 161g ; 161g * 174kcal/100g = 280 kcal
So 280 kcal / 202g raw meat = 139 kcal / 100g raw meat
Why didn't they match? I think the are very well done, so they should have lost a lot of water. But they would have to lose more water so the calories match (In particular meat would have to weight 139g cooked).
Firstly, you can't just say "120 kcal"... it's has to be per something. What are you trying to do? Based on that first link, out of 100 g, 73.9 g is water... unless you burn your chicken to ash, you won't remove all of the water.
Firstly, yes, NeDark said "120 Kcal" instead of "120 Kcal/100g", but I think he was just trying to save space and complication. In his citation it is clearly called out as "value per 100g", and that is what he uses in his actual calculation. As far as "What are you trying to do?", I think he is trying to do a sanity check on the figures provided in different parts of the USDA website. If he takes a specific piece of chicken, and calculates the number of Kcal raw, and compares it to the number of Kcal cooked, he expects the numbers to be =. Removing all the water doesnt figur in this discusn.
The numbers in the USDA are empirically derived. They take several pieces of raw chicken (or rather, find others who have done that) and measure the calories. Then they publish the average number of calories between these pieces. Separately, they find measurements for cooked chicken, and publish that average.
Empirical measurements are never exact. The chicken pieces vary in calorie content, the measurement procedure varies, the calibration of the instrument varies, etc. So, you can expect quite a bit of spread. And it seems that this is what you are seeing here. The measurements of raw and of cooked chicken don't match up - this can happen. You usually cannot say which factor was responsible.
This also is a good reminder that it doesn't make sense to calculate calories to the gram, since the piece of chicken you hold rarely has as many calories as given on the label or in a database. The exceptions tend to be highly processed foods which have little variation.
Ran into this question looking for similar info:
I started looking for figures for chicken thighs, raw, bone in, skin on.
Per hundred grams I was getting numbers from 133 to 210.
A: A lot of the sources crib from each other. So you get "fossils in print" with wrong results often requoted.
B: Some of the confusion will be plunking in chicken and not comparing bone in/out or skin on/off. The 212 figure is close to the figure for raw diced chicken
C: Just cooking chicken to the usual 160-165° F internal temp is accompanied with a 20-25% weight loss from water. Depending on temperature and cooking method, you may also get fat rendered out of the piece. This may or may not be served.
D: A chicken part will have fat, meat and bone. The ratios of this vary substantially with the feed ration the birds are fed.
E: I suspect that these ratios will also vary with the breed, amount fed, living conditions, age at slaughter, and probably things previously thought only to affect the flavour of pizza.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.003364 | 2017-06-19T12:14:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82485",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"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
} |
65211 | Is that bechamel that Gordon Ramsay is adding to the lasagna?
In this video, you can see Gordan Ramsay piping a white substance into his lasagna.
Recently saw a post about substitute for ricotta or cottage in a lasagna. Several members agreed that bechamel is traditionally used.
So is that what Ramsay is doing here?
Gordon says "white sauce", which is a simpler term for bechamel-based sauces and is quite common when making lasagna.
Yet the stuff that gets stirred in the bowl looks somewhat "fluffier" than classic bechamel and when it's piped has a "raggedness" that plain bechamel doesn't have, but smoother that pure ricotta.
My conclusion: it's hard to say for certain, but to me it looks like a mixture of both.
If you google "Gordon Ramsay Lasagna" you will find a recipe (assuming it is similar to the video) where he makes a bechamel, then adds cheddar cheese. The added cheese would certainly change the texture.
@moscafj just watched again: there is finely grated cheese (parmesan?) amongst the mise en place, yet the sauce is too smooth for grated cheddar - that would have to be grated extremely fine. Still unclear to me. Watched a video about G's lasagne al forno - the bechamel looks quite different.
It's the same recipe of bechamel, the only difference is that he adds cheddar cheese.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.003665 | 2016-01-09T09:57:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65211",
"authors": [
"Catherine Cole",
"Donna Tumai",
"Evan Ramos",
"Pamela Gracie",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67285 | French whisk handle has rocks in it?
I'm at a restaurant supply store and I'm looking to buy this heavy duty French whisk manufactured by the company WINCO and I'm shaking the handle and it sounds like there are small rocks or sand in them.
They all have it.
What's that about?
It could be sand, used to weight the handle. The weight is an important part of the design. I assume some manufacturers use sand instead of just thicker/heavier steel because it's cheaper and easier to manufacture.
For proof that at least some whisks are made like this, here's a whisk with Amazon reviews that mention sand and even a picture:
It's just inert weight. It's not going to come into contact with your food. I guess if you get a defective one and the handle comes open and dumps sand in your food, you'd have to throw it out, but otherwise it's not really anything to worry about.
But is it dangerous?
@DannyRodriguez I wouldn't think so, edited.
Can you direct me in the way any French whisks that don't have non-stainless steel material in them. I wanted to buy this whisk cause it's cheap($4.50) and cause the wires on it are really thick which would be perfect for bechamel and other thick sauces. Inert weight or not, it still makes me uncomfortable.
@DannyRodriguez We don't really do shopping recommendations here... like I said, this doesn't seem like an issue, but if it bothers you, there are a ton of whisks out there and I'm sure they're not all made this way. You might be overrestricting by looking for French whisks; this is really just a stainless steel balloon whisk, and since balloon whisks are the most common kind, I imagine it'd get called a stainless steel whisk most of the time.
You do want a properly weighted whisk. Believe it or not you are more likely to grip an unweighted whisk harder. The weight actually makes you relax more and therefore aren't killing you forearms as much when whisking.
@DannyRodriguez As for making you uncomfortable, consider that most of your food (e.g. carrots) is a much more likely vector for you ingesting sand than your (encapsulated) whisk handle. Ingesting sand happens all the time and the human body deals with it easily. So, no reason to be afraid of your food getting contaminated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.003810 | 2016-03-09T22:53:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67285",
"authors": [
"Ashley Dillon",
"Carol Jones",
"Cascabel",
"Danny Rodriguez",
"Escoce",
"Jessica Olson",
"Mark Stephens",
"Pamela Taylor",
"Steve Myers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user1851826"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75162 | Can we use white sugar, instead of brown sugar?
I want to bake a cake but I don't have light brown sugar. Can I replace it with white sugar?
You can substitute white sugar for light brown sugar with no problem, in my experience.
Make sure you substitute by weight (grams/oz), and not by volume(cups/spoons). This is because brown sugar is slightly more dense, so you get more sugar in a cup than you do with light brown.
I'm never one to speak ill of measuring by weight but ATK has the same weight to volume conversion for both granulated sugar and packed brown sugar - 7 oz to a cup.
King Arthur's Ingredient Weight Chart has packed brown sugar at 7.5 oz per cup, which would make it denser than white sugar at 7 oz per cup.
@Kareen: Thanks. I've corrected the answer. I mis-remembered.
The result might not be exactly the same (in color/taste/texture), but basically, the substitution will work. Textural change will be due to the original recipe taking advantage of the molasses content of what is commonly sold as brown sugar.
The cake may well end up drier. Most would think this is because of the missing molasses, but the more likely cause is that the cake may rise a bit more with white sugar allowing it to dry more during baking. If you do happen to have any molasses on hand though, you can add some, for light brown say 2-3 tablespoons to a cup, and mix it very well and you now have light brown sugar.
You can make brown sugar from white sugar if you don't have brown sugar on hand. As explained on Cook's Country (paywall):
In the test kitchen, we’ve found that pulsing 1 cup of granulated sugar in the food processor with 1 tablespoon of molasses makes a fine substitute for light brown sugar. For dark brown sugar, use 2 tablespoons of molasses for the same 1 cup of granulated sugar.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Don’t have any brown sugar in the cupboard? Make your own by mixing molasses into white granulated sugar. Or simply add the molasses along with the wet ingredients in your recipe.
Yes, you can substitute brown sugar with white sugar but brown sugar is usually less sweet so I would suggest ever so slightly increasing the amount sugar you put into the cake mixture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.004040 | 2016-11-01T08:06:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75162",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Catija",
"Kareen",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83040 | What is this green, bulbous, leafy vegetable?
I recently received a vegetable, looking like a big green beet with a thick skin. As I don't know what it is, I can't look for appropriate recipes on the internet. The Google reverse image search couldn't help either.
Here is the thing:
How can this common vegetable have such a weird name in English?
The unusual thing is that it combines a German and a Latin root. "Kohl" is German for cabbage, also found in "cole slaw". "Rabi" is from Latin "rapa", meaning turnip (also found in "broccoli raab" and "rapeseed oil" aka canola). It's more closely related to the cabbage, but we eat the root, which reminded somebody of the turnip. The two languages exchange (word) roots all the time, especially in scientific circles.
@IllidanS4 That's a matter of opinion. I don't consider it a weird name at all, but then again, I understand that English has origins in many languages and loanwords from many more. It's also hardly a "common" vegetable in most English-speaking countries.
Cook it and have it with a lemon and herbs bechamel, and some spuds :)
@JoshuaEngel Since the name is 1:1 the same in Germany, I wouldn't be that quick to assume that the word came into English from the two roots - it could first have been formed in Germany (where it doesn't sound strange, despite half of it having a Latin root) and then have become a loanword in English.
That's correct; I hadn't intended to imply where it was created. I would expect "rabi" to stand out in German (the only other natively German word I could find that ends in -bi was "azubi", and that's only because it's short for Auszubildender), but there are lots of loans.
The Kohl spelling is decidedly German, so I suspect that it did originate in Germany. But Kohl may itself have come from Latin, from "caput" head. It's a "cavolo rapi" in Italian, and I have no idea if that formed before or after the German word.
As was mentioned, this is a kohlrabi. I felt more explanation should be given based on the fascinating nature of this plant.
Kohlrabi is one of the handful of cultivars of brassica oleracea. Others include:
cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi, and gai lan. Brassica Oleracea (Wikipedia)
Brassica oleracea has been cultivated in many different parts of the world to appear almost like entirely unique plants. However, each of the listed plants are, in fact, the same species with slightly varying traits. Kohlrabi, for example, has been bred to have lateral growth in the meristem while broccoli has been bred to have a large, flowering head.
Kohlrabi can be eaten either cooked or raw. It's often used in salads and slaws, and can be interchanged with collard greens or kale.
IMHO, the taste is very similar to cauliflower. So you could use it in recipes that require cauliflower.
I've described it in the past as "apple crossed with raw brocolli". It's delicious, and I'd recommend it eaten raw with salso, hoummous etc. as a form of Crudite.
@jeroen_de_schutter I must disagree. At least to me cauliflower is utterly unappetizing whereas kohlrabi (never knew the english name) is actually very good eaten raw. I would also strongly recommend eating raw as cooking it just spoils it imo.
Cauliflower with a creamy cheese sauce, Kohlrabi raw or cooked very well as a side dish - both great (and completely different). :)
This also means that if you want some of kohlrabi and broccoli in a dish, you only have to buy the broccoli - broccoli stem is very close to kohlrabi when cooked (less mustard-y and fresh maybe).
Kohlrabi. Basically a form of turnip.
Yes, though I'd say it's culinarily best comparable with celeriac.
Being a little picky I know, but although a kohlrabi is often used like a turnip and is also known as a German Turnip, it is much closer related to cabbage family and grows above ground, not an enlarged root like a turnip. The taste is very similar to the core of a cabbage, a bit more tender and sweeter as long as not too old.
The first word of this answer is correct. The rest is wrong: kohlrabi is not a relative of the turnip, it does not grow like a turnip, it tastes very different than a turnip, and it's prepared quite differently than a turnip.
@dlb it is not related to cabbage, it IS cabbage. See my answer.
I don't have the rep to simply downvote, but I did click the down-button in agreement with dlb, marti, and tbears comments. It's a very brief answer also, tbear's is more informative.
@Marti It's most certainly a relative of the turnip. Brassica oleracea (kohlrabi) is very closely related to Brassica rapa (turnip). Botanists do not always agree on the boundaries between Brassica species, which have of course been thoroughly confused by millennia of selective breeding and cross-breeding, and some may even classify them as the same species.
@MikeScott: it's maybe a distant cousin of a turnip. Given that it's essentially a sibling of cabbage, broccoli, and cauliflower, listing just the distant relation (which it doesn't resemble in anything other than rough shape) is seriously misleading. (And what the answer actually says is "basically a form of turnip", which is incorrect. "Basically a form of cabbage/broccoli/cauliflower/et al." would be correct.)
@MikeScott The key here is "relative to", not "a form of" as the answer wrongly states.
As I originally stated, I was being picky as turnips and cabbage are related themselves, but it is much closer related to cabbage. It is not unusual to use them exactly like a turnip, but raw is probably more common at least in the US. If more leaves are left on you can immediately tell this is a stem product rather than a root item though. If one has never eaten the core of a head cabbage raw, likely they would not notice the similarity there as well. Anyway, comments, not discussion or semantics fight so moving on.
@Calimo The answer may well be wrong, but so is the comment to which I was responding.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.004247 | 2017-07-17T17:54:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83040",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"BlackThorn",
"Brondahl",
"Calimo",
"Carl",
"DRF",
"IS4",
"Joshua Engel",
"Marti",
"Mike Scott",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"jeroen_de_schutter",
"leftaroundabout",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user428517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73021 | Freezing fresh juices
I'm currently into fresh-juicing fruits using my auger juicer and, soon, hydraulic press.
After a while I've realized that it's ridiculous to bring the equipment in and out, and slice my way through fruits each day or every other day.
Recently, I tried freezing the juice, thawing it the next day, and found that the juice was still in a drinkable state with no noticeable fermentation.
I wonder if anyone else has had success with freeze-thawing fresh juices? Maybe the retailers can speak for this?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19567/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/68143/67
Why would your juice ferment? Even at fridge temps of ~34 F that's a bit low for fermentation (particularly over the course of a day)... and below freezing, it's never going to happen.
Fresh cider and pressed juice is routinely frozen without major degradation. It is not quite as good as fresh, but no major deterioration. However freeze it well, I would recommend 10F as the highest freeze temperature and would prefer lower, and limit how long you freeze it for as it will slowly deteriorate. Frost free freezers will typically deteriorate faster because of dehydration. A well sealed container will help, many people do not seal until the contents are frozen to avoid possible rupture from expanding liquid. Always remember to leave adequate head space for expansion during freezing.
When you thaw, remember to mix as some separation is likely to occur. Thawed juices with have a tendency to turn or start to ferment faster than the fresh juice. Also, freezing never completely arrests deterioration, it only slows it, so the longer the juice is frozen, the lower the quality will be when thawed. Peak of season juice a few months later will still often be superior to fresh pressed from inferior produce though.
Fresh fruits and vegetables tend to often thaw soft, mushy, and almost bruised tasting after thawed because freezing and thawing tends to break down the cell structure. Pressed juice has no such issue as that is exactly what you are doing in the juicing, breaking the cell structure and extracting the juice.
Where do you draw experience?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.005057 | 2016-08-10T15:42:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73021",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59149 | Omiting salt in baking recipes that use chemical leaveners?
I'm trying to reduce my salt intake. I've noticed in baking recipes where baking powder is used they add salt. Can I omit the salt or would the recipe fail?
I know this thread is old but I'm going to post anyway. All the previous people may not be aware that people who are "reducing salt" might actually mean reducing sodium. Check your baking soda and baking powder labels if you're thinking home baking is not a source of sodium! This still adds up. Consider my recipe that uses 2 eggs (70 mg sodium each), ½ tsp baking soda (600 mg), and ¼ tsp baking powder (70 mg). Divide that by 12 (muffins) and that's 67.5 mg of sodium per muffin. That is without any added salt!
And just as little as ¾ tsp salt adds another 1770 mg of sodium to my recipe,
I completely agree with Cascabel's answer. I do want to add a bit.
Salt is an amazing flavor enhancer and most (sweet) baked goods use very little (1/4 to 1 tsp) considering that most of the recipes make 12-24 servings (more for cupcakes/cookies etc) but it does make a difference. Most baked desserts gain quite a bit from having the added salt... and they don't even have to be baked.
Even in things like buttercream frosting, adding a little salt greatly helps to balance the overwhelming sweetness of the frosting and makes it more palatable to adults. All of my favorite buttercream recipes have a small amount of salt.
Anyway, removing the salt won't cause the recipe to fail... I'm sure I've accidentally omitted it several times in the past when I'm in a rush to get stuff in the oven... it can just make the flavors not as strong or remove some of the flavor contrast, so things can taste a bit flatter.
That's true - if you want to reduce salt intake, baked goods are probably not your biggest worry.
In baking, salt is generally only for flavor: things won't taste as good without it. So you can reduce it or leave it out if you want, just be aware that you may sacrifice some flavor.
This shouldn't have anything to do with the baking powder. Baked goods that don't use baking powder usually contain salt as well.
I would just note that salt does sometimes play other roles in baking, particularly in yeast breads (but also in relatively lean doughs raised chemically, like soda bread). Salt concentration slows down yeast growth, and it can also alter gluten formation early on. It can also affect final texture and even browning to some extent (as a side effect).
It is possible to modify most bread recipes to bake without salt, but it may require altering the rising time (and perhaps how much you knead/fold/shape). And of course there are notable bread traditions that are simply made without salt, like much bread in Tuscany.
I think you have this back to front. Extra salt speeds up yeast action, hence it's use in commercial operations
@TFD: Salt is used in commercial bread operations (in order of importance) for flavor, as a preservative, to stabilize crumb formation and machinability, and to moderate yeast growth. Without salt, fermentation can be harder to manage. Quoth Jeffrey Hamelman: "Salt has a retarding effect on the activity of yeast... If there is an excess of salt in bread dough, the yeast is retarded to the point where there is a marked reduction in volume. If there is no salt, the yeast will ferment too quickly." The benefits of salt outweigh the increase in fermentation time for commercial bakers.
Ahh right, I'm confused!
I stopped using salt 40 years ago, therefore I never use salt in baking. I have never noticed any issues. Once your palate adjusts, you will enjoy the fresh flavour of food rather than the salty overtones.
Salt is never added to taste salty, the taste of salt is terrible, so if you tasted salt then you added way too much. The point is that your tongue's taste recepters are controlled by sodium gradients, adding salt makes is so that the same amount of flavor triggers much more taste buds, ie, it makes all of the other flavors stronger. I've tasted them side by side and the unsalted one is missing a lot of flavors that you'd otherwise be able to experience, making the final dish less complex
I disagree with the other answers. I've heard this opinion frequently, but never seen it work that way in practice.
I live in Europe, and baking recipes here rarely use salt in baking. I certainly don't, and frequently omit it from American recipes too. I don't notice much of a difference between making it with and without the salt.
My best guess is that If you are accustomed to eating baking goods with salt, you'll miss it if they don't have it. If you're not accustomed, you won't. This would explain my observations in salt being used in some local cuisines and not others. Salt preferences can certainly be changed for savory dishes by simply changing the amount of salt eaten until one has grown used to a new level; I've done so myself, and I've known others who do it. There is a good chance it works the same way for sweet goods.
So, if you want to eat less salt, just omit it. Even if it is a bit unusual at first, it will likely grow on you. Just note that if you're serving to a crowd which expects salt, the results can be perceived by them as underwhelming.
I wouldn't omit salt from any baking recipe. Salt in baking is used in small quantities and it's primary function is to enhance the flavours and aromas. Other function is to balance sweetness and sourness. And quantities are so small that aren't of any concern in low salt diets. Cooking with salt is another issue, as quantities are bigger in comparision. There are alternatives for salt as a flavour enhancer, but they add other flavours (cinnamon, ginger, parsley, basil, vanilla, wine, etc..). salt doesn't add any specific flavour, except saltiness, not noticeable in such low quantities
"quantities are so small that aren't of any concern" - no, that's not true. Bread is typically about 1.5% salt of the prepared product. So somebody on a 2 g salt diet would fill their complete daily requirement from 133 g bread. The "balance sweetness and sourness" is not something I have ever heard before of salt. As for the flavor enhancer, yes, it does have a small effect, but you will be surprised how easy it is to get accustomed to it without missing it, to the point that I now find storebought breads pointedly salty and sometimes even unpleasantly so.
In bread making slat usually is 1-2% of the total amount of flour, not to the total amount of prepared product. In bread making salt enhances the flavour, tightens the gluten structure and add strenght to the dough. Anyway the question isn't about bread, it's specifically about sweet bakery (he mentions baking powder, which is never used in bread making). In sweet bakery quantities of salt are infimous, and have its function.
Yes, salt balances sweetness and sourness. There are five main tastes salty, sweet. sour, bitter and umami. Playing with those tastes you can correct the overall taste of food, reduce bitterness, enhance sweetness, etc.. Salt reduces bitterness, so it brings more sweetness or sourness. Adding a pinch of salt let you reduce sugar content in a recipe, etc.
Yes, I know that salt is about 2% of the flour in bread dough. In the finished product, 1.5% is normal, just look at nutrition labels. Any reports of effect of salt on primary tastes I have seen is anecdotal, and are probably a result of a distraction, as opposed for firm effects like sweet actually stopping the perception of sourness. And salt in sweet baking goods is just as much of an acquired taste as in bread, in fact most people in my birth culture (where sweet baking is not salted) prefer the version without salt. Those who grew up with the salt can easily unlearn it.
I won't discuss any further this topic. But you should try salted chocolate..
No one yet mentioned potassium chloride salt substitute which in the small quantities of, say, cupcakes works fine.
Also, flavor enhancing mineral drops such as Concentrace have had the sodium removed; adds depth.
Salt is generally used for flavor in cooking, but when it comes to baking it plays more of an important role. In baking, salt is used to activate the leavening agent in the product-like baking powder or baking soda. This means that if you omit salt all together your product won't rise as much or at all. You should be able to reduce the amount of salt you use and still get your product to rise, but I would not recommend omitting it all together.
This answer is incorrect. Baking powder contains both an acid and a base; only water and heat are needed to activate it. Baking soda is activated by acid, not salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.005259 | 2015-07-18T16:11:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59149",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Heather MacDonald",
"Loni Callis",
"Lora Elling",
"Mark Scadding",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Paula Fraley",
"Quynh Nguyen",
"Rainer Alljärv",
"Sneftel",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"user65302"
],
"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
} |
78156 | Preparing dishes for photos
Some times it can be difficult for me to get the right look of a dish in a photo. I have used extra butter for a more glossy look, swapped corn starch for flour in sauces for the same reason, even once went so far as to use a fine water mister/spray. It seems that by the time I get around to taking the photo the freshness of the dish does not translate to the camera (though the meal is still great to eat). Is there a method for this, whilst still being able to eat the food afterwards, and not change the basic ethos of the recipe. So, the question is: How do I make dishes more glossy without changing the recipe too much?
Found some great ideas here from the BBC, but still do not want to 'brush' oil over meat which I then intend upon eating.
I think the bit about keeping the food edible and relatively unchanged makes this a pretty good fit here, but there's also http://photo.stackexchange.com/ where people might have some pretty good advice.
Food photograph uses a lot of mocked up foods. "Ice cream" made from mashed potatoes and such. In Japan restaurants have displays of dishes that are totally artificial so that the mocked up dish can be used for permanent display.
Mi MaxW. Yes, but to my mind that is cheating, it is not a true representation. Here the Japanese restaurants do the same, it puts me off eating there, and the artificial dishes always look a bit 'dodgy!
If it is for cookbooks (or digital/social media equivalents) - please DO NOT FAKE around, especially not by adding or making anything inedible. Some of us cooks really like the visual cues (on consistency, cut sizes, ...) you can get from a faithful photo. When I see a plastic enhanced dish in a cookbook, I want to make the photographer eat it plastic and all.
What camera and what lighting?
With plate only set up your shots so you are not messing around when the food is ready.
Light, camera, and backdrop make a world of difference. Outdoor light unless you have a professional studio is the best.
This is just a hack picture and I did not care about the backdrop but this is just a $100 camera and a free editor that only crops and auto contrast. There is natural light above the sink. Shoot the picture as fast as possible. Cut the most delicate stuff last. Have spare garnishes behind to dress up the plate. If it serves with gravy or dressing take some raw shots first.
Your knife skills are very important. Have a sharp knife and have a plan.
Have a nice cutting board to get some shots before plating. Plated is much harder. You cannot serve 8 and get a nice fresh photo plate. In the afternoon with natural light make a single serving.
Outside has more natural light. The fog is steam from the warm salad. You have to let food cool for good shots.
by the time I get around to taking the photo
This seems to be the key part. have everything you need to take your photo set up before you start cooking. Prepare table, set up lamps, take test shots etc. There should never be any "by the time" if you want great photo of perishable items, like food.
Second thing you might want is polarization filter on your lens. See What is causing this extreme glossy effect when using a polarizing filter? question on sister site. Absolutely no change in recipe, and you can adjust shine level to some, often quite large, degree.
but still do not want to 'brush' oil over meat which I then intend upon eating.
Actually, a bit of olive oil with water, from dual-chamber atomizer, did a nice job for me. And it doesn't require all that much of fat. I use something similar to this one - I have no association with this company, I linked it only because it looks and works the way my bottle looks and works.
Yup had a look at the atomizer, maybe use it for other things too - so that is a thought.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.005932 | 2017-02-06T05:01:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78156",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"MaxW",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81017 | Which alternative fats, not butter or avocado, are good to make chocolate frosting
This (Allrecipes Chocolate Avocado Pudding) is a great recipe for Chocolate Avocado pudding, which I use as a frosting for cakes. So, sticking away from normal basics for frostings such as butter, what could I substitute for the avocado in this recipe?
Ingredients
2 large avocados - peeled, pitted, and cubed
1/2 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/3 cup coconut milk
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 pinch ground cinnamon
Directions
Blend avocados, cocoa powder, brown sugar, coconut milk, vanilla extract, and cinnamon in a blender until smooth. Refrigerate pudding until chilled, about 30 minutes.
Do I get the question right - you need something that makes up the bulk of the pudding / frosting and takes on the role of the avocado, but is not butter. What else would you consider "normal frosting basics" to avoid?
Yup you got it right, what can I substitute for the avocado - assuming I am not using butter/margarine. Happy for any other suggestions.
Are you trying to find something that's in some way like avocado (how?) or are you pretty much okay with anything else that'd also be a substitute for butter/margarine in a normal frosting recipe?
That looks like a vegan recipe to me, so depending on your audience, you should stick to vegan ingredients... Therefore, a mix of:
cocoa butter (can be replaced by coconut fat if too expensive)
grapeseed oil or any cold-pressed natural oil (pumpkin, flaxseed, cannabis, ...)
would be best under the circumstances.
Why?
Pureed avocados contain about 18% oil with the rest being moisture and solids, so a mixture without any butter:
aligning with the goal of the current ingredients
enhancing the taste of the cocoa powder
having the same kind of texture in the final product,
leads me to believe that above mix can come extremely close to what you're trying to accomplish.
How?
Cocoa butter is a solid at room temperature, so you'll have to heat the cocoa butter to body temperature (the melting point being in between 34–38 °C), so I would start off with 30% melted cocoa butter and 70% grapeseed oil (at the same T°) and use that.
If your dessert becomes too solid, replace 10% of the cocoa butter with grapeseed oil and if the reverse, replace 10% more grapeseed oil by cocoa butter and keep refining your recipe until it's just perfect for you.
A comment with the outcome of your experiments with the exact vegetable oil and the % of cocoa/vegetable oil would be appreciated
Ah now that is all very interesting. I am not vegan and hadn't really thought about it being suitable for vegans, but it is a great path to go down as far as alternatives are concerned.
I'm confused... why are you making the oil liquid? If it's replacing avocado, which is not a liquid, the goal should be something with a similar texture... slightly mushy.
@Catija I don't think it's about making it liquid, just about making it a soft solid.
@Catija: Cocoa butter is a solid, so needs liquefying before being solidified again in the fridge afterwards.
Just to point out, unless you sub the 1/3C milk with a non-dairy alternative, such as almond milk, this isn't a vegan recipe.
@user61524 Where do you see milk? I see coconut milk only!...
Pretty much any solid fat will work here. Since you're replacing something that's not just fat, you might prefer to whip the fat to lighten it up a bit, no matter which you choose.
Since your recipe already has coconut milk, coconut oil seems like a really obvious choice - it's common in recipes like this, especially vegan/paleo ones that want to avoid butter. Beyond that, you've excluded butter/margarine, but that still leaves shortening and palm oil. Shortening is one of the standard ways to make frosting (so maybe that means you're not interested?), but palm oil is pretty common too. (Some people may not like palm oil flavor-wise, though.)
There's also cream cheese, which again adds some flavor, but people like it in frostings, and you can find plenty of actual recipes using it, rather than trying to substitute in this one.
Cocoa butter, as Fabby suggested, is also an option, though along with having to add oil to get it soft enough, it's also pretty expensive. It's also maybe not worth it: you'll be adding cocoa powder and sugar to it, so why not just use actual chocolate? You can always use a combination of regular and white chocolate, if you don't want too much chocolate, and again you can find plenty of recipes for this kind of thing. But if you do want to try cocoa butter despite that, note that you'll want to try to test it at a reasonable temperature: just barely melt it so that you can add oil and mix well, then take a bit and cool it to see if it's soft but solid at room temperature. Borrowing a trick from jam-making, putting a small amount on a cold plate is an easy way to test.
The other main common solid fats are animal fats - lard, (beef) tallow, and so on. They'd work too, if you liked the flavor.
I could see peanut butter (or other nut butter) also working, if you like the flavor. For the firm, processed kind, you could probably use it directly, but for the softer kinds, you might have to combine with a more solid fat to keep your frosting from getting too runny.
Also, since your recipe already has coconut milk, increasing or decreasing the amount is another good way to adjust the texture, just as with basic frosting recipes you often add milk until it's right.
In that same vein, you could probably use pureed/mashed fruit to adjust, and even provide a little bulk if your fat is firm enough. Banana might be an obvious choice, since it mashes smoothly and easily.
Finally, if you really want to avoid "normal" solid fats, you might want to look away from normal fat-based frosting and toward things like bavarian cream, thickened with gelatin instead of just fat. That's more of a different recipe than a substitution, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.006247 | 2017-04-18T05:45:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81017",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Fabby",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61524",
"user61524"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67289 | Why would I add garlic to a recipe after onion with such a small time difference?
I have a recipe for Tomotillo & Green Chili soup that calls for one diced onion to be sautéed for 3 minutes prior to adding the four diced garlic cloves all of which is then cooked for an additional one minute. After this, the liquids and most of the other ingredients of the soup are added.
(FWIW; I personally don't feel like this is long enough to cook either of these, but that's the recipe...)
Is there difference in flavour development that I could expect by following the recipe as opposed to adding both the onion and the garlic at the same time?
BTW, I can rule out texture as a reason for this as the whole lot is hit with an immersion blender after cooking.
You cook the onion for 4x as long as the garlic. That's not a small difference.
The garlic seems about right, depending on how hot and what effect you want in the end, but I'd be surprised if 3 minutes was enough for the onion. Surely you want properly softened onion for that nice mellow flavour in a soup! Not uncommon though, a lot of recipe writers seem to think you can adequately soften an onion (or worse, caramelise it) in only a scant handful of minutes.
This is standard in most recipes. Onions take a lot longer to cook and become aromatic. Garlic does it within 30 seconds to a minute. Three minutes is a long time for garlic. I promise you, you don't want burned garlic in your soup.
When you add the remainder of the ingredients, particularly the liquids, you reduce the direct heat that the garlic is subjected to and prevent it from burning.
Here's some supporting info from The Kitchn:
Early in our cooking career and for a long time after, we assumed that you needed to cook garlic as long as its cousin, the onion. Our results were spotty: sometimes it was ok, sometimes we picked burned bits out of our dinner. It wasn't until we got serious about cooking that we learned another way...
Whether they're being used in a quick stir fry or as the base for a soup or sauce, both onions and garlic need to be cooked at least little to get rid of their raw bite. However, while onions benefit from a longer cooking time, garlic will quickly burn and become acrid if cooked the same way.
Garlic usually does best if it's cooked quickly and over medium heat. About thirty seconds will do the trick. This is just enough time to cook off the rawness, allow the flavor to mellow into the dish, and let the aroma to hit its peak. You'll know it's done when you can smell the garlic and your mouth starts watering!
To account for these different cooking times, start the onions first, cook all the other main ingredients, and then add the garlic last. We like to clear a little spot (or "clean slate") in the middle of the pan to let the garlic cook by itself for a few seconds before stirring it into the rest of the dish.
Hmm. Yes. Cooking Garlic on its own for 3 minutes would burn it. With the additional mass of an onion to soak up the energy of the burner, burning of the garlic seems unlikely.
If I cooked the garlic first briefly and then added the onion or other ingredients the short cook time would make sense.
A bit of onion is not enough to soak up the energy of the burner @renesis.
@renesis: They would cook at about the same rate, and reach roughly the same state after given time. Except while onion getting browned gets a rich flavor and aroma, garlic getting browned gets impossibly bitter. You want to brown the onion at least a little bit, but you definitely don't want the garlic browned, even a little bit - just slightly glazed.
So what I actually did with this recipe was start the onion & garlic at the same time & cook until the onion was softened (translucent & but not browned) probably around 8 minutes or so. The garlic was certainly not burned. It seems the takeaway from this thread is that if I added the garlic later & allowed it to cook less, I could expect there to be more of the aromatic flavors of the garlic remaining in the dish. Is that correct?
@renesis - It really depends on your pan temperature. A "true" saute requires the pan to be so hot that fairly constant motion is required to prevent burning. If you cooked garlic without burning for 8 minutes you were obviously using a lower temperature, perhaps doing more "sweating" than sauteing, which changes the flavor profile of the result.
I have cooked onion and garlic together all the time: in Chili, Re-fried beans, Spanish rice, Split peas, Lentils, and tons more. I have never had a problem with burnt garlic, nor with under-cooked onion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.006683 | 2016-03-10T04:22:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67289",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Greg Whelchel",
"Iram Shah",
"Matthew Walton",
"Ms.Amber",
"Nina Aguja",
"Regina",
"SF.",
"That One Actor",
"Tracy Howard",
"Wendy Lamb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"renesis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81124 | Baked food and Bacilus Cereus
Is there a difference between baked and cooked food?
As I know cooked food has to be in fridge within 2 hours after the preparation to avoid creating appropriate condition for the Bacilus Cereus spreading, while bread, cake, pie and other baked food we store several days at room temperature.
Does baking destroy Bacilus Cereus and its spores?
No. The difference is the food itself, not the cooking method.
"Cooking" is a general term that includes baking, frying, roasting, sauteing, boiling, steaming... etc. "Baked" foods are cooked.
You could hardly expect to leave a lasagna out on the counter (a baked food) without it developing dangerous levels of bacteria. Same thing with something like a cheesecake or cakes with perishable frostings like buttercream or whipped cream.
Bread, particularly, simply isn't a welcoming place for this bacteria - it's dry... From the abstract of an article from the Journal of Applied Microbiology:
Bread doughs were artificially inoculated with spores of six Bacillus cereus strains at different inoculum levels and counts of survivors in bread determined during storage at 27·5°C. No B. cereus were isolated from the centre crumb of 400 g loaves when the dough contained less than 104 spores/g whereas with 800 g loaves survival occurred with doughs containing 5·0 times 103 spores/g. With all strains there was a period of at least 24 h before multiplication took place in the bread. The inclusion in dough of 0·2% of calcium propionate, based on flour, effectively delayed germination and subsequent multiplication of B. cereus spores. It is concluded that the risk of food poisoning due to the presence of B. cereus in bread is minimal.
So, no, you can't "bake" something and expect it to be magically shelf stable.
One of the largest misconceptions in food safety is that safe food does not have bacteria. Safe food is, like all other food, always contaminated with bacteria. The difference is that safe food has been kept under conditions which have not allowed the bacteria to grow to dangerous levels.
Cooking and baking both kills some bacteria, but does not sterilize the food. And even if it did, it gets recontaminated immediately anyway (exception: canned food in airtight containers). The difference in shelf stable food and perishable food is not that shelf stable food has no bacteria, it is that shelf stable food does not grow bacteria at room temperature.
The items which you listed - bread, pies, etc. - simply don't have enough moisture to sustain a bacterial colony. This is what makes them shelf stable. Other shelf-stable foods are preserved in other ways, for example some kinds of pickle contain enough acid that bacteria cannot multiply in them. But there is nothing inherent in baking as a heating method that creates this result. If you fry some dough into a donut, it is also shelf stable. If you bake a casserole, it is not shelf stable and needs refrigeration. Depending on what you put in it, it will develop some pathogenic colonies if left outside, with B. Cereus a common possibility.
If you want to think about food safety, you always have to think in terms of "which factor necessary for bacterial growth am I missing in this food". This is what prevents the most frequent misconceptions which people automatically come up with when starting from other assumptions.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.007194 | 2017-04-21T18:34:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81124",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71015 | Can I use my blender for food processing the ingredients in my Gazpacho?
My wife and I would like to try Gazpacho, and part of the recipe calls for 'food processing' coarse cuts of red onion, cucumber, tomato and red pepper.
We don't have a food processor, and we can't afford one. What we DO have is a blender.
Can we use or blender to 'food process' these ingredients?
Edit: For those wondering, here's the text directly from the recipe:
Put each vegetable separately into a food processor fitted with a steel blade and pulse until it is coarsely chopped. Do not overprocess!
What is the end goal of the processing? What is the desired outcome? If you're reducing it to pulp, that's different than if you're looking for a rough chop.
@Catija not unclear, imho. Gazpacho is "mush", "pieces" may be added after chilling, just before serving. (That's where the knife comes in.)
@Stephie seeing the other answer and the comment in response to my comment, I think it's definitely unclear to some people.
A good answer would probably address both possibilities - wanting a complete puree, or wanting some small pieces or texture left.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34378/67
A friend of mine makes a salsa in her blender and it is great. You could cut by hand.
To answer the question that has popped up - I don't actually know! The recipe isn't clear if the pieces should be chunky or smooth - and I'm not sure what I'll get if I put the pieces in the blender, vs. if I had a food processor
If is does not say puree then I but it mean coarse cuts.
I've tried gazpacho "on location" and it's very smooth, no chunks other than what one adds at the table. At home, I've obtained this using a hand blender and straining the result, which was pretty much what I'd been served in the restaurant.
The main difference between a food processor and a blender is its shape and how the food is mixed while it is being "cut up".
In a blender, it relies on the funneling action of liquid to mix the food around. Otherwise only the bottom gets blended while the top stays solid.
Food processors usually have a flat bottom and have a mechanism to turn the food as it cuts it up. This results in evenly chopped food.
If you want the gazpacho to end up completely smooth, then the blender will definitely work in this application as it will be liquid enough to get the funnel action going to mix the food around. Keep it mind it would be a good idea to start blending the vegetables with high water content such as tomato and onion first to create a liquid "base" for the other vegetables.
IF you want coarse chunks for the vegetables, it is slightly trickier but still possible to use a blender. You need to work in smaller "batches" and use the pulse functionality instead of just blending. If the batch is too big, you end up with overblended mush on the bottom and unblended chunks on top.
But if it's soup, mush may be the intent... unfortunately, the question is unclear.
@Catija well in the question the OP is asking for "corase cuts of red onion, cucumber, tomato and red pepper."
No, it's saying to process those coarse cuts... but it doesn't say what to process them into.
The coarse cuts get pureed for gazpacho...
Really depends on the recipe - this one says to use a blender in the first place, this one says to use a food processor "until it is coarsely chopped. Do not overprocess!"
Hmm looks like I misread the question... regardless I think my answer is still relevant regarding the difference between processing using blender and food processor.
Regional differences afaik - some are smoother and more liquid, others thicker and often coarser.
Since the recipe doesn't specify what consistency the pieces should be, this is definitely the answer I'm looking for - we'll probably do it in small batches, because I think we'd prefer the chunks, but a smoother gazpacho I'm sure would also be good. Thank you!
I feel the need to add that "If you want the gazpacho to end up completely smooth, then the blender will definitely work" needs a qualifier - the ingredients I listed did not include a liquid...and while it seems obvious in hindsight, I didn't realize I needed to add liquid until I took a second jab at it tonight. So, you might want to add that to your answer.
@Zibbobz thats not necessarily true. If you blend the tomato and onion first (both very high % water) to create a liquid base, you will not need additional liquid.
@Jay I found this not to be true - there simply isn't enough liquid made by attempting to blend these ingredients (and it IS an attempt, because they will not blend very well without some liquid).
You absolutely can.
For this use case, any tool with a fast-spinning blade that creates a fine puree is suitable, regardles whether it's a food processor, blender or immersion (stick) blender.
Food processors typically offer more functionality, like grating veggies for salads or kneading dough, but that's not required here.
A blender is fine, but please do not let it run continuously. Start-stop-start-stop until the texture for the appropriate item is correct. Place each "corrected" ingredient in a bowl. For avocados, simply mash with a potato masher or fork. Bon appetit!
I really welcome your enthusiasm but I've seen that most of your answers don't really seem to be based on the content of the question. This question has nothing to do with avocados. Please explain why you think a pulse is preferred over leaving the blender running.
Pulsing ipso facto chops up items rather than pureeing them. The blender, ironically, mimics the mouth.
Adding the info as a comment is not useful... please [edit] your answer to add additional information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.007476 | 2016-06-28T15:49:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71015",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Frederic Kahler",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"paparazzo",
"user149408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82005 | Yellowish turnip
I got a turnip recently and it was a little yellowish and after cooking it was the same, a little yellowish and mushy.
A couple of months ago I got a turnip and it was white and after cooking it was translucent and firm, which is what I would expect.
Is this a seasonal thing where the spring turnips are white and firm, but then during the summer they get yellowish and mushy? Or did I just get a bad turnip?
It appears that your first turnip was a "white turnip" - Brassica rapa - and your second was a rutabaga (Swede or yellow turnip) - Brassica napobrassica.
I found a brief list of differences here.
Turnip, radish,rutabaga. Same family. Can go to black to white in color. Spanish turnip would be black. Over winter turnips can be slightly soft. We use to leave fall turnips in the ground. Cover with straw. Dig up as needed in the winter. We found the black Spanish turnip best for this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.007942 | 2017-05-26T17:22:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82005",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69169 | What can I change about this bread recipe to lower its glycemic index?
I'm starting with a recipe from Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads that uses an overnight autolyse of a soaker (whole wheat flour, your choice of other grains, salt, and water) and a refrigerated biga (whole wheat flour, a small bit of commercial yeast, and water). The recipe is for a hearth bread. I grind my own hard white wheat on the finest grind my KitchenAid mixer attachment can manage.
I'm looking to increase the fiber and protein content. The options I'm looking at in the "other grain" category include
psyllium husk: I am having a great deal of difficulty finding any instructions on baking with psyllium husk outside of gluten free baking, which I am obviously not doing. I am most concerned with how the psyllium might impact the water content of the recipe and how much is too much, given how small a standard serving is. I don't even know if using psyllium husk is a good idea given that no one seems to have tried it before.
chia seeds: like psyllium, there aren't a lot of resources on using chia in wheat breads. I found one website that said it worked in commercial applications as up to 5% of the bread without changing much. In my recipe that works out to about 1 oz. Does that make sense?
wheat bran: I have so far found one recipe that used a cup of wheat bran to 2 cups of white flour and 1/2 cup of whole grain mix. It seems like I can safely use a good portion of wheat bran, but I'm unsure of exactly how much
vital wheat gluten: I have always seen a suggestion to use about 1 1/2 tsp. of wheat gluten per 1 c. of wheat flour for increased wheat dough elasticity. How high can I push the wheat content before it gets to be too much? My recipe allows for the "other grains" to be up to 33% of the baker's percentage. Could I use the whole thing on bran or would that taste like sandpaper?
flax seed meal: I've seen people online adding 1/4 to 1/3 c. of flax to bread recipes. Does that sound about right?
Am I missing any high fiber or high protein seeds or grains that I should consider (like a bean, perhaps?).
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65749/why-add-lupin-flour-to-white-bread -> using lupin flour alters the protein / carbs ratio, which could lower the GI as well. But I'm not a scientist.
whole flax seeds are common in many rustic wholegrain breads. courser flour also effectively delays blood sugar spike
My mother is the founder of the Glycemic Index Foundation of South Africa (http://www.gifoundation.com/), so let's see how well I've been listening to her!
Stephie is right, legume flours do lower the GI. Beans contain slow release carbohydrates which lowers the GI. Chickpea flour is the best to use here. I find you cannot sub more than 1/4 of the total flour in the recipe as it does have a slight odor - much more when the dough is raw, after cooking it's hardly noticeable.
As for fibre: Because Psylium Husk is SUPER HIGH in fibre - it's like 80 - 90% fibre - a little does go a long way. Use the powder though, as the rough husks can damage the gluten strands (same for wheat bran here... I wouldn't use more than 1/2 cup of wheat bran per loaf) during proofing. I use about 40ml of psylium husk powder per loaf of bread.
BEST way to lower the GI is also to use a longer fermentation process because it allows the living yeast organisms to break down the gluten into a more digestible form. I got this straight from my mother. Artisan Breads with a long, overnight, fermentation process is LOw GI even when white bread flour is used. Longer fermentation also adds incredible flavour, so why not! Double perks!
But well done for making your own flour. Unbleached, stone ground flour is ideal.
Make sourdough. Ferment longer.
Background
For those unfamiliar with the glycemic index: Foods with a higher value are more likely to cause spikes in blood sugar. On a scale from 0-100, foods like potatoes with a value of 70 or greater have a high glycemic index, while foods like peas and garlic, with a value of 55 or less, have a low glycemic index. There’s also a “very low” glycemic index categories for foods with a rating of less that 20, which includes lots of green vegetables, mushrooms, meat, and sesame and flax seeds. I’m sure everyone reacts a little differently to these foods, but the ratings serve as a tool to help people guess what they should try to eat more of or less of.
Sourdough
According to Wardee Harmon, non sourdough white bread has a glycemic index of 71, in the “high” category, while sourdough bread has a glycemic index of 53, which puts it in the “low” category. That’s because the bacteria and yeast consume the starches and sugars in the flour, so there’s less starch for us to process. The longer the fermentation, the lower the glycemic index. And when I make sourdough bread, I also use quite a bit of whole wheat flour, nuts, and seeds, which fall in the “low” category, even without being processed with sourdough starter.
I do similar recipes. Some other additives I use to increase fiber/lower GI:
Oat bran; buckwheat; Indian rice grass flour (native American, high fiber, high protein); kaniwa; quinoa flour; teff; spelt; rye; amaranth flour; 9-grain cereal to increase fiber (such as Bob's Red Mill).
I frequently use some rye flour, which also adds much flavor to the loaf.
I agree that sourdough breads with their longer-rising times and higher acid content have lower GI.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.008046 | 2016-05-22T18:21:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69169",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50371 | Is there a super close substitute for graham crackers?
I'm from Canada (where there are multitudes of graham crackers!), but I'm currently living in Australia. They do not have anything like graham crackers here, and I could really use them for a couple recipes I'm developing.
Does anyone have a close substitute for graham crackers? I'm looking at making my own, but that seems like a tedious task just to crumble them up again.
Are you making a crumb crust? There are choices for crumb crusts that I find superior to graham crackers.
You can probably find 'digestive biscuits' in Australia. They are the ex British Empire's go-to for crumb crusts.
A dry/crunchy shortbread may work as well.
some of the crunchier gingersnaps might work too
Cook's Thesaurus recommends 'wheatmeal biscuits' for Australians. (or digestive biscuits (for Brits), gingersnaps, chocolate wafers or vanilla wafers)
Post answers, not comments! I'm taking the reputation y'all could've had.
Are you looking to substitute for real graham crackers (i.e. semi-sweet whole wheat crackers) or the Honey Maid type (part whole wheat, heavily sweetened)?
Thanks everyone! I did end up going with the digestive biscuits. They didn't taste exactly the same, but they were certainly close enough in consistency!
Graham Norton is even sweeter than a graham cracker, although not quite as crunchy. Add a pinch of salt to taste. ;)
First off, try digestive biscuits. They're really very similar cookies/crackers/biscuits, and it's a common enough substitution that it's even mentioned on Wikipedia. Cook's Thesaurus implies that they're called wheatmeal biscuits in Australia.
sourd'oh's suggestion of particularly crunchy gingersnaps might work too, but you'll also want to make sure they're not too spicy!
(Unfortunately, I don't know about specific varieties since I'm not Australian.)
I was in Australia last winter & discovered they don't sell any kind of graham wafer. I substituted the digestive cookies/biscuits and found they are not as sweet. Although the crust tasted good, the next time I made the 'graham wafer' crust, I added a teaspoon of sugar to the digestive biscuit crumbs ...now it tasted closer to the graham wafer crust I was used to.
I am an Aussie. We use Marie biscuits.
I use Grahams Crackers in my Key Lime pies. The Key Limes are specific to Florida and I bring it back with me as a juice concentrate from Publix Supermarket.
I also bring back Grahams Crackers. But when I run short there is ONLY ONE substitute in Australia. It's ARNOTT'S GRANITA. You can get it at any Australian supermarket.
Have done a blind taste test with my friends and family to see if they can taste the difference between Granita and Grahams. They can't. I give them three pieces of granita and two pieces of Graham selected randomly while they are blindfolded. NO ONE can pick the difference correctly.
Depending on where you live, some grocer shops have an international food section. But for a crunchy sweet pie crust, I don't think you can go past a butternut snap biscuit, sold just about anywhere in Australia. I have also used Milk Arrowroot or Morning Coffee. I like these too, but they aren't as sweet.
As an American, I've never even heard of a "butternut biscuit" let alone seen one... What do you mean by "sold just about anywhere"? Where is "anywhere"? And what is "milk arrowroot" and "morning coffee"... I've never heard of them, either.
The question was about availability of graham cracker substitutes in Australia. It seems that all three types, "Butternut snap biscuits", "Arrowroot milk biscuits" and "Morning coffee biscuits" are brand name bisquits produced by Arnott's, Australia's largest producer of biscuits/cookies.
Go to the Filipino groceries. They stock Graham biscuits. I've just bought some at Manila Mart in Ryde (Sydney) and have also seen them at Ashfield Mall in Sydney where the fruit and veg shop is run by Filipinos.
I live in Australia and use Granita biscuits, mixed with 2 tablespoons of sugar, and 1/4 Cup of almond meal for my substitute to Graham crackers. All crushed together of course :)
I would assume that digesive or the suggested alternative Graham crackers would be the same as Arnott's wheatgerm biscuits or why not just use Arnott's morning coffee or milk arrowroot. I'm going to try the wheatgerm and see how that works. Most biscuit bases could use any of these three suggestions in my opinion.
I would suggest you to use Rich Tea biscuits if you find them. They are plain and they go perfect with any kind of cake
I use digestive biscuits and add cinnamon to get them closer to the taste of Graham Crackers.
Best substitute is digestive biscuits (sweeter and crunchier than wholemeal) look for Mcvities brand they are Scottish but available in Australia in Coles suoernarkets and other places. I use them all the time. They are great.
Please do not add the same answer as already given before - if you agree with an answer, simply vote it up.
@Divi McVitie's are Scottish, not English. See here and here
I would look around the local grocer. There are many other graham products like Golden Grahams cereal, Teddy Graham snacks for kids and Annies Graham snacks, found in the organic section. Maybe you can find graham cracker crumbs in the baking section
I've never had these (wrong part of the world), but they don't sound like a good substitute. Basically, the OP needs a different kind of a dry cookie, not any product with "graham" in the name - especially the cereal sounds suspect. Also, are these products really available in Australia when standard graham crackers are not?
I'd be shocked if they were available if actual Graham crackers are not, but they'd actually possibly be valid substitutes as they're mostly just Graham cracker in bite sized form. (perhaps with more sugar and added flavouring (eg: chocolate, honey, cinnamon, etc...)
Even if he can find them, if I remember correctly Teddy Grahams and Golden Grahams are glazed with some sort of sugar coating that would make them a poor substitute.
FYI, we do not have Graham crackers in Belgium, but we do have Golden Grahams cereal.
I think Arnotts Lattice biscuits might work well in this recipe. I will try it anyway
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.008470 | 2014-12-06T03:12:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50371",
"authors": [
"Alex Atkin",
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Ann Potvin",
"Cascabel",
"Casey Parker",
"Catija",
"Dale Dailey",
"Daniel Steinbruch",
"Edward Cole",
"Efe Gbemre",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fabby",
"FuzzyChef",
"JSM",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kev Lowe",
"Louise Williams",
"M Lowery",
"Michael Strom",
"Mien",
"Patrick Mulhern",
"Phil",
"Random832",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"cinnamonscribe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"joyce lovell",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77049 | Dicing Hot Tamales (candy)
I wanted to cut up some Hot Tamales candies for cookies, but had a horrible time cutting them. I couldn't get the candies small enough and they stuck together. I tried cutting with a knife and a food processor, the candies stuck to the blades. The hot tamales candy are large and difficult to cut. I wanted pieces about the size of medium chocolate chips. Any suggestions?
OK, Hot Tamales are not "red hots"... they're totally different candies. Red Hots are practically hard candies. Hot Tamales are soft candies. "Red Hots" are also called "Cinnamon Imperials". I was trying to figure out why you needed to cut them up because normal red hots are exactly the size you want.
Sorry, the original recipe called for Red Hots, couldn't find them at Christmas time and I purchased Hot Tamales. I know I can't exchange them exactly, but thought they would go nicely in a sugar cookie base.
Fair enough :D I've edited your question to reflect that. If you can't make the hot tamales work, you'll have better luck with the cinnamon imperials. If you look for that name, they should still sell them in most areas. Hopefully they will bake up the same. As I said, the texture is different between the two, so the hot tamales may melt, particularly if they're chopped up, while the imperials will not.
Of interest: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24620/what-is-the-most-effective-method-to-mince-candied-ginger/40359#40359 The scissor answer might work for you too.
I was thinking of putting them in a baggie, covering with a dish cloth and lightly smashing with a rolling pin to break through the hard exterior. If that works, then scissor cutting with sugar.
Freeze them. After they are frozen, put them in the food processor and you should no longer have the issue of them sticking to the blades. As Dougal mentions below, you can also freeze the blade to help keep the temp down.
+1 This works for almost any kind of gooey or gelatinous ingredient, even soft fruit.
Perhaps also put the cutter part of your blender in the fridge/freezer to help keep the temp down.
..and depending on final recipe: you could add a pinch of flour to the process to keep them from sticking to each other. I do this when dicing dried fruits for canoli.
@Dougal I am adding that to my answer as an improvement.
Also, don't break your teeth trying to eat the frozen candy when you take it out of the freezer!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.008976 | 2017-01-02T22:39:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77049",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Catija",
"John Feltz",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyera",
"Paulb",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41172 | Quick tiramisu with many restrictions
My wife helps organize a vegetarian community kitchen. She recently had a request for tiramisu-like dessert but there are a number of restrictions:
The time frame of the kitchen means they only have two hours to prepare it before eating (including chilling)
They cannot use raw eggs
No alcohol
No cheese (the woman requesting doesn't eat cheese) but other dairy is okay
My wife would like to try to accommodate the request if possible.
She was thinking replace the traditional mascarpone custard with a mixture of Greek yoghurt and whipped cream (do you think the whipped cream needs to be stabilized with agar agar?).
Does this sound workable (she has never tried this before and is not a professional chef)? If not, is there a better plan, or does this request sound like an impossibility?
I'm wondering if you can find a tiramisu-flavored instant pudding.
I will take a t-bone... but skip the cow!
I think that it is doable, if the restriction doesn't require the dessert to be exactly a tiramisu.
Many dairy-based cremes are interchangeable, similar in texture, and require no eggs at all. The alcohol in some tiramisu versions can be safely left out. The short time is the worst restriction. Thickeners like agar agar may not set in the short time.
You should start with buying prepared lady fingers, as you can't bake them so quickly, and it is probably too much effort anyway. You can use any tiramisu recipe for the moistening liquid; if it includes alcohol, just leave it out. You can add a few drops of alcohol-free rum essence if it called for rum or another hard alcohol, or a fruit aroma if it called for a fruit liqueur. If it only specified coffee liqueur, leave out the liqueur but use normal coffee. You might want to use instant coffee dissolved in water instead of just-brewed espresso, because hot coffee will interfere with the short chilling time. Then you need the dairy creme, and you can finish with the traditional cocoa powder.
For the dairy creme, you have to choose one which will hold its shape without thickeners. You can add agar agar or carrageenan or the calcium-sensitive type of pectin, but don't trust them to turn a runny mass into a firm one, the time is too short. Use them as an insurance, and hoping that you will get something which gives some resistance to being cut or chewed, as opposed to being just scoopable. Whipped cream together with Greek yogurt is not a bad idea; other cultured milk products can work too, if they are on the firmer side. I have had similar desserts made with just schmand as the filling, but they stayed overnight so some whey could diffuse into the non-syruped cookies, making the cookies softer and the schmand drier. If you have access to the type of modified starch which will thicken without having to cook (for example sold as "cream stiffener", but also as a cream replacement product to be whipped with milk), using some of it may help. Don't use liquid sweeteners like corn syrup or honey, stay with sugar, and separate the whey from the yogurt to get a firmer result.
Another way would be to use a starch thickened pudding instead of a custard. This is a more common substitute, but normal starch has to be cooked to a boil, and will require longer chilling. You may be able to pull it off, if you make the whole dessert rather flat and wide, use a pre-chilled vessel and dip the ladyfingers into cold liquid, and then put the poured dessert into a freezer for a quick chilling. It will need quick work (so lots of time remains for chilling) and frequent attention so it can chill without freezing. The first version is probably less stress.
Whichever you choose, such a major recipe change is not easy. Make a prototype at home before you cook it for a crowd, so you can catch the major problems in an early version and relaxed environment, and then you will know if it is doable for sure.
Iota carrageenan sets pretty quickly, starting at temperatures as high as 70° C (basically, almost instantly, you have to keep it on the heat to stop it from setting). 2 hours is plenty of time. Agar needs to get down to almost room temperature so that's not a good bet.
Coffee should serve in lieu of alcohol; and whipped cream should require no thickeners at all.
To avoid the raw eggs, you could do a creme anglaise as well (perhaps even with the espresso added to it?). It only takes a few minutes to prepare. You could actually even fold whipped cream into that to get a texture similar to whipped mascarpone.
You might want look into "aquafaba" techniques (using legume stocks as an egg alternative that can be whipped stiff) for some of the layers, these hadn't been discovered/publicly documented at the time the original question was asked.
First, being that the kitchen is vegetarian, it would be optimal to make the recipe vegan. Many vegetarians actually prefer vegan.
Perhaps you could make a modern tiramisu without the ladyfingers, as a layered cake? This would be faster.
Below is a tiramisu cupcake recipe I made that was fantastic. You could easily use it to make the layered tiramisu cake. In place of the amaretto, you can use agave syrup + a little water + almond extract.
http://chefchloe.com/sweets/raspberry-tiramisu-cupcakes.html
If you still desire a mascarpone substitute--I'd use Follow Your Heart brand vegan cream cheese and vegan sour cream whipped with vanilla and powdered sugar and a little bit of cornstarch. Adding almond milk creamer would improve the taste as well. Greek yogurt is pretty wet, so I'm not sure how that would work out. I have, however, used Greek-style almond milk yogurt successfully--but that's hard to find in many places.
Edit: I found this recipe that looks promising:
http://veggywood.com/2010/07/19/vegan-tiramisu-finally/
One benefit of vegan creams and fillings is that they're so easily adjustable, and the consistencies are reliable--what comes out of the package is what will result. You don't have to mess around with whipping creams and stabilizing and whatnot. I say, play around with some of the non-cheese & nondairy ingredients mentioned in this thread. Come up with a creamy filling that you enjoy. What you're striving for is a dessert with amazing taste and texture, not one that is exactly like traditional tiramisu. They will love it. :)
"First, being that the kitchen is vegetarian, it would be optimal to make the recipe vegan. Many vegetarians actually prefer vegan." Um... no. That's a completely and utterly unfounded statement.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.009300 | 2014-01-15T00:13:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41172",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aekzo",
"Ajan Vp",
"Catija",
"Gloria Laughlin",
"Ioannis Stas",
"Jim Emmerson",
"Karen",
"Marti",
"Paul Schack",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Zian",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95936",
"phentnil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44758 | Melted biscuits
When I was young, my mother had us on a non-wheat non-sugar diet for reasons. So she made some sweet biscuits that were sugar-free (had honey or something in them instead of sugar - or something - not sugar-free i.e. simple carbs free, it was an allergy thing).
She forgets what she put in them or how she made them. I have no idea. But they melted across the tray, becoming flat and uniform, and when done they tasted like nothing I have ever eaten since. Any idea what the hell they were and how I can reproduce that melting/delicious effect?
Most biscuits (cookies for our American friends) melt across the tray when you bake them, so that doesn't really narrow it down. In any case, recipe requests are off-topic here on Seasoned Advice - I'm sure Google will give you any number of sugar free, wheat free cookie recipes.
From the description of the 'melting', it sounds like oatmeal lace cookies, but most of those have a little bit of flour in them.
Melted into a flat sheet. Like, brownies, I guess. They dripped down the side of the oven. We cut them up with a knife and ate them as squares. Substitute wheat flours or sugar substitutes that do melt like that so I can experiment with them is what i'm after.
I want to know which things in those categories might cause melting, or if everything in that category melts so the melting doesn't narrow it down. 'sugar free biscuit recipes' is nothing like what I am after at all.
Sounds a bit like a paleo version of Anzac biscuits. If not, please don't bite my head off, but here's the recipe I follow, although I don't recall where I obtained it originally;
Pre-heat oven to 150C
175g organic rolled oats
40g dessicated or flaked organic coconut
60g flaked or chopped almonds - or almond meal if preferred
2 1/2 tablespoons cold pressed olive, coconut or macadamia nut oil
2 tablespoons honey
1/2 teaspoon vanilla bean paste
1 tablespoon water
Mix it together in one big, gooey, mess, adding a little of the water if needed to help keep it together.
Form into balls, place on tray, then flatten with the back of a fork.
Chuck in the oven for 20-30 minutes or until golden brown.
*Note; Mine tend to come out very 'chewy', melty and more-ish, which is just the way I like them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.009796 | 2014-06-10T07:28:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44758",
"authors": [
"Accountancy N Tax spam Ltd",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James Britton",
"Joe",
"Kathryn",
"Koin89Bonus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user2623008",
"user2754",
"Сергей Борисович"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54348 | What can I use to replace beet sugar syrup for cookies?
I'm making cookies that call for beet sugar syrup but I don't think it's available in my country. What can I use in substitute for it?
You didn't tell us where you're located. That is especially helpful when you're asking for an ingredient substitution.
Also, the substitutions tag would be good.
@Catija If you want to edit a question (including retagging) just go for it - it'll go into the suggested edit queue and get reviewed.
@Jefromi It wouldn't let me because I wasn't making 10 characters of change to the question but I will try again.
@Catija: If your change is deemed "too short" by the system, delete a random word and write it again.
My first reaction was to think that beet sugar syrup was just simple syrup, since beet sugar is just regular sugar, but I looked around and discovered that I was wrong.
The reviewers on Amazon likened the flavor to that of raisins, and suggest molasses, AKA treacle (not blackstrap molasses, use a lighter variety), as the best substitute. If the molasses flavor seems a bit strong, try mixing it with a bit of corn syrup, preferably dark corn syrup.
Sweetened tamarind syrup could be a good substitute.
It has much of the fruity flavor of beet sugar syrup, but also some spice.
It would be a much better substitute than molasses, but a bit of a do-it-yourself project.
Tamarind is widely available especially in places where molasses wouldn't be.
Sweetened with refined sugar, I guess?
Any sweetener would do. I think honey would be an especially nice choice if cost isn't an issue.
How much do you need? I dont know if this is suitable, but you could try it.
You try macerating your own beet syrup.
A simple macerating recipe:
Combine 2 cups of 1/4 inch diced beets to 3/4 cup of cane sugar, and 3 tbsp of fresh lemon juice. Fold it over until everything is wet, let it stand in its own juices for a minimum of 2 hours. Strain off the syrup. I think you might get a half cup of syrup.
You'll have to experiment because I haven't done this with hard root veg before, just softer fruits, but it might be your trick and also a way to get down to even more from scratch if that's your thing.
EDIT: Adding some more here.
I just learned how they make beet syrup, and I am modifying it for the kitchen here based on my other hands-on experiences extracting juices from hard fruit (sp. apples).
1) Boil the beet (white beets produce the most sugar but also impart the least flavor)
2) grind the beet (you can use a meat grinder, or a modified sinkerator ala home cider grinding, or dice, bag and pulverize with a mallet.
3) add beet pulp to heavy cheese cloth, put "cheese" between two pieces of hardwood plywood planking, and use 3 or 4 C clamps to squeeze the juice out.
4) don't forget to catch the juice :)
5) reduce the juice down by simmering until it's the thickness and consistency you are looking for.
Yeah yeah, I know this is a lot of work. As you guys get to know me though, I like to from scratch as much as I can. It can also be a fun project for someone to learn how something is made and to make it once or twice then return to using a shelf product.
Anyway, don't down vote me for that. If you need a thing that's hard to get, sometimes the only way to get it is to make it yourself.
Are you saying beets have the same flavor as sugar beets?
@Jefromi, Sugar beets are just an especially sweet cultivar of beet that's more efficient to extract sugar from. The base flavors are pretty much the same.
I've never tasted sugar beets, but I do know that when you select cultivars like that the flavor can change pretty drastically. Just look at all the Brassica oleracea cultivars - you wouldn't necessarily expect them to all make good flavor substitutes.
@jbarker2160 The other thing to keep in mind is that by the time you process something down into a thick sugar syrup, you tend to lose some of the complex flavors as well, so even fresh sugar beet infused into pure sugar syrup might taste very different from sugar beet syrup.
I didn't downvote, but for what it's worth, if you hover over the arrow you'll see that it means "not useful". If it was downvoted before your edit, perhaps someone just thought it didn't sound like a good flavor match. After the edit... while I do appreciate the desire to make things from scratch, do remember that this is a Q&A site and the OP seems to be asking for another product they can buy, so someone might have reasonably thought making it from scratch wasn't a useful answer. If someone instead asked how to make it, though, it might be very useful!
In general, don't worry too much about downvotes, though. It's just a single person's opinion. (Also if you're eager to post things like this, feel free to just ask questions and answer them yourself!)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.010012 | 2015-02-03T14:27:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54348",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dean Wignell",
"Dominique Etier",
"Lisa Brown",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Oumi Takamura",
"Renee Herdt",
"Stephie",
"Susan Selby",
"bnm Griffin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"mogwang annastacia",
"stan stmp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54638 | Is there a substitute for tamari and soy as I have a soya allergy?
I'm on an exclusion diet for some time. I have found loads of amazing recipes that have soy or tamari or miso paste in them but I can't eat these. Does anyone know of something that's similar?
related (but also requires vegan) : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1753/67
There are actually products that are Soy Free Soy Sauce. You can also find recipes to make your own. This Recipe for Soy Free Soy Sauce Substitute has great reviews and sounds pretty good. It is made with bouillon, molasses, balsamic vinegar and seasonings.
A lot of people swear by Bragg Liquid Aminos as a soy free soy sauce alternative, but it actually contains soy.
There are chickpea or adzuli bean soy-free miso pastes from South River Miso Company. Miso Master makes a chickpea one too.
You can also ferment your own chickpea miso, but it takes about a year. There are instructions in The Art of Fermentation by Sandor Ellix Katz.
Bragg's aminos is definitely soy, but there is a brand of coconut aminos available that is soy free.
@sourd'oh That's the first one I listed, it's the only one I could find.
The simplest substitute would be salt and beef boulion. It's not exactly the same but it imparts the basic flavors (salt and umami). Depending on how salty, you may not even need to add salt to the beef tea.
Both Maggi and Bragg's are made from soy, so don't use them.
The closest things that I can think of Worstershire sauce or fish sauce ... both give salt, but also bring other qualities that might not be desired. Fish sauce in particular has a much stronger flavor that can overwhelm dishes in large quantities.
Another common replacement is black bean pase thinned with water, but every recipe that I've found suggests that one of the ingredients in it is soy sauce. (I don't know if they're all copying from the same recipe, so it might be possible that there are commercially made ones out there without it)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.010389 | 2015-02-12T12:48:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54638",
"authors": [
"Brenda Shelly",
"France Lavoie",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josephine Piccari",
"Macky Aquin0",
"Pat McKeel",
"Paul Lukens",
"SourDoh",
"Wendelin OU",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"shadon white"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76694 | Identity of "Kulkie"
At my local (kosher, Ashkenazi) butcher, one of the cuts of beef they sell is kulkie, or kolichel/kalichl. It's a tough, lean cut with copious connective tissue which is great for stewing. However, I haven't the faintest what it is, which presents a problem if I'm going to a Sephardi, or non-Jewish kosher butcher, who wouldn't likely be familiar with the term.
Which part of the cow is the "kulkie"?
Have you asked the butcher? He probably has a chart he can show you.
@JohnFeltz, I will if I go there soon, although it's possible that he wouldn't know either.
Google searching various ways, this is what I found on Kosher Eye:
Kalichel: this refers to the animal’s leg meat and is usually sold boned. It is always very tender. It’s sometimes cut crosswise with the bone in and is excellent for hearty soups
So, it seems that @GdD is correct that it comes from the front half of the cow and is leg meat.
The pieces I had were not very tender, it seemed to follow more along Joshua's definition
I questioned that but, in light of the fact that the source says it excellent for hearty soups, it seems to be suitable for long cooking. Also, from the picture, it looks more like shin meat than shoulder meat.
if it had ever had a bone, I would have mentioned it in the OP. I guess it's possible, but I assume that I would be able to tell if it were boned.
Well, it only says that sometimes it has a bone.
Could it be possible that there are two cuts with the same name?
Possible. I'm not an expert on kosher. Just posted what little I was able to find.
Re differences between Jewish communities: Sephardim don't use Yiddish, while many Ashkenazim have at least some familiarity with it.
It looks a lot like the mock tender:
That's the teres major muscle, from the shoulder. In a different butchering, it would be part of the chuck. Despite the tenderloin-esque shape, it's rather tougher and benefits from stewing. (It's sometimes sliced to make steaks, but while the tenderloin yields filet mignons, this is considerably chewier.)
Is there another common term for the teres major?
Culinarily, I see it listed as the "chuck tender" or "shoulder tender" and names like that.
Anatomically, it's one of the numerous muscles involved in rotating the shoulder, just below the shoulder cuff. (The teres minor is part of the shoulder cuff.) I don't think it has a common name; there are a LOT of muscles in there.
My understanding of Kosher is limited, but from what little I know it's limited to the front half of the cow, although how that differs between the two branches I couldn't tell you. The picture of the cut you sent looks a lot like beef leg, so it would be foreleg, although it could be from the shoulder/neck area as well.
You're correct: in the United States, it would likely be the shin meat and referred to as the foreshank, or from the hind leg and called the hindshank.
Many kosher butchers are now capable of removing the sciatic nerve and fats which make the back half of the animal non-kosher. As such, assuming that all kosher meat comes from the front half is no longer a safe move.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.010589 | 2016-12-21T21:33:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76694",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Giorgio",
"John Feltz",
"Joshua Engel",
"NoahM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76444 | Adding mashed potatoes for moister/softer cinnamon rolls
Is it true that adding mashed potatoes as an ingredient makes cinnamon sweet rolls moister and/or softer?
If so, can we simply add a healthy dollop to any yeasted cinnamon roll recipe? Is there any other trick to this?
Could yams or sweet potatoes be added instead, for more flavor, with the same benefit of being moister/softer?
Both kinds of potatoes you mention should work as a replacement to a portion of the flour required by the recipe you'd like to follow. I think replacing ~30% of the mass of flour with that mass of your choice of potato is a great start.
The sweet potato might be a better choice because of the added sweetness you'll get. You don't want to go far above 30% if you do that because it will start to dominate the flavor of the roll.
As for softness, it does seem like the end result will be a bit softer although I can't say I've tried it before. You could even consider using some high quality ricotta cheese instead of potato. If using ricotta, I'd limit to ~20% replacement for the flour as this is less starchy than the potatoes. This will help to soften the roll as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.010842 | 2016-12-13T23:59:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76444",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68915 | Why doesn't oil burn and produce smoke at restaurants?
At home when you want to deep-fry something, if you leave the heat on for a minute or two more than you should have, the oil starts to burn and produce smoke.
Why doesn't this happen at restaurants and takeaways (UK)? Is it the specialised equipment they use? Or is there more to it? I doubt they turn off the heat on their deep fryers when not in use, cause if someone walks in and orders something that needs deep-frying, it'll take a long time for the oil to get to frying temperatures again!
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Are you deep frying in a purpose-built fryer or in a pan/pot?
At home I deep fry in a pan :)
Restaurants, generally, don't... as I think the answers show :)
@Ciwan Be very careful! A few years ago I was forced out of my apartment for a day because someone in the building next to mine was doing some deep frying with poor equipment and some of the oil spilled and caught on fire. It ended up burning down the entire building and it's a small miracle that no one was killed!
If in doubt, assume what you are doing is dangerous. Smoking bulk oil means you are overheating it beyond safety. At least monitor it, and at the first sign of ANY smoke, remove your vessel from the burner to instantly stop the heat input!
And (sorry to repeat myself): If you prefer doing your deep frying stovetop (I do too), use an oil that has good safety margin (peanut oil will still be well away from disaster at 190°C) and an accurate thermometer.
@rackandboneman Given the amount of heat in the oil, and the danger of sloshing, turning off the specific heater should be safer than quickly moving the pan.
As a safety precaution: I would keep the lid for that pan out on the counter top for emergency use. I like to use deep pans like a deep sauce pan or a dutch oven. The iron dutch oven worked best because it gave temperature stability--the temperature dropped little when food was added.
@Cess Timmermann I have to admit I was thinking in terms of the most dangerous type of burner (cast iron electric plates without temperature control. Significant amount of stored heat even when switched off.) in that situation. And did not assume somebody would use a vessel that could not be comfortably handled at reasonable fill, or fill it so full that it would easily slosh,given that such a full fill will also be trivially easy to overboil.
Restaurants have massive fans.
Commercial deep fryers have temperature control.
Example temperature control unit:
And massive heating elements (notice 4 temperature controls):
Massive heating elements allows for even delivery of heat. When you drop frozen fish it has to kick out some heat but it is careful not to get too hot via temperature control. The temperature gradient alone causes good mixing. When you heat fresh oil you can see it stirring around.
If your oil is burning and producing smoke then your deep-fryer is too hot. Even most home fryers have temperature control. Or you are possibly using the wrong oil. A cheaper home unit will have a smaller heating unit so it will have more trouble with maintaining a constant temperature but a temperature controller near the heating element should prevent any oil from burning.
A domestic deep fryer would also come with temperature control (would be utterly dangerous otherwise since the heat source usually cannot be easily removed from the vessel in such an appliance). A pot/pan/wok needs temperature control in the shape of a thermometer and/or experienced user. Also, if doing small batches eg in a wok, use some more resilient oil (peanut oil for example) than generic deep fryer oil.
Has anyone ever seen one without (appliance shaped, not stovetop)? Otherwise, we should merge.
My home deep-fryer has no very limited temperature control. Effectively it's a self-resetting Thermal cutout, that at best triggers ~30'C either-side of the nob-position.
The temperature nob also adjusts between 120'C and 240'C, As you can imagine, sunflower oil at around 190'C is, not fun.
@JohnBargman Sounds like you should stop using that fryer!
Plus one for the first line. You don't see smoke (a visible effluent) coming out of commercial establishments because there are likely ordinances against it in your area, as there are in mine. It is however more than just a big fan; there's filters and all sorts of stuff.
@DavidRicherby, Me and a few hundred thousand other people no doubt.
However cheap "made in China" solutions are all I can afford at the moment. ;)
@JohnBargman Arrange the following in increasing order of cost: (a) stopping using your current fryer; (b) stopping using your current fryer and replacing it with a new one; (c) continuing to use your current fryer, burning your house down and having to replace everything you own. Oh, wait. I already did put them in order.
Restaurants have the right tools and equipment for deep frying. I would agree that they also have massive exhaust fans to keep the smoke down. They also have the right equipment to do mass quantities of food. They have a special deep fry station, where they have gallons of the correct oil and at the right temperature. Here size or quantity of oil matters. The larger the amount of oil to fry in, less thermal shock for the oil.
At home, you would probably use 1 gallon of oil max in a home style deep fryer, and do small batches. The amount of built up heat in that 1 gallon is easily changed when you put something in it to fry. It may drop and then reheat. Or if you are using a pan or pot, same thing, the temperature is fluctuating and has a tendency to burn food if too high. In the commercial kitchen there might be 10 gallons of oil, so less drop in temperature. And temperatures matter for a good outcome.
I would say commercial get more shock. The afternoon is slow and dinner can be basket after basket of frozen fish. More oil and bigger basket.
It is a combination of a few factors.
I doubt they turn off the heat on their deep fryers when not in use
Some do it. There are small deep fryers which have the capacity for one portion of fries, and bistros and restaurants where you sit down and wait for your order to be prepared turn them off during lull times. They take some minutes to heat up, but the customers are expecting the wait anyway. Of course, fast food joints can't do this.
Is it the specialized equipment they use
Partly, yes. Your stove is engineered to output a constant amount of energy (time modulated), no matter what you put on it. Different cooking vessels with different types and amounts of food heat up at a different rate and reach a different equilibrium temperature. While a commercial deep fryer will allow you control the temperature too to some extent, the fryer has a known shape, material and volume, allowing the engineers to work with a narrower possible range of temperatures. It will only overheat in some less usual circumstances, such as letting the oil go very low while being turned up very high, but the typical setting and volume are likely to be chosen in such a way that the final temperature is optimal for deep frying and too low for overheating.
It is likely that you can reach this temperature with your stove too. From your description, it sounds like you choose a stove setting which is too high, and the oil doesn't reach an equilibrium temperature, but continues to heat up while you're frying. Also, it seems that you are using relatively little oil compared to the mass of the food, so that the thermal mass of the food cools it down and it doesn't burn while frying. Check the oil temperature with a thermometer and adjust, and you will probably find a stove setting which can hold 1-2 liters of oil at a relatively stable temperature after a sufficiently long period of preheating.
Or is there more to it?
The other part would be the fat itself. If you are reaching for your standard high linoleic oil every time you want to deep fry, it can be that its smoke point is lower than the optimal frying temperature. These places use fats specifically designed for deep frying, with rather high smoke points. So even if their temperature fluctuates between, say, 160 and 190 Celsius, it still doesn't smoke.
I don't agree that commercial fryers heaters are designed for a specific heat output. Every one I have used has temperature control. It is also a safety thing. If the oil got low a fixed heat could cause a fire.
OK, I have worked with commercial fryers, but never too closely, so wasn't aware that it also has a feedback mechanism. This means they have an even more complex (and better) design than I was aware of.
@Paparazzi Thank you for your observation. I still think that designing a fryer which fries without overheating when used with an average amount of oil is easier than designing a stove which will heat the oil in a random vessel to the optimal temperature. I changed my argument to reflect that, but removed the claim of fryers being designed for only one heat output.
Agree a fryer that does not maintain a temperature would be easier. It would fail on consistent cooking and safety. An oven is based on temperature. I don't get how easier is better. Just how would you design for "without overheating" absent monitoring the temperature.
You wouldn't design for "never overheating" without monitoring. But if you know that at the max heat setting, it only overheats when the oil drops to less than 1/3 of the volume, then you have produced a device which overheats very rarely in typical use.
@rumtscho I think serious fryers basically always have temperature control, not just a "power" setting (even home fryers do nowadays), so it doesn't seem crazy to think they'd just shut off if the temperature gets too high. But agreed, under normal use they'd definitely never reach that point.
The answers attesting to commercial equipment thermostat control are correct. But, it's also about the oil. You didn't say what oil you use at home.
Restaurants typically use fryer oil with a smoke point in the mid-400's F. For cooking, they set the thermostat in the 375 F range, well below the smoke point. Maybe you have the wrong oil and/or using too much heat.
I use regular sunflower oil from Aldi/Lidl ..etc
Pure sunflower oil smoke point is about 440 F. You should be OK. 375 F is a good deep fry temp---you should use a thermometer and try and hit no higher than that.
Does oil packaging mention anything about smoke point?
It might. But I used Google. First hit https://jonbarron.org/diet-and-nutrition/healthiest-cooking-oil-chart-smoke-points
Commercial deep fryers are controlled by thermostats so that they are kept at a controlled temperature electronically and can be left on more or less indefinitely.
By contrast if you just put a pan full of oil on a hob you have some control over the heat input but there is no automated feedback mechanism to regulate the temperature and so it is quite hard to keep it at an accurate constant temperature.
If you are properly deep frying, you should never allow the oil to get to the point it burns. Commercial fryers are temperature controlled to maintain a consistent temperature. If you are frying in a pan, it is the duty of the cook to monitor the oil and ensure that the burner setting is lowered, if you the temperature of the oil gets too high.
Commercial fryers also have one more interesting feature that I have not seen in domestic equipment.
The heating elements are well above the bottom of the container. This leaves a zone below the heating coils where sediment will collect. Thanks to convection this portion of the oil will be significantly cooler than the rest, so any sediment is much less likely to burn than if you were to cook on a stove-top.
Depends on how YOU do your frying, I guess, if you are wondering why they are different in their results.
If you crank the heat onto high setting, and add food when it gets hot enough, keeping that heating element or flame on a high setting will first get the oil back up to good frying temperature, but then will keep heating it.
Any kind of frying-specific equipment has a temperature setting, it won't heat beyond that particular frying temperature.
What causes an oil to smoke and break down? Different oil sources have different chemical compositions. They have different temperatures as their "smoke point" where they start to smoke and the heat breaks down their chemical structure. Oils like olive oil and canola oil have their smoke points below where one would want to deep fry french fries, for instance. Refined peanut oil has a very high smoke point and is a standard for deep frying or stir frying because of that.
While we might throw whatever we have handy into a pan or pot for frying, a restaurant is probably going to just use an oil that is more friendly to deep frying, as well.
Smoke point: different oils have different smoke points. Google for a chart. Butter has a very low smoke point, ad therefore burns easily. Use an oil with a high smoke point such as canola or peanut oil.
The only way to measure oil temperature properly is with an immersion probe built specifically to measure oil temperature. Buy one.
Even if the oil is below the smoke point, little bits of food and coating can be left in the oil when you are frying. That stuff will burn up right quick. That's when you need to toss or filter your oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.010983 | 2016-05-10T13:35:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68915",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cees Timmerman",
"David Richerby",
"J86",
"John Bargman",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Mazura",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"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
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.