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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
62224 | Flavor difference between marzipan and persipan
I know that persipan is a cheap substitute for marzipan, using apricot or peach kernels in place of almonds. How do the flavor profiles of these two food items differ? Is marzipan really "better" in some sense than persipan?
Egad, they do that on purpose now?
If you want to give something the flavor of almonds, then starting with almonds, in my opinion, is superior to starting with the cousin of almonds. Of course, if your persipan is, in your opinion, indistinguishable from marzipan, then go ahead and use it in good health, but it is likely that it has added flavors to get it to that point (natural or otherwise, depending on manufacturer).
Modern, sweet, cultivated almonds have a stronger almond-y (and in my opinion, better) flavor than apricot kernels and, I would presume, peach kernels (I haven't eaten those).
Almonds, peaches and apricots are close relatives and the kernels are generally quite similar. Most peach and apricot kernels (as well as bitter almonds) are not edible in their fresh, raw state because they contain cyanide in the form of amygdalin. There are actually some apricots with kernels that are edible without extra processing and in my experience, they aren't as flavorful as almonds, although I guess there could be some varieties with more flavorful kernels, but I think the ones that are being used for the persipan are more likely to be leftover from fruit production and not a specific variety bred for the kernel itself.
When you make marzipan, you just need to grind up blanched almonds. When you make persipan, you need to process the kernels to remove toxic chemicals, which removes much of the bitterness, and then grind them up and probably add in some flavoring.
I expect it is possible to get the persipan to approximate the flavor of marzipan, and I would expect the texture to be about right to begin with, but personally, I would say that yes, making marzipan from almonds is superior. It's using the variant of that particular nut-bearing tree that was bred throughout the centuries to make the flavor that this food item is most expected to highlight. Marzipan IS almond. ...and sugar, sure, fine, whatever. ;-)
You didn't really answer the question. What is the flavor difference between the two products?
I think I did answer that, actually. I said that edible apricot kernels have a similar but milder flavor than modern cultivated almonds. If you make something out of apricot kernels, you will end up with a product that has a similar almond-like flavor, but milder and less flavorful, that would require addition of almond flavoring to make it taste as almond-y as almond-based marzipan.
Indeed, the flavor might well be stronger, though the choice would come down to "what you like better" and I can't tell you that.
I don't think I've ever found "persipan" or "apricot kernel paste" (other than mail order in absurd quantities at absurd prices) but I'm quite fond of amaretti, and there isn't an almond involved in Amaretti di Saronno, anyway - sugar, apricot kernels, egg whites and raising agent. Kinda funny for a product often thought to be "almond"-flavored, and quite strongly flavored at that.
I can more easily get marzipan or almond paste, and I generally choose the latter as it has more almonds (percentage-wise), typically. But based on Amaretti di Saronno I'd quite happily buy apricot kernel paste if I could find it at a reasonable cost, either locally or including shipping.
Persipan is a bold strong bitter almond taste, whereas almond and Marzipan paste is a much lighter smoother almond flavor and texture.. Hope this helps!!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.042042 | 2015-10-02T16:34:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62224",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"Debbie M.",
"Escoce",
"John Cook",
"Marie Jejski",
"Marie Powell",
"NadjaCS",
"Nancy Lemargie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66296 | Is the second rise step neccesary for no-knead bread?
In the classic no-knead bread recipe, it calls for letting the dough rise once for 12-18 hours, then folding it on a work surface and letting it rise again for two hours. Why is this second rise necessary? Could I just let the bread rise once for 14-20 hours with the same effect?
The second rising is quite necessary for good, light, airy bread.
When you fold the bread and then shape it into a proper loaf, you compress it, pushing out some of the air pockets that grew when it was rising. If you don't let it rise a second time after shaping, the bread won't have the proper airy-ness and it will be very dense.
You can't shape the bread properly at the beginning, so you must do it in two steps.
I suppose that if you're OK with dense bread, you can fold and shape it and then put it right in the oven but I don't think you'll like the outcome.
I make no knead bread at least once per week. I have only skipped the second rise once...because it ruined the bread! Eek! So sad. It made it dense and flat. Definitely worth the extra time and effort to get that second rise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.042434 | 2016-02-07T21:00:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66296",
"authors": [
"Jackie Mullard",
"Simon Allsop",
"Sue Horn",
"Will D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160326",
"shirley hammerschmith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65161 | Labeling Food for the Freezer
I freeze stuff. Anything from Bolognese to stew. I portion these meals, after they've cooled, into meal-sized Tupperware boxes and stuff them randomly into my crowded freezer.
The problem is that it's difficult to tell which stews are which, and also when they were made. So far, I've been using memory. But I'd like to delegate the task to a system of written or visual aids - so that I don't have to remember.
Has anybody got a good suggestion for a system of frozen food labelling that doesn't suck?
The obvious answer is freezer-safe sticky labels. I fear that these will be annoying; that they will ruin my Tupperware boxes, and that I will be wasting money buying them and writing on them and then having to stick over them.
I'd like some more innovative suggestions, preferably ones that have been tried with success.
Masking tape is cheap and doesn't ruin containers.
@jejorda2 thanks for the suggestion, does it keep-stuck on a plastic Tupperware?
I use water soluble marker pens
@user23614 Does that not rub off in the freezer? How effective do you find it?
I haven't seen wax pencils in a while ... but that might be a solution, as they clean off well when scrubbed. (no idea if it has problems in the cold, though).
The water soluble pens work fine, the ice in the freezer doesn't really act wet unless you defrost it. Once the foods out a wipe with hot water leaves the box ready to go again
My daughter has bath crayons. Which write on wet surfaces but easily come off with a rub but with a sponge.
Sellotape (scotch tape) and permanent marker (the kind for writing on CDs). Sticks to everything and stays stuck till you peel it off. Those damned freezer labels leave glue on the lids, and don't stick at all to some plastic.
As mentioned in comments, masking tape is an excellent solution. It's cheap, it holds well yet comes off easily, it can be torn off at whatever length you need, and you can write on it with just about anything.
Both at home and working at restaurants, I've used masking tape and permanent marker for labeling items for storage in the pantry, fridge, and freezer for years. Just about its only disadvantage is that it's not aesthetically pleasing, but presumably you're not usually showing off your collection of frozen meals. It can also sometimes leave behind traces of adhesive after being stored for a long time, but that's easily scrubbed off by hand.
A couple extra tips:
The regular beige stuff is fine; there are blue "painting tape" varieties that claim better adhesion and easier removal, but they're not worth the extra money. Plus, if you're writing in black marker, beige offers better contrast.
Labeling is easier if you tear a strip off the roll before you write on it. I don't usually have problems with the marker bleeding through, but you probably want to write on a non-decorative surface in case of stray marks.
Where possible, stick your labels on lids (if you'll be reheating in the same container) and pull them off at room temperature. Excessive heat or cold seems to increase the chance of residual adhesive, and you probably don't want even a mild, temporary glue cooking in your oven or microwave.
I like the detail of this answer. I will trial this technique before marking as correct.
This is really a good answer. Labeling things in general is easy, but making tape allows you to label a container many times.
This is how I go about solving the problem as well. Particularly pay attention to the third point as you should remove the tape before placing the container in the microwave if that is the intention. Its better to have to replace the tape with a new one rather than have to deal with melted glue. Also note that the mild glue used on most masking tape removes very cleanly and easily with most dish soaps, so don't worry if you forget to remove the tape before throwing the dish into dish water. Just try to remember to remove it first if making use of a dishwasher though due to their heat.
Additional tip: If the masking tape does leave a residue, and it doesn't come off easily with just soap and water, smearing something oily (cooking oil, butter, petroleum jelly, etc.) on the residue and letting it sit overnight should soften the glue enough to make it easy to wash off. Worked great for me when I needed to clean some old masking tape glue off a window pane.
@IlmariKaronen : there's a product called 'Goo Gone' that works great for getting glue reside off. For flat glass, like a window pane, you can also use a razor blade to scrape it off ... but unfortunately most food containers aren't that flat.
After some time trying a few of the suggestions, I find that this is the strongest answer. It wins on a mixture of cost, ease-of-use and convenience. A tip for anyone doing this: make sure you get the masking tape down flush on the container before freezing. Once frozen, it is impossible to re-apply curling tape.
I'd actually recommend painter's tape, despite the "not worth the money" comment in another answer. I find that it doesn't dry out as much as masking tape does, so it sticks longer and is less affected by wet (because it's designed to get wet). It releases well. We also use it to label our lidded canisters with the contents and "best by" date of the current package. As you can see, contrast with a black sharpie really isn't an issue.
It comes in a wide variety of widths and is relatively cheap (considering you only need a few inches).
Also, for removal ease, you might consider folding under one corner or edge so it's easier to start pulling.
+1 for using ISO 8601 date format.
For food storage, I use quart containers (and pints) that I order in bulk from Amazon (like the ones you get at a deli) and zip lock bags...no brand name or funny shaped containers. The quart and pint containers all take the same lid, so no need to search. Then I just use a sharpie to write on these before placing them in the freezer or fridge. I also write on the zip lock bags. For the quart containers, the sharpie just wipes or washes off the lid. Then I can re-use. I don't reuse the zip lock bags.
Use a "permanent" marker meant for writing on CDs on the containers directly. When storage is over, clean the writing with isopropyl alcohol.
The idea is similar to moscafj's, but unlike a nonpermanent marker, it won't smudge when you hold the boxes and move them around.
Update If you are uncomfortable using isopropyl alcohol, Pete Kirkham suggests in comments that dish soap plus elbow grease are sufficient to remove this kind of pen from a plastic box.
This answer will no-doubt be valuable to some, but I feel like the added effort in cleaning the box makes it less of an efficient system. Some, less-lazy labellers my find this helpful.
I use use the cheapest vodka I can find to clean stuff around my kitchen, including the containers I've written on, so basically the same idea... ;-)
I'm not sure what the difference is between a "sharpie" and a "permanent marker meant for writing on CDs"...
@Marti I meant to use markers which don't "just wipe off the lid". I don't know all details about the linguistically correct use of "sharpie", but to me, moscafj's answer clearly refers to the kind of marker I know as "non-permanent", which I assumed to have the subtext "because with a permanent one, box reuse is difficult".
Sharpies are marketed as, and on some surfaces are, "permanent" markers.
Sharpie will not accidentally wipe off a plastic container in the freezer, but will come off with water and a non-stick scouring pad, so is only very slightly more cleaning effort that you would to clean the pot anyway. No resorting to IPA.
@PeteKirkham The other answer said "just wipes off the lid". If your definition of "sharpie" means "a marker which does not wipe off easily" then Moscafj either used a different definition of "sharpie", or wrote an answer which contradicts itself. I understand his answer to mean "use the kind of marker which wipes off on touch" and suggest "use the kind of marker which is meant to stay, then remove it with a solvent". The exact word "sharpie" and its interpretations don't really matter.
@rumtscho I use a Sharpie, which is a particular model of pen. It does not wipe of easily - you have to use a scouring pad. You could use solvents, but I don't keep poisons in the kitchen.
@PeteKirkham the point here is that my answer is sufficiently different from another answer which suggested using the kind of pen which wipes off easily (as evidenced by the wording of that same answer). Any discussions on pen brands, "poisons in the kitchen", etc. are irrelevant.
I'm agreeing that a permanent marker is better than something that would smudge, but pointing out that you don't need to use of toxic solvents to get rid of such permanent markers on plastic food containers, only the stuff you normally use when washing up and a little effort.
@PeteKirkham thank you, got your point now and updated the post
The issue here is needing to use 'elbow grease' - which is very rarely available in my household.
FWIW, and with regard to my answer above, I use a black Sharpie brand permanent marker. I put my quart containers and lids in the dishwasher after use. Then into the cabinet. When I want to reuse/re-mark, I just wipe the old marking off with my thumb....really, that simple.
Chalk Pen!
Chalk pens like the ones that bars use to write on blackboards work perfectly for writing on Tupperware. You can read them legibly indefinitely, you don't need to mess around with sticking labels onto things and, when you're done, you can just wipe it off with a damp cloth.
In addition to masking tape, which I do like for some purposes, we use erasable labels, like these. They are permanently stuck on (but don't seem to hard to remove, though I use glass not plastic containers), you write on them, and then use the included eraser to erase them so you can write on them again. They seem to survive the dishwasher fine, which is an added bonus.
My sister has a stainless steel mixing bowl with a butterfly sticker on it, courtesy of my niece. It's been there for years, now. It's kind of upside-down and at an odd angle, but there's no removing it, no matter how many trips that bowl takes through the dishwasher.
I'm sure that's an annoying problem, but the labels I'm talking about don't have any trouble being removed when you decide to do so. Children's stickers are generally designed with glue that has one purpose - to annoy parents as much as possible.
Similar to Joe M's answer, you can also get dry erase tape.
It is a roll of tape you can stick on and write on with standard dry erase markers.
From a quick google search, you can find some here, but it is readily available elsewhere.
I'll add on to the above suggestion of painter's tape with a bit more specificity. Chef Thomas Keller uses green FrogTape painter's tape for storage at the French Laundry, and I'd pretty much take anything he does as gospel. It is easily removable, doesn't slide off the container if it gets wet, and is relatively cheap.
Anything you do as far as food labeling is going to cost a bit of money: if you write directly on the container, you'll have to replace the container eventually. If not, you'll obviously have to purchase something to stick onto the container itself. But it is a sound practice and worth investing in, especially if you freeze a lot, as you say you do.
http://robbreport.com/Fine-Dining/Icons--Innovators-Thomas-Keller-Inn-Coming
http://frogtape.com/
White electrician's tape. Double a bit of the end over to act as a removal handle, and please, for good freezer storage, vacuum seal. It's cheap if you buy it in rolls.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.042607 | 2016-01-07T19:05:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65161",
"authors": [
"0002 - Đinh Ngọc Bảo An",
"AvengeMe",
"Cynthia Jordan-Kayl",
"Doug",
"Elaine Beresford",
"Escoce",
"Fabby",
"George Katsafaros",
"Gulmammet Gulmammedov",
"Helen Walker",
"ILL Lupas",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Jas Bishop",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Julie Holmes",
"Julie Suffolk",
"Kleydman Dermatology",
"Mal Earney",
"Marco Toffoli",
"Marti",
"Matthew Leingang",
"Pete Kirkham",
"Prof. Bear",
"RedSonja",
"Ron Ollington",
"Tony Hutchings",
"Vega B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jejorda2",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"shennan",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1897 | How does commercial whole grain bread stay fresh for so long?
Every recipe for whole grain bread I have tried has the end result that the bread turns very hard within an hour of baking. I'd like something I could eat over the course of a couple days (breakfast toast and such). The 100% whole wheat bread from the store lasts two weeks - how do they do it?
Can you define "hard"? Do you mean all the way through the loaf - even if you cut into it? Just the crust? My bread machine loaves go stale quickly, but I make up for that by eating it. :-)
There is a BBC show called "E Numbers: an Edible Adventure" which has a section addressing this question (I think in the second episode).
Industrial breads use 'dough conditioners' that soften the dough and make working with it easier. You can buy such mixes online, here for instance, and I've seen them for sale in
natural food stores and the like. Other things that might work are adding a starch or a fat, or heat treating some of your flour in the microwave (a minute for a cup, don't do this to all the flour, it destroys some of the gluten). Guar gum or xanthan gum will help to keep things moist as well.
I've never used these techniques, so some experimentation might be necessary. Store bread in plastic bags as soon as it cools, and don't slice right away.
For that fats: for me, adding Joghurt works really well! Buttermilk made it a little TOO moist. That's whole wheat bread just from flour, water, yeast, salt and yoghurt, baked in a bread-baking-machine. Also, when having a moist bread finally, be careful about the plastic -> When the read sweats moisture, you invite mold.
Most bread is made from wheat and / or barley flour. A "hard" flour contains more wheat.
The higher the proportion of wheat flour, the better it tastes (especially the crust) but the poorer its keeping qualities.
Commercial bread that keeps for a long time has more barley flour. In addition, some bakeries add a little vinegar to the dough after proving, which also makes the bread keep longer.
Another trick is to add more fat. I have been told that harder fats (butter, lard) are better this way, but I normally use olive or rape oil. (About 5% or flour weight.) It impedes the rise a little bit, but not too bad. (I think it interferes with the gluten formation, but I'm not 100% sure how.)
You probably mean Canola rather than rapeseed, I'm thinking, since true rapeseed can contain up to 54% erucic acid. Canola came from rapeseed (but true rapeseed is toxic, whether or not Canola is; Canola is only allowed to have 2% erucic acid in the USA and 5% in the EU). I'm guessing oil impedes the rise because it's antimicrobiaI (except for microbes that do better with oil; you'll notice that peanut butter, which is high in fat/oil, doesn't ferment on the counter, though; rising bread is pretty much fermenting dough), but I could be wrong about that being why.
They use ground up bird feathers to make bread stay fresh for longer
Even if they are using some substance derived from bird feathers, the way you state it is terribly misleading. If you mean cysteine, eating it compares to eating feathers about the same way as eating sugar compares to eating beets. And before you say that everything in bird feathers is icky, let me remind you that your own body, and steaks, and tofu, are all full of cysteine too. It is a very common compound, and as essential to our body as vitamin C.
Also, cysteine is a reducing agent. It allows gluten-forming compounds to denature and link together faster, it has no effect on the shelf life of the product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.043768 | 2010-07-19T02:16:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1897",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Chris R",
"Durga Dev",
"Layna",
"MiKo",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99318",
"rumtscho",
"sdg",
"user2215",
"user2567875",
"user40223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28348 | Which fuels (burning materials) can be used in a wood fired oven?
I have recently made a brick wood fired oven. It's a black / dirt / Roman / traditional type of oven: where you burn the fuel (typically wood) in the same chamber where you put the food to be cooked. The normal use of this type of ovens is:
Let the fire heat the dome and floor (bed?) of the oven up.
Once the bricks are soaked with heat (or the fire has extinguished) you take the embers (or ashes) out.
Wait till the temperature drops down to the dish's required one, and put the food in.
As for fuel, I use wood from pallets or wood logs from prunings (which gardeners are willing to give away, mostly if you gift them loafs of bread you make with that wood).
What are the risks of using those woods for fire lit in the same place where you'll put food?
I'm quite sure there is no biological hazard with them: any virus or bacteria in the pallets, or bugs in logs will definitely be destroyed by the fire temperature (over 800C/1,500F).
What I'm concerned about is:
I don't know if my pallet's wood has been treated or not.
Is there any way to know it for a pallet found in the street?
The treatment given to pallets, would be risky if human-consumed? After being burned to ashes?
I.E.: Some pallets are given methyl bromide as fungal treatment. But its autoignition temperature is 525C/995F. Will the subproduct, after burning, still be toxic?
I can ask gardeners if they have applied insecticide or other treatment.
Some of those bug treatments are supposed to be human-safe.
But are also safe for human consumption? After been burnt to ashes?
Is there any specific treatment I should ask the gardeners?
Could the treatment be flushed away with just water?
If I bought firewood logs, can I have guarantees that they are safer / healthier / don't have treatments?
Considering they are thought to be sold for fireplaces, not for cooking.
This question on using treated wood for smoking meat is related, but the wood I'm using doesn't have as much treatment as drumsticks.
I've added a specific doubt on pallets fungal treatment.
Regarding the use of pallets, the link below is to a site that gives good examples of why not to use them for any type of repurposed project due to unknown chemical treatment, e-coli contamination, mold, fungus and other nasty things that could leach from the wood.
We use hardwood branches from known (chemical-free) sources for smoking meat.
http://www.organicauthority.com/sanctuary/repurposed-wood-pallet-toxic.html
Here is an additional link to a pizza oven manufacturer's site with their wood recommendations. They do not recommend using any wood that has had any sort of chemical treatment. If you do not know the source of the wood, there is no reliable way to verify that it is chemical-free.
http://www.fornobravo.com/pizza_oven_management/choosing_wood.html
I thought Escherichia Colli, moulds or other fungus would be inoffensive after being burnt at over 800C/1.500F. Am I wrong?
How can I have guarantees on the wood being chemical-free?
Thanks to the information in your link, and googling / wikipeding a bit, i've found the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures that pallet's wood should follow. So pallets with this logo are certainly treated.
@J.A.I.L., I suggest you do your own research on the aspects of wood safety if the recommendation to not use potentially contaminated wood is not authoratative enough. There is ample advice for the types of wood that are suitable for wood oven use readily available on the internet - one of which I've provided in my answer. Best of luck with your baking!
Ha, our comments appeared at the same time! I guess we were researching this together - many miles apart! :-)
+1 for linking Forno Bravo. I should have continued visiting that site after building the oven.
I upvoted your question, too for the pallet safety link. :-)
Bromine, lead or mercury - all of which you can find in some or the other wood treatment - will still be bromine, lead or mercury no matter how much you burn them, they will just be in different chemical compounds, and a lot of them might get expelled from the oven with the exhaust - but certainly not all, especially in that kind of oven design. And most of the compounds you can make from these elements will still be very toxic.
And don't forget arsenic is also used as a wood preservative. (chromated copper arsenate aka CCA ... typically has a greenish hue to it so you have a warning, though)
I was tempted to include chromium in said list too....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.044091 | 2012-11-11T03:13:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28348",
"authors": [
"Ada",
"Anita",
"Chelsea Lang",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MarO",
"Sandra Troughton",
"binarymax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user65319"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4940 | How to prep jicama - is peeling necessary?
I recently grabbed some jicama from the store on a whim, and I used to make some really delicious slaw. However in the course of prepping it, I sent a whole lot to the trashcan during the peeling process. Is the waxy rind of jicama a add-on like the waxy coat on apples? Is the rind edible at all? Can it be cooked rind-on like a potato and served that way?
Jicama does have a tough thick skin that is usually always removed. As you know from your experience there are two layers...the outer dark papery skin and then the tough dark yellow fibrous portion.
The best way I've found (with least amount of frustration) is to peel it the same as you would a pineapple: Trim off both ends and then cutting from top to bottom following the countours of the vegetable to cut just under the skin.
I've never seen or heard of anyone using it skin-on.
Right. I know there is an urge not to waste vegetables, but remind yourself: you aren't wasting it when you get rid of the bad tasting part so you can enjoy the good.
The skin is poisonous. Remove and throw out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.044471 | 2010-08-11T23:38:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4940",
"authors": [
"Dheeraj Vepakomma",
"Michael Natkin",
"funkytanki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9533",
"iDroid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6273 | How to change the texture on dulce de leche?
I recently made dulce de leche using the can in boiling water method. It came out tasting delicious but it was way to runny. I boiled it for two hours and used sweetened condensed milk and was expecting something that would be able to hold up a spoon. Instead, it was more like a thin sauce. Anyway how do I fix this? or is this the way that it is supposed to come out?
The texture is controlled simply by time; 2 hours isn't enough. Try 3 to 4 hours. Or use a pressure cooker, it goes much faster in there - about 45 minutes should do it.
+1 for the pressure cooker, that how my mom has always made it.
So, now that the can is opened, how are we supposed to fix it and get the creamy texture? Is it possible to let the can boil for another two hours with opened lid?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.044718 | 2010-08-29T02:41:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6273",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Onebadcookie",
"Tony S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66583",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30544 | How can I make my bread pudding firmer?
I have a bread pudding recipe I like, but would like to make it firmer. How would I go about this ?
Can you provide the recipe that you're using?
What sort of bread pudding, there are a few types. That have completely different methods.
Either:
Use less custard
Use more thickener (flour/cornstarch) in the custard
Bake it longer on a lower heat to dry it out a little more
That last may put it at risk for making it rubbery if the eggs overcoagualate. Would have to be watched carefully to ensure it doesn't get much above 180 F.
This might be a US/UK thing, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no custard in bread pudding. Bread-and-butter pudding is bread and butter soaked in custard and baked. Bread pudding is a dense cake of breadcrumbs, flour, spice, eggs and sugar. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/04/nigel-slater-classic-bread-pudding
Yup, I think your right @slim. To North American's bread pudding is bread that has been cut into chunks or torn apart and soaked in a custard and then baked in a casserole type dish. Kind of like rustic french toast or what you would call bread and butter pudding apparently.
Use a firmer bread, or buy unsliced bread and cut thicker pieces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.044833 | 2013-01-30T21:51:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30544",
"authors": [
"Annette",
"Brendan",
"Elmy",
"KatieK",
"Liliana",
"Pedro gortazar bilbao",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Rodriquez",
"Stuart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71462",
"luke",
"mgk beefer",
"slim",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61549 | How can I make my own Super Noodles/instant noodle seasoning?
I like BBQ Beef Super Noodles, but they don't taste the same as they used to. The flavour sachet is not as strong as it used to be (maybe they use more filler nowadays).
I can buy plain egg noodles, but how can I make the seasoning?
The ingredients are listed as:
Noodles (Water, Wheat Flour, Palm Oil, Antioxidants (Butylated Hydroxyanisole, Citric Acid, Propyl Gallate)), Sugar, Acidity Regulator (Sodium Diacetate), Salt, Skimmed Milk Powder, Flavour Enhancers (Monosodium Glutamate, Disodium 5’-ribonucleotides), Yeast Extract, Sour Cream Powder (Milk), Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Tomato Powder, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Flavouring, Colour (Paprika Extract), Spices, Anti-caking Agents (Silicon Dioxide, Tricalcium Phosphate), Rapeseed Oil, Celery, Wheat Flour.
I suspect I won't be needing any of those chemicals!
First thing that comes to mind: instant brooth? There seem to be BBQ-Style Beef flavored Broth available, the other idea that comes to mind is "regular" beef brooth plus liquid smoke aroma. If that still comes on too weak, you can always try adding chilly, cayenne pepper or whatever you still believe is missing.
"I suspect I won't be needing any of those chemicals" - on the contrary, that's what determines how strong it tastes to you, especially the monosodium glutamate. It is also possible that it doesn't taste less strong that it used to, but that you just grew accustomed to the taste, a very common process known as hedonic adaptation.
Find a good Asian food market. They should sell small jars, tins, or liquid in sachets of soup flavours.
I find the jars most convenient. About a teaspoon per serving is plenty, store in the fridge after opening.
Some of the liquid in sachets can be the most authentic for the Asian style, but for just a beefy broth, one of the jars will do fine.
If you like a more tomato flavour, buy bulk cans of tomato paste, freeze in ice cube trays, then bag in zip style freezer bags. One or two cubes per serving works fine, and they just melt into the hot noodle soup base.
Use low salt noodles, as most of the soup flavours are very salty for preservation reasons.
Here are some examples I use. Click on pictures for full size view.
Those are all great flavours, but they're not the one the poster was asking for.
@dopiaza I didn't say they were? I doubt it's possible to be 100% same, but the Pho soup + tomato paste would be similar
It's a while since I ate Beef-flavoured Batchelors Super Noodles, but I seem to recall that the beef flavour was something akin to Beef flavoured crisps. Very different from any real Asian instant ramen I've ever had. The pho base sounds like it might be a possibility, if he could get it, but I've never seen it here in the UK - I'd love to give that a whirl though. I really do think his best bet is Marmite. FWIW, Batchelors are very low down on my list of favourite noodles...
@dopiaza personally never had that brand. Sounds as enticing as "single girls chocolate"?
I tried looking in a smaller Chinese supermarket in Manchester, UK a couple of times but they said they didn't have this beef soup base stuff. I might need to try a big Asian supermarket.
To make the seasoning, you'll need to experiment. You'll need at least some of those chemicals, but you can probably find them with friendlier, less chemically-sounding, names.
Looking at the ingredients list, I'd guess that the key ingredients in that list, flavour-wise, are probably Monosodium Glutamate, Yeast Extract, Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Tomato Powder. Those are all easy enough to source. A decent supermarket will likely have several of them, and the rest are easy to find on the internet. Tomato powder might be the trickiest, although I expect you could simply take some sun-dried tomatoes and blitz them in a grinder.
The key to most of the 'beefy' flavours I've come across in products like this seems to be in the glutamates - those are the things that give that rich umami-flavour to things. MSG is commonly used commercially, but you also find them in other common foodstuffs - yeast extract, parmesan, anchovies, fish sauce, soy sauce to name but a few.
I'd start with some Marmite/Vegemite, a mix of the three vegetable powders and a sprinkling of MSG if you have some, fish/soy sauce if not. Play with the proportions until you find something you like the taste of. You'll need salt too, but you may well already have enough from the other ingredients. You'll wind up with a paste rather than a powder, but you can use that to season the noodles just as easily.
Bovril might be a good addition for a meaty flavour too.
the innocuous sounding yeast extract is biggest proportion of 'meat' flavor. The manufacturers manipulate the wee beasties with enzymes etc to create everything from roast chicken to BBQ pork... My point is if meat flavor is substituted, no yeast necessary. Nice addition for free glutamate (msg)
Go to the S&M store. (That is a Philippine package you show, and S&M stores are nationwide.) They have a good selection of BBQ dry mix packs (and instant soup packs) near the spices.
Start with the base from the packet. Add extra to it: hot pepper, garlic, etc. Store small jars with lids (like baby food jars). you now have your own flavor to use. For example, I might use about 3/4 red Korean soup base, 1/4 BBQ seasoning, dried crushed hot peppers, and some extra spices to taste.
I'd recommend looking up spices used to make barbecue sauces such as smoked paprika, onion and garlic powder, tomato powder, cumin etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.044998 | 2015-09-07T13:14:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61549",
"authors": [
"Barb H",
"Danny Beckett",
"Kaye Boddy",
"Kevin McCulloch",
"Larryp PAGE",
"Layna",
"Pat Sommer",
"Renee Combs",
"Ron Erb",
"TFD",
"Vicky Butterworth",
"dopiaza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84090 | Aftertaste when making gummies
We currently make medical marijuana gummies and are experiencing an aftertaste on some batches. People describe it as chemical/metallic/dry. We have been using the same ingredients (modified potato starch, sugar,corn syrup, citric acid, sodium citrate, flavoring and cannabis extract).
Has anyone had any experience with this?
Indoubt anyone here will be able to answer your question. However, there are general food quality troubleshooting processes you can use to help figure it the source. Is the issue apparent immediately or after some time? Is it correlates with a specific ingredient or not?
Are you adding citric acid or anything to the sugar before you melt it?
We pour in the hot mix of modified starch Into room temperature corn syrup. We then pour sugar in and mix until it melts.
Is it the aftertaste related to a particular flavoring, or independent of flavoring? Have you ever encountered it in a batch without the cannabis extract?
Why are you using sodium citrate, and have you tried without? This sounds like a very likely culprit, many sodium salts taste metallic..
The sodium citrate is the sour salt of citric acid (sour tasting) and is used to control ph. I will try without it
If you use a different strain when you make your gummies, that can affect taste and dryness for sure.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.045456 | 2017-09-02T13:14:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84090",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Erica",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Vulis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61237",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84465 | How can I move from subscription boxes to recipes successfully?
As a beginner baker, I find services where they deliver a box of pre-portioned ingredients with instructions how to bake a cake very useful (and fun!). However, I find that I get kind of lost when I have to bake a cake on my own. I just assume that is due to my beginner skills (or lack of). What techniques should I use when trying to bake a cake from a recipe rather than a pre-portioned box of ingredients?
Hi Jessica. The question you ask is primarily opinion based. Opinion based questions are not allowed on this forum. I am going to recommend closing it. Perhaps you can search the forum, and/or post a question that asks a specific question about improving baking skills. The more precise the question, the better.
I'm going to make what I'd call a "heroic edit" to try to keep this question within scope here. @moscafj is correct that this may be a bit too opinion based. What you can ask is how to move from these subscription boxes to recipes without the confusion, so I'm going to make that edit. If you don't agree that this is what you're trying to ask, feel free to roll back, but be aware that your question may be closed.
Is there any way to merge the two answers? They both have credible and valid information. Each adds to the other and combined would make the ultimate answer.
@Cindy : there's community wiki, but then Catija wouldn't get any reputation for upvotes. (I couldn't care less about it ... I mean, I was excited when I passed Darin Senhart, but that was only because he hadn't posted for months. And there were the really early days of the beta when hobodave and I were swapping who was ahead it was so close. These days I try to avoid answering to give other people a chance to get reputation if there's something there that could be cleaned up / clarified with comments).
@Cindy What would making them into one answer accomplish? Both contain valuable information. Both should be read by future readers.
For the record, I think that the original question or a slightly-edited version (essentially, "can subscription boxes help teach me to bake? in what ways? what will I need to learn another way?") is a perfectly fine good subjective question - it's not just asking what's "best", it's asking what works or doesn't work and how, it invites explanation, etc.
What you will find helpful is the concept of "mise en place"
Mise en place (MEEZ ahn plahs) is a French term for having all your ingredients measured, cut, peeled, sliced, grated, etc. before you start cooking. Pans are prepared. Mixing bowls, tools and equipment set out. It is a technique chefs use to assemble meals so quickly and effortlessly.
The subscription boxes you're using do this for you. They give you a list of equipment you need, detailed instructions, and they have all of the ingredients measured for you before you even begin. If you watch any cooking shows, you'll see that they often have all of the ingredients ready in small bowls or ramekins. It's the same concept.
So, if you want to move from a subscription box to a recipe, you'll want to do this. While many bakers (myself included) are able to work line by line in a recipe, it's actually better to measure out everything first and then simply add it when the recipe calls for it.
This makes cooking or baking a two-step process which is actually (usually) created in the recipe itself. Though, the absolutely first step you should always take is to really read the recipe completely to make sure you have all of the ingredients that you need and understand all of the steps you're going to take. If the recipe calls for a process you're unfamiliar with like "whip to firm peaks", look up what that means rather than guessing. Once you've read the recipe you're ready to start.
Collect all of the ingredients based on the ingredients list and equipment based on the recipe.
This means measure them and prepare them as the ingredients list directs.
If it calls for 1 cup butter in 1/2 inch cubes, softened, you cube the butter and let it soften.
If it calls for 1/2 cup chopped nuts, toasted, you chop your nuts, measure them and toast them and then put them in a bowl (note that there's a difference between "1/2 cup nuts, chopped" and "1/2 cup chopped nuts").
Prepare any equipment - grease/flour pans, line with parchment, preheat oven, etc.
After you've finished doing all of these things, clean up your work area and arrange your ingredients neatly. You can put them all in individual prep bowls or, as you get more comfortable baking, you may add together ingredients you know always go together, like spices. This is something you should be careful of, though, as the more you do things like that, the more you have to remember that you did it. It only takes one time forgetting the baking powder to make you regret skipping steps! Only once all of the ingredients are prepared do you move on to step two:
Assemble the recipe by following the directions for assembly.
Once you have your mise en place, you can easily assemble your recipe by following the instructions. You've already done most of the work - measuring, preparing for the recipe by researching the methods, so now you're just pulling it all together and actually putting that work into use.
Keep track of which ingredient is which and keep your recipe close at hand. Hopefully this will help you see that you can use these baking kits but you can also mimic them with any recipe on the web or in a book merely by doing a little extra work (which is what they've already done for you).
Here's a great image of mise en place for baking all set up and ready to go:
It comes from a blog article about mise en place when baking which I also recommend reading.
I'd make one addition -- pull out all of the ingredients first before you start measuring stuff out. That way you'll know before you start if you're missing something. (it also helps to take a peek in the containers if you think you're low and/or measure them first, so you can abort before you get too far in). My mom would put things away as she used them, so she'd know if there was still something out on the counter, she had forgotten to add it (which would help w/ your example of mixing spices together)
Another thing that you'll have to do besides the mise en place aspect is actual food shopping.
This might be the more difficult part, especially for baking, as you're going to run into strange ingredient-related issues:
It calls for 2 eggs. What size should I buy? In the US, you want Large unless otherwise specified, In the UK and EU, you want Medium. I have no clue for other countries.
There sure are a lot of types of flour. Yes, make sure to look at the recipe to see if it says something specific (whole wheat, pastry, cake, bread, strong, self-raising/self-rising, all-purpose). If it doesn't say, use all-purpose (aka AP) ... although there can be issues using a southern brand AP flour (eg, White Lily) in New England bread recipe, or a northern brand in an Georgia cake recipe.
Beware of substitutions. Baking is chemistry, and you can't get things too far off. Baking powder for baking soda or visa versa, molasses for some other sweetener, oil for melted butter. If there's something you're missing or can't find, search on here for it, or check Cook's Thesaurus
Another thing that won't be as important in baking is in how to select food at the store -- meat for roasts or other slow cooking don't typically make good steaks and it's a waste of money to go in the other direction; for most produce you want something heavy for its size, that gives slightly when pressed (not rock hard, not squishy). In some grocery stores, there are knowledgeable employees, but grandmotherly types might help you, too.
It might also be worth going shopping with a friend that cooks. They could help you with selection of things.
Yes! This is also great advice. And it's why I love the Cook's Illustrated's Baking Illustrated. The first section is all about ingredient selection.
People like me would help you in a grocery store too, but I'm not sure how you'd pick me out - maybe just that I don't seem to be in that much of a rush and I'm being careful about picking things.
@Catija & @Joe have already both provided excellent input for you. I would like to add two additional resources that can help you tremendously. People all 'learn differently', and you are in the process of 'learning by doing', but for some of us that just isn't enough.
Some people learn best by watching others. There are two television networks completely dedicated to shows about cooking (Food Network and the Cooking Channel, both of which have a strong online presence) not to mention about a billion YouTube videos. Watching these 'experts' do what you want to do can help you become familiar with what you should expect to see, feel, smell, and taste along the way.
As you progress if you want to increase your depth of knowledge there no better [IMHO] source that any of the "Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen" books. What is great about these books (and magazine articles, and t.v. shows) is the manner in which they break down what they have tried, what effect they were hoping for and what they got. If you can find a copy of The New Best Recipe Book from Cook's Illustrated get it. Around page 777 you get an 3 page write-up on Chocolate Chip Cookies, not just a 'recipe' but a dissertation on what is each ingredients role is in the cookie, what alternatives they tried (different fats, sugars, flours...) and how it affected softness, chewiness, thickness, etc. If what you seek is more than A+B=C but a deeper understanding of 'Why' these are the books for you.
Most importantly, though, is practice. Bon Appetite
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.045598 | 2017-09-17T15:47:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84465",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Mast",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83075 | What temperature should eggs be when I beat them?
When I beat egg, I notice a difference with the surrounding temperatures. I have heard that we should beat eggs at room temperature, but in my country the temperature is high and I can't follow the tip! Will I yield a fine result if I beat them when cold? What should I do?
**my experience **
I noticed that cold eggs beat better, but it is against the baking rule.
What are you using the eggs for? Egg temperature really depends on what you're doing with them. For some uses, you actually want them cold, others you want them room temp. Tell us how they're being used.
"Room temp" in baking generally means "the same temperature as the other ingredients," most of which are not refrigerated.
Assuming you're talking about beating egg whites, the best results are obtained with fresh, cold eggs (as you noticed).
Warmer (or older) eggs will gain volume quicker, but the resulting foam will be less stable. Since nowadays everybody will likely beat the eggs using some form of mechanical mixer, the time factor is now irrelevant, while the foam stability appreciated.
The "baking rule" probably originated when refrigeration and mixers weren't around.
Here's a list of things influencing max volume and stability:
Age: as eggs age, their pH increases: around 7.6 when laid, 9.2 after just three days. Lower pH is better for stability.
Temperature: temperature at the time of beating does not really make a difference, but if you refrigerate the eggs you'll delay protein denaturation, increasing stability. Heating the white to 58 °C for three minutes increases the foam formation ability, but over that protein denaturation will ruin everything.
pH: adding a bit of acid (citric, tartaric) will help both volume and stability. Citric acid can also help with keeping the foam white.
Water: adding water (up to 40% of weight) will yield a less dense, slightly less stable foam
Sugar: adding it will slow foam formation, and yield a denser, stabler foam.
Yolks and fats: Avoid. A single drop of yolk can reduce the final volume by two thirds.
Copper bowl: lengthens the time needed, but will yield a stabler foam.
Salt: shortens the time need, but will yield a less stable foam and increases syneresis (weeping).
On a side note, there also is a myth that older eggs are much better for macarons, but it has been debunked.
The higher the temperature is, the better for beating. In fact, some applications which require the eggs to really hold their foam well, like mayonnaise, are very hard to get done with cold eggs, so are made with eggs in the 50 - 85 Celsius range, frequently over a water bath. If you are talking about pure yolk, I seem to recall that 72 C is the optimal temperature, I don't remember coming across such a number for whole eggs.
Also, the recommendation is not simply about beating. Egg coagulation is pretty complicated stuff and depends not only on the final temperature your egg reaches, but also on the speed at which you warm it up. Then there are other side effects like not wanthing to mix melted butter or chocolate with cold stuff. Your results are always smoother if you started baking with room temperature eggs than with fridge temperature eggs (although the difference can be too slight to notice in some coarser applications like pound cake).
I don't know why your eggs seem to beat up better when cold. One reason could be some kind of observation bias. Another - I am speculating here a bit - is that your eggs age quicker if kept on the warm counter, so if you buy them and hold them around for a week, I can imagine that the less-aged eggs from the fridge create a nicer foam than the half-liquefied eggs kept at room temperature. If your environment is so hot that this makes a difference, try baking with fresh eggs only, or store in the fridge and take them out 24 to 48 hours before baking.
Mayo doesn't require heated eggs. You just whisk egg yolks at room temperature with oil drizzled in (maybe a bit of mustard+vinegar depending on recipe). Hollondaise sauces are cooked, but you whisk rather than beat them. Maybe you meant merangue?
I meant mayonnaise. You can make it at room temperature, but you have some risk of failure, and need to be more fussy about tools and process. Making it heated is easier and gives better results. I use the same process for mayonnaise and hollandaise.
I have never done or heard of making mayonaisse with heated eggs.
the problem with mayo is not maintaining a foam, but a stable emulsion. I don't think any mayo recipe in the history of mayo recipes calls for foaming, or for heated eggs (other then pasteurisation), and certainly not at 85 °C where the eggs would be in the hard boiled range and starting to give off sulfury notes. this answer is baffling.
Indeed, 85 is not a good temperature for mayo, it is the upper limit of "works". But I have read a paper which suggests 72 C as the optimal mayo making temperature from textural (not pasteurization) point of view, and make mine over a water bath, like hollandaise. It is not strictly necessary when working with a decent blender, but it works quite well, and better than cold.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.046303 | 2017-07-18T23:38:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83075",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Batman",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77543 | What to do with butter that has been mixed with baking soda?
I was making sugar cookies andI had a baggie that had about 1/2 cup or more of baking soda in it but I thought it was powdered sugar so I added it to my butter! I don't think I can use it for the cookies. Doesn't taste too bad in the beginning but it has an aftertaste.
How can I get rid of the taste of baking soda in the butter? Can I salvage it into maybe icing or something? I am just having a hard time with throwing it out! Please tell me there is something I can do with it!
Welcome! I've rephrased your question a bit. The issue seems to be figuring out if anything can be done with the butter-baking soda mix, not so much in trying to rescue a full batch of cookies.
With that much baking soda... probably nothing. Recipes usually call for a teaspoon or two... a half-cup is just way too much.
I suppose you could try separating it into ghee. The baking soda is mostly water-soluble, so the fat layer may end up edible. But with that much of it... I'm skeptical it would work.
Hey, Joshua Engel, good idea for an experiment! A lot of work for minor reward, but maybe after making the ghee, it could be used in some kind of heavily lemonated cookies or something with a lot of acid to counteract the (hopefully small?) residual baking soda content.
Honestly, if you really don't want to throw it away, I would suggest sticking it in your freezer, and slowly using it up when you need baking soda and don't mind a bit of added butter. Baking soda is water soluble, so the butter shouldn't change it too much or activate before its time, I hope.
Maybe you can mix thoroughly before freezing, and separate into chunks or portions based on about a teaspoon of baking soda - that will make it easier to measure (or guesstimate) the baking soda portion into recipes, and either adjust any fats... or just leave it be, the additional butter may not be enough to upset the recipe, most recipes I can think of that need a teaspoon of baking soda can absorb up to a few tbs of extra butter without much difficulty. It's just much more likely to find baking-soda recipes that don't mind extra butter than finding places you can use butter that don't mind the extra baking soda.
Alternatively, you might take Joshua Engels's suggestion and trying to make ghee out of your butter - it would probably settle out with the milk solids and be left behind, though I couldn't swear there would be no residual taste. Probably best to keep any ghee produced this way for very aromatic or spiced dishes to cover up any minor off flavors. This will likely kill your baking soda, though, between the heat and the water content of the butter (before it is clarified) and the milk solids getting mixed into the residue, so it's still a waste of one ingredient.
As for your cookies, you should probably just go get some more butter. I don't think you can salvage the butter for this batch, or icing, or any other purpose that puts butter first - the amount of baking soda is just too much, the butter will almost certainly taste off and likley ruin any ingredients you're using to try and cover it up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.046714 | 2017-01-17T23:03:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77543",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joshua Engel",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"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
} |
87462 | What does"relax on the way forward" mean in relation to knife sharpening?
When the person says: "you relax on the way forward", when sharpening a knife, what does he mean?
Here's a video where I heard that term https://youtu.be/0TPDgdo7jfM?t=2m54s
@Joe this should have been an answer.
BTW: That video shows things done a way (sharpening very fast and forceful on one of the fastest stones on the market, checking edge condition with fingers ON the edge) that a somewhat experienced sharpener will approach with respect, and that could leave a beginner bleeding and/or with a hard to repair knife. That man seems more experienced than me, but to me what he is doing certainly does look technically correct.
Also: Following the progression in that video blindly could leave you with insufficient burr removal - he certainly knows what he is doing, but does not explain a few things he is doing right by instinct. Also: The chromium oxide strop is a good idea - but be careful testing the resulting edge, that stuff is powerful, treat the result with caution like you would treat a razor blade.
This will generally mean to not apply pressure (press the blade to the stone by either leaning/twisting the edge firmly into the stone, or keeping your fingers close to the edge) while you are in any edge leading phase of the sharpening motion. Edge leading and edge trailing abrasion have slightly different effects (regarding speed, burr formation, fineness of the edge), and so does sharpening at various levels of pressure (highly dependent on the stone used.).
I don't know if it 'generally means' that, but from context that's my take on what he was saying, too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.047078 | 2018-02-02T04:12:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87462",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83292 | What's the least fatty meat to use in this recipe?
Mashed potato hash
1 cup mashed potatoes
1 cup ground meat (it doesn't matter what kind)
2-3 slices cheese (it doesn't matter what kind)
3-4 tablespoons herbs/spices of your choice
Cook the meat for 15 minutes, drain the fat into a paper towel. Add the rest of the ingredients and cook for 5-10 minutes. Serve warm
Now my question is what would be the leanest meat that would be best for using with this recipe?
Are you looking for 'meat' (ranging from fish, poultry, etc) or a 'cut of beef'?
Any ground meat basically @CosCallis
I'm not really sure I understand the question. Most ground meat can be purchased extremely lean... 95-99%... whether it's available depends on your grocery store. What is the goal of this question?
Making the recipe healthier for most people @Catija
... but, as I said and as @Jefromi said... meat comes in low-fat options. 95% lean beef has exactly the same amount of fat as 95% lean turkey, bison... etc. There is no "least fatty meat".
It doesn't hurt to try though @catija
I agree with @Catija, I did try my best to answer, but I also don't really know what you were looking for after all the subsequent activity. It kind of sounds like you wanted the best tasting thing that was also lean, which is pretty opinion-based, or maybe you just wanted to talk about the recipe.
You drain the fat after 15 minutes of cooking anyway. How much fat starts out in the meat won't have much bearing on how much winds up in the final product. (FWIW, this recipe sounds awful. Everything will be overcooked -- the meat and cheese will be severely overcooked.)
I don't really know what "work" means. Usually people like ground meat to not be completely lean because the fat adds flavor and moisture.
But if you personally don't mind lean meat, then, well, whatever you want. The most common lean ground meat I've seen is turkey, often 99% lean. Sometimes you can find chicken too. Lean ground beef is usually more like 95% or 90%, but you can see what you can find.
I'd also note that the recipe doesn't sound great as written. Cooking ground meat for 15 minutes sounds over the top, and overcooked lean meat is probably even worse. Lean meat can already be quite dry and tough, and overcooking makes that worse. You should really only cook it only until it's done. Similarly, already cooked and mashed potatoes don't really need extra cooking. It can break down starch and make them more gluey and less fluffy.
Any game meat would be a lean option, but I would would agree that for most people too lean, especially fully cooked and you are getting into a dry, not very pleasing zone for texture and mouth feel. Something like olive oil might help, replacing animal fat with what you may consider a less objectionable, but dry meat is still dry.
15 minutes seems like way too much cooking in both stages. It takes maybe 5 minutes to cook ground meat in a hot pan, maybe a minute or two with spices to release aromatics depending what they are, and if the mashed potatoes are already cooked and hot all you have to do is stir it all together.
Well, I thought that was enough time for cooking the meat @Jefromi how much time would you recommend for the whole cooking time anyway?
My previous comment is exactly what I would recommend. I'm not saying 15 minutes isn't enough, I'm saying it's likely too much, especially with lean meat that's already going to be dry even if not overcooked.
Okay,thanks @Jefromi. I made a minor correction to the final cooking time. It shouldn't effect the actual question though.
Okay. I wasn't asking you to edit the question, I was writing an answer that addressed the full situation, not just what you asked about. And... since you're just changing the recipe how you feel like, is this just something you made up? You might be better off finding existing recipes if you're this unsure about things.
I wasn't editing the question, just the recipe for colerification purposes. The recipe itself already was basically free-form to begin with.
And just for clerification I invented this recipe with my dad a while ago. It's just a fun recipe to try.
Ground Bison (buffalo) or ground turkey would both be very lean options, both of which are widely available in the US. If you use turkey (or chicken) if you add some beef broth after browning to simmer the meat in then drain off the liquid you will both rinse away more fat and add some beef flavor to the relatively neutral poultry.
Thanks, both of those meats would be nice touches for the recipe in question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.047261 | 2017-07-26T16:24:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83292",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"David Schwartz",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7208"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11878 | Making corn bread pudding from corn bread
I have a large batch of corn bread that's about to go bad, a situation I'd like to salvage by turning it into corn bread pudding. Unfortunately, all of the recipes I can find online start from base ingredients, or corn muffin mix, rather than using completed corn bread as an ingredient. Recipes for bread pudding don't have this problem; they don't expect you to start from flour :)
Can I just substitute corn bread for wheat bread in a bread pudding recipe and get palatable results? I'm not at all sure. If not, what would people suggest I do to my corn bread, to turn it into corn bread pudding?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.047640 | 2011-02-07T01:31:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11878",
"authors": [
"Caters",
"Kupyn",
"Terry Buttram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24458",
"mrjeoffrey"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14466 | Why is lye used in some recipes for cookies?
I have seen some recipes for cookies which include lye (water boiled with ash) among the ingredients. Does anyone know what the purpose is? Is there any other ingredient that can replace lye?
The cookies are a lye.
@James I like the pun! Well I have a Greek recipe for vegan cookies made with olive oil, sugar, flour, sesame and water boiled with ash. The texture of the cookies is great. They are not too hard but I guess this is because they have no eggs or anything sticky to bind them together.
could you come back to us with what you decided to do in the end and how it worked out for you?
First of all, lye is not "water boiled with ash". You might be thinking of potash, which used to be used as lye, but virtually all food-grade lye today is sodium hydroxide.
In terms of its function, it largely raises the alkalinity (pH). Baking soda does too, but sodium hydroxide is far more potent - let's just say you don't want to get any on your hands by accident.
The reason some recipes use lye is that alkalinity is a major promoter of the Maillard reaction, which is responsible for the crisping and browning you see in many baked goods - most notably pretzels. I haven't seen cookie recipes using it but I imagine that those recipes would produce very crisp and hard cookies - not my cup of tea but maybe that's what you want.
The only ingredient I know of that you can use instead is baking soda, but I wouldn't call that a replacement, more like a substitution. It will work the same way, but in the end you'll have something much softer and less browned.
There is actually another substance that is in between the pH of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and sodium hydroxide (lye), and that is sodium carbonate AKA "washing soda". It's listed as a food additive (E500) but it is rather difficult to find in food-grade forms. As its name implies, it's more commonly used as a detergent. However, it would be a better substitute than baking soda due to its higher pH.
One can make food grade sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) from food grade baking soda, sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), by baking it an oven spread out on a cookie sheet at 350° F for one hour; baking longer won't hurt. This drives off water and carbon dioxide to form food grade washing soda (sodium carbonate) which increases the pH more than baking soda.
Here's the reaction for the above process:
2NaHCO3 ---> Na2CO3 + CO2 + H2O
? Lye is most certainly wood ashes leached in water (often hot). Lye means "to wash", or "warm bath". Commonly, but not limited too, sodium or potassium hydroxide. In the quite parts of the world Lye is still often made from wood ash when used for cooking or olive production. We boil our local corn in ash water to make our version of masa (nixtamalization). Commercial Lye is mostly used for soap production as it's easier and expected to be safer. Yes in the USA/China etc Lye will be industrial sodium hydroxide
@TFD it's great that you have your local traditions and all, but "food grade" means pure and that means it's been produced by one of the various chemical processes that have been used for over 200 years. Certainly if we're talking about buying it off the shelf then it's going to be from a chemical company, not homemade.
In some Asian countries you will find bottled ash water (Lye) from specific tree varieties. Yes it's made in a factory, but it is as simple as the home made stuff. Lye is used in pulled (kungfu) noodle dough. Specific trees are meant to have special properties?
@Aaronut, lye can most definitely come from wood ash. We are talking about food here, a large part of which grows in dirt. Since when did "food grade" mean made in a chemical factory? For me what mother nature produces is a lot purer than what comes out of some polluted factory. Google gets over 29,000 results on how to make lye from woodash. Let's not forget there are other cultures with other ways of doing things. The majority of the world does not buy food off a shelf.
@Todd, this would be really super interesting if the question actually had anything to do with how lye is made. It doesn't. The question is about recipes using lye which clearly is referencing the "off the shelf" variety - unless you're going to tell me that people who are too poor to buy food off a shelf are buying cookbooks off shelves or better yet, getting recipes off the internet. Now please check your political baggage at the door, thanks.
@Aaronut just where does it reference the "off the shelf"? Todd and I and referring to the OP we are referring to your post, especially "First of all, lye is not "water boiled with ash"." which is obviously very wrong. We also use cook books, the Internet, live in a democracy, grow our own olives, and make our own Lye, what's wrong with that? It's called using local resources. It should be strived for, not put down
@Aaronut if the question had nothing to do with how lye is made then why did you correct the question in your very first sentence? Since your answer contained incorrect information I corrected it. There are many reasons for growing your own food rather than buying it off the shelf, other than being poor. Like for freshness or the joy of hand making stuff or learning. After all, no real need to cook these day - you can just buy pre-made food in a box. Please check your own political baggage at the door.
@TFD: I believe I was rather explicit in saying that potash was historically used as lye; however, it is absolutely correct that any professional chef or chemist you speak to today will define lye as pure sodium or potassium hydroxide and not home-boiled ash, same way they'll define gelatin as sheet or powdered gelatin out of a box and not the result of a chicken stock that's had all the water boiled out of it. There's nothing wrong with making your own (as long as you follow proper safety guidelines) and I never said there was, but the question stated an obsolete definition. End of story.
@Todd, that's a very nice try, but boxed convenience foods are foods, not additives, and they usually contain many more ingredients than the homemade varieties. Lye is an additive, and if you want consistent results when cooking, you want your additives to be as pure as possible. You're clearly trying to push an agenda when you spout demonstrable nonsense like For me what mother nature produces is a lot purer than what comes out of some polluted factory and I'm asking you politely not to continue that behaviour. This site is for answering questions, it's not a soapbox.
@Aaronut, my comment now has almost as many votes as your answer, so I guess you're the only one that finds a problem with it. How is an opinion "demonstrable nonsense"? I clearly started the sentence with "For me". I wasn't trying to push an agenda, just trying to demonstrate that your narrow vision of how to define cooking might not be the only answer and might not apply to everyone. Belittling local traditions as somehow not being "food grade" is just as political as what I said.
Potash is commonly sold in the christmas season in Germany for gingerbread making, so it is not really a globally obsolete ingredient....
Alkaline solutions are used in different qualities in doughs. I am afraid that you mix something up here, so I don't know which you mean.
One use is to enhance the Maillard reaction, which Aaronut already described. This is indeed done with lye. But nobody is incorporating lye into the dough (this would be quite dangerous). Instead, the formed pieces are immersed in boiling lye before being baked. This gives them a very intensive brown crust, but it isn't crispy, it is soft. The texture is like glossy magazine paper. It also gives a subtle taste of its own. I have only encountered this used with yeast dough, like pretzels or breadrolls. I haven't seen it used with cookies. I think that this is what Aaronut's answer refers to. As you don't have lye at home, it is acceptable to immerse your pretzels into a very concentrated solution of baking soda. The pictures look similar, I've never done it myself.
The second thing you could mean: as Aaronut pointed out, ash boiled with water and filtered isn't lye, it is potash. It isn't used for the Maillard reaction, or not primarily for that. A very refined version of it is incorporated into the dough itself, including cookie dough, as a primitive leavening method. Because of its alkalinity, it reacts with sour elements of the dough. But this is quite a crude method (you never know the concentration, plus, you risk off-tastes and maybe coloring from whatever parts of the ash didn't get filtered well enough). So it fell in disuse since pure alkaline salts (like baking soda and amonium bicarbonate) became available. If you really have a recipe which requires it, it is probably from before the 19. century. And given the progress of cookie recipes since then, I'd just use a modern recipe and forget the potash. It is easier than figuring out the correct substitution ratio. Unless you want to recreate the taste as it used to be, but then no substitution would to, you'll have to secure the real thing from somewhere (probably untreated wood in your own fireplace + ancient filtering methods).
Another reason for strong alkalis in cooking is to quickly breaks down the flour gluten, instead of having the dough sit around for a long time to 'soften' it
This is used in hand pulled noodles and in cookie dough that is extruded or piped
Common bottled cooking Lye water in supermarkets is mostly potassium carbonate and some sodium biphosphate. In powder form it is referred to as 速溶蓬灰 (Kansui powder). For noodles they typically use a 1:200 to 1:100 ratio
When using Lye make sure it doesn't get in direct contact with fats or oils or you will have a soapy taste. Mix it with water and other ingredients first, then add fats or oils
As an alternative you can buy the "Natron" mineral. It's mined in Egypt and many other parts of the world, including the UK. It has been used as a food additive for centuries. Sold like packs of salt, contains around 80% sodium carbonate
+1 for the advice about not letting it contact fats or oils and the Natron alternative.
To further answer the part of your question about replacing lye, you might also be able to use culinary lime from Anson Mills (and apparently some Walmarts according to the article). I'm pretty sure it is made of calcium hydroxide, also known as "cal" to Mexicans.
Concerning the purpose of lye in your recipe, in addition to the affect it would have on the dough (as already explained by others), it may also have a nutritional purpose.
According to an article on wikipedia about Hominy, Cherokees made hominy grits by soaking corn in a weak lye solution obtained by leaching hardwood ash with water
When combined with unmilled corn, it makes niacin (a B vitamin) and possibly other vitamins more available to the body. Although wheat flour, especially whole wheat, contains some niacin, I don't know if the nutritional benefits would translate, especially if it has already been milled into flour.
Could you please let us know what the instructions were? Curious to know if it goes into the dough (as perhaps a softener) or on the outside (to make it more crisp) and if it is a traditional recipe referring to wood ash lye or something more recent.
For the downvoter, how about an explanation? The post answered the question with information not included in any other posts.
I didn't downvote - the first paragraph of your answer is helpful. The rest does seem a little tangential, though, seeing as how we're talking about cookies, and nutrition isn't normally high on the list of concerns when baking those. It's an interesting point about the bioavailability nevertheless.
The OP asked for the purpose of the ingredient. Don't see how any plausible explanation to the purpose is tangential, whether or not it's on your list of concerns when making that recipe.
For moon cakes, lye water helps keep the baked dough soft and make it brown nicely when baked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.047750 | 2011-05-01T19:50:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14466",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"James McNellis",
"Janet Lewis",
"Jennifer Oliver",
"Siato",
"TFD",
"Todd Chaffee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85574",
"kazuki0x0",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112295 | Avoiding poisonous quince juice
I'm cooking jelly from quinces, with core housing and seeds. I try to remove sliced seeds. From the leftover mass I prepare delicious quince bread by passing it through a food mill ("Flotte Lotte"). What is left in the food mill (seeds etc., now called residuum) I put in the freezer to get additional juice after quince season. The seed shell from the seeds is damaged/removed during the milling process.
Is it safe to cook the residuum once more? I've read that the hydrogen cyanide inside the seeds is water solutable and volatile. So I'm unsure if
hydrogen cyanide is still inside the seeds after cooking for one hour
the hydrogen cyanide can escape from slightly damaged seeds
I cook poisonous juice
I poison myself from the gas while cooking
I really don't want to put anyone's health on jeopardy.
Short answer: It is not unsafe. There is little HCN present to start with and less after cooking. You cannot poison yourself with gas from this.
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) boils at 26 C (79 F), which is quite low, so after one hour of boiling you would be left with very little HCN. You need about 200 ppm in most mammals for the LD50 (dose at which 50% of a group of animals die). You are very unlikely to reach this concentration in a kitchen with the window open or an extractor fan running. I've been unable to find values for the HCN content in quince, but there are closely related species like apple and pear that do have available values for the HCN containing compounds.
However, what is actually in quince seeds is a nitrile compound - this is a group of chemicals that contain a cyanide group; the most commonly studied and mentioned form of this is a chemical known as Amygdalin. These are altered by the stomach acids and enzymes and can release the HCN from the nitrile. How much is released is probably a bit dependent on the conditions under which it is treated. Boiling seems to be effective at extracting amygdalins and that they contain in apple and pear between 3.0 and 1.3 mg/gram of amygdalin respectively. This converts to 0.1772 mg HCN per gram of seed dry weight for apple (please check my maths - HCN Mr = 27.0253 g/mol; amygdalin Mr = 457.429 g/mol; there is 1 HCN per amygdalin). If you boiled 100 grams of the (dry) seed you would get ~12 milligrams of potential HCN. The NIOSH limits for HCN exposure are a time-weighted average of 10 mg/m3 over 8 hours, so you would need to absorb all of that amygdalin over about 8 hours to see any effect.
It seems that the seeds are incorporated into a bunch of unscientific/folk remedies (see sections on edible and medicinal uses), so it is unlikely that there is actually much threat from the seed or products of the seeds unless consumed in significant amounts.
Thanks for the answer. Could you please end the sentence "It seems that seeds of this sort contain about"? Also the last sentence sends mixed signals. Thank you
Sorry - I was looking for info on the mass of HCN/100g seed, but could only find it for apple and pear (both also rosaceae, with similar fruit and contain amygdalin the HCN containing stuff). Edited in.
Isn't the short answer "Yes [it is safe]", not "no"?
@Théophile I was answering the bullet points, but I'll edit to make more clear.
Another key thing that helps here is that the quince "residual" is acidic, so the H⁺ + CN⁻ <=> HCN equilibrium is on the volatile HCN side. HCN/CN⁻ is sensitive to oxygenation (which will occur even in the freezer to some extent), helping as well. Last but not least, we humans eat a variety of foods containing cyanogenic glycosids (e.g. linseeds), and we have a detoxification pathway available. The point is not to overwhelm that. Some references and numbers are in my answer here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/109168/52931
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.048662 | 2020-10-25T19:15:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112295",
"authors": [
"Duda",
"Théophile",
"bob1",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112297 | How to make a Cake Jumper?
This is a relatively famous scene from an Irish TV show - Father Ted where a woman bakes a jumper (sweater) into a cake. Video can be seen here for reference - https://vimeo.com/38355848
I’m wondering what the best way to go about creating something like this would be?
In the video, it seems that the jumper is actually cooked into the cake, rather than added afterwards.
Could I make a normal cake mix and add in a suitably sized jumper before putting it in the oven?
My other thought would be to make a normal cake then cut out a cavity in the bottom to insert the jumper into. I was hoping there would be a better more-Father Ted like version if anyone with more experience has an idea.
it doesn't look like a jumper in a cylindrical "cake box" so I'd go for the first solution although we have passed the line of edible so this question probably belongs to a DIY site. Such line being crossed, also pressing the jumper and enough disposable sponge cake in a cylindrical press can work as well probably.
In general, yes, you can bake stuff hidden inside a cake, but you are constrained in some ways. And before I go on: I don't believe that they actually baked a jumper in a cake for the film, they probably used some kind of inedible prop.
The most important constraint is the ratio of cake to item. If you embed something in a cake, you are messing up with leavening. It won't hurt if it is a small thing, or multiple small things, e.g. having nuts spread in the dough. But in this scene, the jumper was quite large. It was basically almost all jumper, with a tiny crust of "cake", and the cake itself was huge. It would be very difficult to bake a cake of this size all in one go even without the added difficulty of having a jumper in it, when you see huge wedding cakes, they are baked as separate layers, and the layers assembled afterwards.
I could imagine trying to get this to work. I would first choose a jumper that has as little weight and volume as possible, probably a girls' lightweight sweater. Or consider whether a doll sweater will be good enough for people to get the joke. If it has to be adult-size, maybe you can get away with a long-sleeve-T-shirt or a hiking base layer, especially if the fabric looks knitlike enough. Then find a suitable pan, large enough, and use a cutout baking mat on the bottom (you will never get it out with normal means if you do what I am planning). Parbake a very thin first layer for the bottom, Prinzregententorte-like. Then place the sweater on top, pour enough batter around it to get another layer, and bake the whole thing, using more top heat than bottom heat. Once this layer is set (doens't have to be through), add one more layer and rebake. When you get thick enough, I would suggest also starting to use a waterbath that only comes up to the height of the already-baked layers. You are finished when you have enough cake on top of the sweater.
The process will probably need several runs to be optimized. If the air in the sweater messes with leavening, consider soaking it in vegetable oil first. I'll also bet on you having to level the top, because it is unlikely you will get an even surface with this barbaric way of baking it and a whole sweater inside. It means that you probably don't want to serve it naked, since it will not resemble a plain cake out of the pan. You will likely need some kind of all-over frosting to cover the cut-off top and the unevenly baked layers on the sides.
Sweaters are also absorbent, so you will have to play with the liquid ratio in the cake. If using a dry sweater, you will have to make the batter more liquid, if you soak it in oil, you might need more flour in the cake (also, flour your sweater well before placing it in the cake, regardless of whether dry or oily).
You will have an easier time out of it if you use a packaged sweater, especially if you can package it in something with firm boundaries and nonreactive, such as a cookie tin or canning jar. You'll have some trouble finding a canning jar that has the proper shape, but maybe Weck has something appropriate, or you could consider using a modern glass-with-bamboo-lid storage container, they are available as squat cylinders. But I realize this may be too far from the original to get the joke across.
Finally, consider the sweater material. You can't have any amount of synthetic fiber in there, it will melt. This includes any kind of viscose too, even when sold with the label "natural" (may be labelled rayon, modal, lyocell, bamboo, etc.) I am torn between recommending wool and cotton - cotton is way too absorbent and heavy and will mess with the cake engineering more, but wool is not only expensive, wet wool exposed to heat usually felts. It is unusual in that you are not moving it here, but still it will probably feel pretty strange after baking. Other animal fibers are probably too expensive anyway, and unlikely to fare better than wool - although you may try alpaka because it felts less. Getting a lightweight sweater in non-fluffy alpaka might be difficult though. Silk will also be an interesting option, I'm pretty sure you will have to look a jumper made with cablé or tape yarn though, not spun silk. Since it is so hard to predict, you will probably have to bake swatches before deciding on an optimum material (a tray of mini-jumper-cupcakes as a rapid prototyping method!).
Bottom line, to get the promised movie effect - it can be done, although I can't guarantee how close to the original you can get in the end, you will certainly have more cake on the outside. You will also need to invest some serious engineering effort, and money.
If you decide to go the cutout route, it's not trivial for that size either. I recommend that you watch videos on constructing pi~nata cakes.
You'd still have to beware of any print, trim, labels, or stitching that could melt if you actually bake the jumper - though if fully encased in cake it shouldn't get too hot
@ChrisH a cake should reach over 96 C internally for getting completely baked, and with the method I am suggesting, it will be hotter than that, especially in the early stages when the sweater is exposed. Thank you for mentioning these "additions" to a sweater, I have forgotten that they exist since I tend to wear either plain sweaters or handknit ones. I hope nobody will have placed print on a delicate alpaca sweater :) but yes, it can be there, especially on cotton (I have even seen people refer to cotton hoodies as "sweaters"), and if it has been sewn (as opposed to kettled with the...
... sweater's own yarn) they are likely using polyester thread too, even if the label says 100% cotton. The small amount will not mess with the cake even after softening/melting, but you can expect some serious deformation on the sweater itself.
I'd take a different approach to the other answer - bake a cake in a large normal tin, with a smaller empty tin suspended in the top centre so you have a bowl-shaped cake. I'd use stiff wire, such as coat hanger wire, to suspend the spacer tin. The void should be big enough to pack the jumper in (perhaps cheat a little and tie a ribbon round it tightly to make it take less space).
Then either invert and ice, or bake a shallow cake of the same diameter for a lid and sandwich them together.
This means the cake mixture doesn't soak into the jumper, and the jumper doesn't get hot, so you won't need to worry about even trace amounts of meltable fibre.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.048976 | 2020-10-25T19:39:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112297",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
} |
71308 | How to make stone ground flour?
Is there a way to make stone ground flour at home easily, preferably manually, from whole wheat/rye/kamut/spelt berries? Is that what a miller is used for, or is that only to make regular flour?
Can I just use something like mortar and pestle?
My end goal is to make sourdough bread and a starter with this stone ground flour.
Even yesterday's miller didn't run his mill with just his own muscle power, likely for good reason :)
It is possible, whether it fits your definition of easily is questionable, though.
Whole grain flour is made by grinding whole wheat/rye/... berries until you get a fine flour, a technique used since the neolithic age. The method that is still in use today is basically "rubbing the grains between a firm base stone and a moving upper stone", either shaped like a rolling pin or round and flat like a millstone. (Increase the scale and you get a classic mill.) So your mortar and pestle will work, even if they are not made of the types of sandstone, basalt or limestone that have the "right" mixture of coarseness and durability to make good millstones.
The drawback? Scale and time. You will probably need a lot of time, to get enough flour for a bread. For a starter, it should be ok, though.
If you think about buying a mill because you decide your super-fresh flour is worth the effort and cost, note that good manual mills with ceramic stones are almost as expensive as electric ones, but are way less comfortable. I make a lot of things myself and by hand in my kitchen, but I would draw the line at cranking a mill for half an hour just to get flour for one bread.
For a very "kitchen hack" style of grinding flour (but obviously not "stone ground"), consider your food processor (but check the manual first!): Pulse a cup or two of wheat berries untill you see "flour" and "grits" forming. Sieve off the finer parts, return the coarser to the food processor, add more grains and continue. You can even use the coarser parts for some kinds of wholegrain bread - a question of taste and recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.049643 | 2016-07-09T18:13:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71308",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122002 | Can you make beef and noodles with a beef stew seasoning packet?
I haven't made beef and noodles in a while but I have this beef stew seasoning packet and wanted to try that instead of beef broth or the beef cubes. Would this work? How much water would I need? I am just making a regular amount with one package of noodles and a can of shredded beef.
What's a "beef stew seasoning packet"? Can you include a photo and ingredients?
It's a Mccormick beef stew seasoning packet. I'm not at home so I can't take a photo
https://www.mccormick.com/spices-and-flavors/recipe-mixes/home-style-classics/beef-stew-seasoning-mix this one?
Yep! That one exactly
So you have this seasoning mix, as per comments.
Ingredients are, with my comments:
Corn Starch thickener
Salt obvious
Onion goes well with beef, found in most "beef noodles" recipes I glanced at
Sugar a bit of it does wonders to beef taste, in my opinion
Spices (Including Paprika, Black Pepper, Thyme) that's what I add to my beef, too
Tomato questionable, but I see how it can be good
Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten thickener, mouthfeel
Soy Protein and Wheat Gluten as above
Caramel Color obvious
Citric Acid
Xanthan Gum (Thickener).
So will this make a beef noodles as a stand in replacement? I think not. It doesn't have any beef taste on its own. And if you will try to boil canned beef with it long enough for taste to mix in, you will overcook your beef.
Consider either using these ingredients separately, as they were probably meant to be used, or treating it as an experiment. Personally, I like beef overcooked in sauce to the point there are no longer visible beef pieces, just one smooth thick sauce. But that's quite far from what you would usually call beef noodles.
Based on the ingredients, I would say no.
The seasoning packet is designed to work with raw meat and does not contain any beef flavor on its own.
Canned, cooked meat will not impart enough flavor to give you anything other than starchy paste with shredded beef and noodles in it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.050143 | 2022-10-17T14:57:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122002",
"authors": [
"Katie Banks",
"Mołot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69283 | How much dry cake mix, water, oil and eggs to use for two 4in round cakes?
I have a 15.25oz Betty Crocker box mix. On the back it says to use it all with 1 cup of water, 1/2oil and 3 eggs and that makes two 8 in rounds or 24 cupcakes.
I don't know how much I need, please help.
More on the math: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69025/is-it-possible-to-know-how-much-the-cake-weighs-using-a-specific-size-of-cake-pa/69031#69031
I'll assume you want your 4" round cakes to be the same height as the two 8" rounds the box would make.
The area of two 8" rounds is 2*pi*4^2 = 32pi. The area of two 4" rounds is 8pi, or 1/4 as much area. So you only need 1/4 of the box, and 1/4 of the ingredients you'd add to it.
So, if you have a scale, you could measure 3.8oz of the cake mix, and otherwise you'll need to measure the whole thing by volume and take a quarter of it. Then you'll need 1/4 cup of water, 1/8 cup of oil, and... 3/4 of an egg, which you can probably round up to an egg. If you really want to be careful, you can also just beat an egg in a small bowl or measuring cup, and then spoon out 1/4 of it to leave 3/4 to use.
You need a quarter the amount of batter to fill two 4-inch cakes if the batter is sufficient for two 8-inch cakes... assuming you want the cakes to be the same depth.
This is problematic because it's difficult to split three eggs in quarters.
For simplicity, I'd make 1/3 of the batter to keep the percentages correct and then don't pour it all into the pans, or use all of the batter but know that they will be taller layers.
So, you would use:
5 oz of the mix
1/3 cup water
2 tbsp plus 2 tsp oil
1 egg
If you want to do quarters, you could get away with it by using a medium egg (if you can find them) or by beating one large egg and using 3/4ths of it... though you'd probably be fine using the whole egg, really...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.050324 | 2016-05-26T23:36:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69283",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69180 | Does dried milk powder retard yeast growth in bread making
I have found that when using dried milk powder to soften the crumb on wholemeal loaves that the dough doesn't rise as well, even when using 25% strong white flour to increase the gluten.
Is this because of the milk powder?
Scald milk to inactivate the enzymes. I have heard this for powdered and caned milk.
Are you adding extra water to compensate for the dry ingredient? Please post a recipe and method
Thought that the enzymes were removed during the drying process. There is no shortage of water. I'm working on a 65% hydration
Short answer, no.
Try souring the dough a small percentage to strengthen the gluten -more elastic- which should help higher rising
Bit of an instant kind of guy so souring the dough by which I assume you mean adding a sourdough starter is not an option so I have decided to try Pure Wheat Gluten from Amazon.
Commercial bakers add a small amount of dry powdered souring agent; try some vitamin C
Nice idea - I'll definitely give that a go next time
The dried milk is amplifying the dough with casein protein and fat and removes some of the free water.
The yeast need the free water. Also the more fat to the dough, the less and slower rise you will notice.
Probably more likely the fat content. I use skimmed milk powder so no extra fat there but do use about 4% butter, again to soften the crumb. Not sure why the casein would make a difference? There is plenty of free water
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.050491 | 2016-05-23T08:53:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69180",
"authors": [
"Andrew Law",
"GdD",
"Optionparty",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45938",
"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
} |
87980 | Storing Whole Wheat and Unbleached Flour
Can whole wheat and unbleached flours be stored in the same container instead of storing them separately?
I'd like to pre-mix my flours for all of my baking and store it that way. Since my diet consists mainly of whole wheat, whole grains, natural & organic foods....I don't use white flour by itself. And as I mentioned, whole wheat baking usually calls for some white flour because of the density.
Assume you mean in two different "bags" but in one large container of some sort. Correct?
No, mixed together in same container.
Are you making a flour blend?
Are you asking whether this affects the storage lifetime? (@JanDoggen I've often pre-measured and pre-mixed dry ingredients, e.g. for homemade pancake mix, to save time. I'm not sure if this is what the OP has in mind, though, just one possibility.)
Yes, I'd like to pre-mix my flours for all of my baking and store it that way. Since my diet consists mainly of whole wheat, whole grains, natural & organic foods....I don't use white flour by itself. And as I mentioned, whole wheat baking usually calls for some white flour because of the density. How would the combined flour be measured if a recipe called for a cup of each?
I suppose it would be considered a flour blend!
Whole wheat flour has a lot of fat in it and will go rancid relatively quickly. It should be used promptly after it is ground or frozen for long term storage. Even if it will be used soon, keeping it cool and sealed from air and light is helpful.
There is no adverse effect from mixing flour types. Keep in mind that separately your white flour would keep much longer but your mix will only last as long as the wheat flour.
You should define "use promptly." Information on the internets is all over the board on this. It appears that in general the shelf life of whole wheat flour is many months, refrigerated whole wheat flour will be fine for 6 to 8 months, and white flour would last longer...but "much" longer? How much? Store it in the freezer and the shelf life increases. In any case, for someone who is a regular baker, as the OP appears to be, rancidity will probably not be an issue.
I would think that letting the bag's "use by" date as a reference is the better choice @moscafj The maker is likely to have a better idea of the lifetime of the flour.
Thanks so much for the advice! I now know what to do.
As you've clarified that you only use the unbleached flour mixed with wholewheat, then yes, you can store the blend, and it will keep just as well as the individual flours. So if you get through large quantities always in the same proportions, go for it; if the proportions aren't fixed it seems more trouble than it's worth.
Let's assume you normally make a recipe that uses equal weights of both (50% wholemeal recipes are common in breadmakers for example). A well-mixed 50:50 blend would allow you to just use the same total weight, which is easy. But if you want to make a 70% wholemeal one day (you do, after all, sound like you want to keep up the wholegrain fraction of your diet) you have to fiddle about with the maths. You can also use just the wholemeal for flouring the worksurface or dusting a loaf. It gives the crust a nice flavour and texture, especially if you use stoneground or a similar slightly rough flour. The blend wouldn't have as much of this effect.
If you always make the same recipe, why not add the other dry ingredients (in the correct proportions of course): the baking powder for cakes or quickbreads, the salt and sugar for yeast breads (but probably not the yeast). You could even pack it into containers holding the right quantity as a batch process, essentially assembling your own mixes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.050649 | 2018-02-25T08:52:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87980",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Jann",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65375",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68804 | When making pizza dough ahead, at what point in the process should I let it rise?
I would like to make pizza dough by hand a few nights before actually baking. Do I knead the dough, let it rise, punch down, cover in oil and saran wrap, and then place in fridge? Or do I knead the dough, cover in oil and saran wrap, and then place in the fridge?
It should be safe to skip the punch down step.
In fact, Jeff Hertzberg and Zoë François, who literally wrote the book (or at least a book: Artisan Pizza and Flatbread in Five Minutes a Day) on making pizza dough ahead of time, strongly encourage us to never punch down. Actually, if you search their website for the words "punch down," you will find that it only occurs in the following phrase (emphasis theirs):
DO NOT PUNCH DOWN THE DOUGH!
Having said that, it is worth noting that most of the doughs they make are relatively wet, and they usually suggest just mixing and storing everything in a bucket without bothering to oil the dough.
However, in my own experimentation, which has mostly involved doughs that are not quite as wet, I haven't been able to detect a difference in the end product whether I punch the dough down or not, as long as the dough is fully kneeded, regardless of whether or not I portion/oil the dough out for individual pizzas before storing it in the fridge (though portioning it out in advance or not does make a difference for me).
You can also see that our dear friend Alton Brown, who prefers proofing the dough in the fridge (see "Flat is Beautiful," Good Eats Season 3 Ep. 11), also does not suggest punching the dough down before stowing it.
Finally, when in doubt, try it out. Homemade pizza dough is great stuff (and inexpensive); now you have an excuse to make it twice and see what happens.
You are going to want to let the dough rise as much as possible before applying oil. (The first scenario) This is so cracks and unoiled patches do not form in the rising process. If this is not possible, apply a little more oil to allow it to cover the increased surface area better, but do not use too much.
Can you improve your answer by explaining why you want to rise before oiling the surface?
Done, added more detail
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.050943 | 2016-05-05T17:36:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68804",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45585",
"user1757922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71483 | How can I remove the greasiness from my ice cream?
I am using 35% whole cream and 3.25% whole milk to make my home made ice cream and it leaves a greasy aftertaste. How can I improve this?
glucose de 46,
skim milk powder
modified cornstarch
sugar
cream cheese
35% cream
3.25 milk
We'd need to see your whole recipe to answer beyond the rather obvious "use less cream or use light cream or half and half rather than heavy cream." Or use a lower percentage if you buy via percentage rather than descriptions (regional variance.) Please find the edit button and include the recipe and procedure. We don't want questions seeking a recipe as an answer, but we do fairly well on figuring out where a recipe or procedure looks wrong, if we have the recipe or procedure in the question. Pre-chilling in the refrigerator before churning can also help.
i am using glucose de 46, skim milk powder modified cornstarch, sugar,cream cheese 35% cream and 3.25 milk
Not a list of ingredients - the recipe, including amounts and procedures. Please edit the question with that information. Cream cheese is also going to tend towards your "greasy after taste."
I have put the ingredients you listed into the question, please edit to add amounts of each and your procedure.
From the punctuation in your ingredient clarification post, I'm unclear on what is meant by "cream cheese 35% cream": are you talking about the us commercial food product called "cream cheese" e.g. Philadelphia brand, etc.? As Ecnerwal says, it sounds like a possible source of "greasy aftertaste". For comparison purposes, have you tried any recipes that don't include this ingredient?
If this is a recipe that others have used successfully, consider that you may have over-churned. Excessive churning is almost changing milk/cream to butter.
It sounds as if you over-churned it. That turns the cream into more of a butter consistency. Try less beating and more folding.
I'd find a recipe without cream cheese.
You can make ice cream with all the other ingredients without it being greasy, assuming "glucose de 46" is just glucose. Cream cheese can be greasy, though, so it's almost certainly the culprit. (I suppose you should also check that you're using the right kind, i.e. not using full-fat when the recipe calls for low-fat.)
There's not really a lot of point trying to modify the existing recipe to remove it; you'd have to look at other recipes to get the right ratios anyway, so you might as well just make one of those other recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.051141 | 2016-07-18T01:02:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71483",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Lorel C.",
"Paulb",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48103",
"ryan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67073 | I have clay tajines from Morocco that I've always cooked in and suddenly new stove is smoking?
When I lived in Morocco I purchased small clay tajines to bring home and I've been cooking in them ever since; several years. Mostly on convection ovens, and once on a flat surface stove. I've just bought a house with a flat surface electric stove and this first time I've used the tajine here, the stove is smoking and smells really strong of plastic burning! My husband had just cleaned the stove (with chemicals) which I was claiming HAD to be the reason, but really? Burning plastic smell? Any ideas here??
Have you given the stove a good hot bake since it had been cleaned? It's possible that petrochemicals can give a burning plastic smell (as plastic is petroleum based)
So, you keep saying "on"... are you doing this in the oven or on the cooktop?
Was this new stove top induction?
You're not using the induction stove-top properly. Induction cooking works by inducting a magnetic field in the cooking vessel. Practically this means that a cooking vessel must be made of, or contain, a ferromagnetic metal such as cast iron or some stainless steels. If you want to use a ceramic or glass cooking disk then you should use a ferromagnetic interface disk (essentially an iron plate) which functions as a conventional hotplate.
See page 17 of the pdf file for an Electrolux range which describes the cookware type to use. Basically you want a magnet to be able to stick to the cookware.
why do you think that the stove is induction? Not only doesn't the OP say anything about induction, the fact alone that it heated to smoke speaks against such an assumption.
I assume that a "flat surface electric stove" is an induction stove top.
That's a very improbable assumption for at least three reasons. 1) Statistics: noninduction flattop electric stoves are more common than induction ones, 2) people who have induction tend to know that and say it, and 3) as said above, an induction stove wouldn't have heated a clay tagine.
@rumtscho : actually, it's possible if the glaze had iron in it, it might start heating up. Iron is often in red & brown glazes.
If I'm right, the induction stoves recognize when enough magnetic material is on the stove, and will not work with miniscule amount of iron. Small enough pan, and the stove won't do anything.
I think this might actually be a glass-ceramic cooktop in some countries (for instance Switzerland) those are much more common than induction or gas and they look almost exactly the same as the induction cooktops.
Geeze,.. no point in speculating more about the type of stove top. We need Siren Williams to clarify the matter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.051363 | 2016-03-03T23:58:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67073",
"authors": [
"Andy Kelly",
"Catija",
"David Atuke",
"Joe",
"Julie Stephens",
"Keith Oldrid",
"MaxW",
"Mien",
"Nuri Nurhasanah Sugandi",
"diynevala",
"drat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rose tortorici",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65682 | How do you clear food that sticks to the cutting knife?
I am now typing this with 1.5 hands because like a moron I cleared parsley that stuck to the knife with the edge towards my hand. After a quarter cup of blood it is a powerful lesson to never clear the knife with the edge towards my hand.
But how then do you clear the knife? My first guess is to always point the edge away from the hand, but even the greatest knife masters will forget every once in a while to clean with the edge in the opposite direction.
How then should you clean the food that sticks to the knife?
even the greatest knife masters will forget every once in a while to clean with the edge in the opposite direction
No, they won't, not after cutting themselves a couple of times. It's natural to cut yourself while cutting food, occasionally, but I have never cut myself while slipping food from the blade.
Always keep the edge away from you, place the side of your finger against the flat of the blade keeping it absolutely rigid and straight, and run your finger down the blade. It's that simple. Using the side of your finger reduces the chance of you curling it around the cutting edge.
Now that you mention it -- I wipe with my hand angled so it's more the back of my hand (so if I were to curl my fingers, they'd go away from the knife). And I do wipe slightly along the blade, but it's a diagonal, so that I'm always going towards the sharp edge (from the back side).
Also note that I slide my finger off the edge of the blade rather than running it directly down the edge. IOW in reverse, so it has no chance of catching an edge.
Muscle memory is a powerful thing. Grab the handle of a pan roasting in the oven a couple times, and you'll never again forget to use a towel or mitt either.
Always push from the back (non-sharp) side of the knife to the front (sharp edge).
So long as you only go in this direction, and move your hand away from the knife before pulling it back in, you shouldn't cut yourself. (at least, not from doing this).
The same rules apply when washing you knife -- only wipe in that direction, or at a diagonal to it. Never wipe along the sharp edge of the blade, or back towards the blade.
This is close to what I do. I use my four fingers as a broom to sweep off the food. Kind of like shoo-ing a tiny spider. This method is slower than running a finger along the edge but you don't have to think about cutting yourself.
Well I think you answered this in your question. Face the cutting edge away from you. Sometimes however if I am pushing food off the cutting board into a bowl or skillet, I'll run the sides of the knife on the edge of the cutting board and knock-off what little gets stuck to the board with the knife again.
This. I don't see any reason to touch the food with fingers, when the edge of cutting board works just as well.
Agreed! Or if you're following mise en place, on the edge of the bowl.
With some food that gets stuck it is possible to whack the knife hard on the cutting board with the edge down (or the turn it and whack the spine of the knife to not blunt the knife), making the food fall of the blade.
Another solution is to try to minimize the need of wiping it in the first place. How to prevent sliced vegetables/roots from sticking to the blade
Doing that can blunt or downright damage some edges.
@rackandboneman, good comment, added suggestion to turn the knife :)
One thing that may help - pinch the blade between your thumb and forefinger (near the base), and run those fingers down the blade.
With your fingers bracing off each other, the edges of your fingers should never hit the edge of the blade - the sharp edge will run in the open air where your fingers curve away from each other, either in the space above the webbing of your thumb, or else pointed away from your hand. If you run them down the center of the blade, this is perfectly safe.
If you are clearing food from an edge, or your fingers start running off the edge - go with it, make sure your fingers move towards the edge of the blade, never back towards the center. Run your fingers right off the blade edge, and reset your grip if you must, as long as you're moving from center of the blade to edge you won't have any pressure at all backwards against the blade edge to cut yourself on. That way, even if the pinch of your forefinger and thumb hit the blade edge, they are not being pulled back against the blade. Or to put it another way, the movement from center-to-edge of a knife is always pulling away from the sharp blade, never towards it.
I do both. I'm right-handed, so I hold the knife in my right hand and brush the left side (the side near me) with the edge pointing at me, and the right side (the side away from me) with the edge pointing away.
For the near side, I move the pad of my finger along the spine of the blade, moving from the handle to the tip. This means the edge of the blade moves backwards up my finger and can't cut me. I also arch my finger a bit so the edge isn't really touching my finger.
For the far side, I keep the pad just above the edge of the blade, pushing slightly out as I run my finger towards the tip.
In either case, if my finger moves and I miss some food, I take my finger off -- moving it down the blade towards the edge -- then start over, rather than trying to reset while half a millimeter from the edge.
I do occasionally get tiny microcuts in the skin this way, but I've never had a major cut from it. I find it easier than switching hands to clear each side, and safer than trying to clear the near side with my left-hand fingers pointing down the blade (which requires odd contortions or twisting the knife so my finger is under it and I can't see what I'm doing).
On the other hand, I picked up a stack of salad bowls two weeks ago and had blood spurting everywhere because someone set the bowls down too hard and broke one, and the sharp edge of the broken bowl put two giant slashes in my finger. Safety is relative, I guess.
For some it is easier to hold the finger still and move the blade against it, making sure that the blade movement is always backwards in relation to any edge. Also, keeping a plastic(!) bench scraper nearby and using it for such work is a very safe and sometimes very efficient option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.051638 | 2016-01-21T16:06:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65682",
"authors": [
"Dave Hajra",
"DonnaHabibah loney",
"Escoce",
"FRANCO DIMATTEO",
"Gloria Beamer",
"JoAnn DeMeo",
"Joe",
"Sharon Kinchin",
"Tim Sparkles",
"Vikki Morgan",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jmathew",
"jpa",
"logophobe",
"patricia hammond",
"rackandboneman",
"rlchard Rogers"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66450 | Should I add salt when boiling vegetable? Why?
I am a new learner on cooking and I would like to boil some vegetable: soybean, baby corn, okra, etc. I saw a lot of people add salt when boiling them but I am not sure I should do that or not, and what is the purpose of adding salt when boiling? Hope to get feedback for you guys. Thank you in advance!
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/nov/17/weekend.hestonblumenthal
Maybe you have heard of osmosis. Putting salt into the water when boiling vegetables (which are also slightly salty) will prevent water from entering the vegetables, hence decreasing the overall flavor of the vegetables.
The purpose of adding salt when boiling is to add flavor to it. Also, Salt retains the moisture of the vegetables from the inside.
Personally I prefer to cook cabbage with just enough water not to boiling dry; keep a gentle steaming 4 mins and without salt.
So with steaming I would season afterwards.
Tom
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.052258 | 2016-02-12T16:31:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66450",
"authors": [
"Adam Tunnicliffe",
"Allison Parker",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eline Esprit",
"Gary Curtis",
"Linda Gigg",
"Missy Brown",
"Nicky Kirsten",
"christine goyen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"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
} |
100833 | What can I use in lieu of white wine in this recipe?
I would like to make the below recipe for a bridal shower, but it is at a church which forbids alcohol and alcoholic products on premises. What can I use for a substitute for the white wine, to still achieve the desired effect?-
Also, there is a lemon and lime allergy, so nothing lemon or lime-y.
Strawberries and Wine Flower Cheesecake
(abbreviated recipe with only relevant steps/ingredients. For full recipe, visit the link above)
Three 1/4-ounce packages unflavored powdered gelatin
1 1/2 cups white cranberry juice
1/4 cup granulated sugar
2 1/2 cups chilled sweet white wine, such as Riesling
1 quart medium strawberries (about 20 total)
10 to 12 canned mandarin orange segments (from an 11-ounce can), drained well
Once the cheesecake is set, prepare the white wine gelatin. Pour the white cranberry juice into a medium saucepan and sprinkle over the remaining 3 packages of gelatin. Let sit until the gelatin is absorbed, 2 to 3 minutes. Add the granulated sugar and heat over low heat, whisking occasionally, just until the gelatin and sugar dissolve, 1 to 2 minutes.
Pour the gelatin mixture into a large bowl and stir in the white wine. Use a spoon to scoop away any bubbles at the surface. Refrigerate, stirring every 10 minutes, until the gelatin just begins to thicken and is the consistency of thin fruit jelly, 30 to 45 minutes.
Meanwhile, trim away the green tops from the strawberries. The trimmed strawberries should be no longer than 1 1/2 inches tall (1 inch is ideal). Slice the strawberries into 1/4-inch-thick pieces, saving any small end pieces for another use.
Starting from the outside edge of the cheesecake, shingle the strawberries (pointed side outward and upward) in a circular pattern, leaning the tips of the strawberries against the edge of the pan, about 26 strawberry slices total. Continue this pattern, working inward and making 3 additional concentric circles with the strawberries overlapping each other, leaving at least 2 1/2 inches of empty space in the center of the cheesecake. (You may have strawberries left over.) Arrange the mandarin oranges in the center (rounded side outward and upward) so that the cheesecake is completely covered.
Use a large spoon to stir the gelatin until mostly smooth. Gently spoon the mixture evenly on top of the fruit, then use the back of an offset spatula to smooth out the top as much as possible. (For a really smooth top, dip the offset spatula into boiling water, wipe it dry and smooth out the top further.) Refrigerate the cheesecake until the gelatin is completely set, at least 4 hours and up to overnight.
Can't access the link to the recipe, you might be able to substitute Shloer non-alcoholic grape juice, but clearly the taste will be different.
Of course, the recipe has lemon juice in it, so you'll have to replace that, too.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1332/67 ... and you might want to see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/41369/67
Since the recipe call for sweet riesling, I'd replace the wine with white grape juice.
Make a lateral move to passion fruit juice. It has a unique flavor that would really go well with the rest of this dessert. It will bring something not present in the original but since you are ditching sweet wine and lemon, you need some razzamatazz and passion fruit has got it.
Plus the passion in passion fruit actually refers to the passion of Christ, so maybe the church people will dig that!
It looks like the wine is used in the gelatin topping, where it is used as a flavoring. You could substitute any fruit-flavored essence (note many of these are dissolved in alcohol), though you would need to substitute water for most of the volume as concentrated essences are very strong.
As white cranberry juice is the base for this layer, you could just use that to fill the full volume (4 cups - 1.5 cranberry + 2.5 wine). You could also use white or red grape-juice, or indeed any clear/transparent fruit-juice, such as pear or apple, substituting 1:1 for the wine. If you wanted to be super-fancy you could make 3 or so different jelly layers using different juices resulting in a layered appearance of different colors.
If you wanted one for the kids, just use a couple of packets of Jello/Jelly mix as you might buy at the supermarket.
As you have someone with what appears to be a citrus allergy - make sure you avoid the mandarin segments, as these are from the citrus family.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.052401 | 2019-08-19T21:45:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100833",
"authors": [
"Greybeard",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67896 | Purple garlic color change
I bought a bag of peeled garlic cloves as a convenience(I know, shame on me) I stored the unused cloves in the fridge and the began to show purple areas on the cloves. I don't think this is anything harmful but my partner didn't like it and insisted I throw away what was left. Is this just another natural color change for garlic such as the blue/green or green colorations that can occur. Anyone have a definitive answer? I'm not trying to one-up her, just trying to be safe.
The purple is just the anthocyanins in the garlic reacting to conditions. It's perfectly safe. Some types of garlic actually turn purple before they are picked if they are fertilized close to maturity; I do this now by choice, because I've decided I like the purple. The purple will occur more frequently and to a greater degree if the garlic is cooked with or peeled cloves are stored in contact with something acidic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.052748 | 2016-03-30T23:05:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67896",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82277 | Doubling a recipe: how much oil for browning, sauteing?
I want to double this recipe, which calls for browning the floured meat in a pan in 4 tsp of oil, then sauteing the onion in 2 tsp of oil.
Do I need to also double the amount of oil for either or both of these? I am thinking that the meat doesn't absorb oil so no, but the onion will so yes, but I'm not at all sure.
Big T is tablespoons! The recipe calls for teaspoons!
@catija Yeah, I discovered that when I was writing up my notes for how it went. :) Oops. Came out great though. May just do that from now on. I'd never seen a recipe that fried something in oil and called for an amount of oil in less than than Tablespoons.
Well, 4 tsp is over a tbsp (3 tsp/tbsp), so that's not different, really.
@Catija, yeah, really, what's a factor of three between friends. :)
The main issue I would be wary of is that you have sufficient space in the pan for all of the meat to brown well.
Generally, it's better to do the meat in batches so that it has room and doesn't cool the pan off too much - you want to brown the meat, not steam it. When I make stew in my stainless steel 12 inch pan using two pounds of stew meat (cubed beef, lamb, or bison), I still usually need to do 2-3 batches to leave room for good browning.
So, while this is a tangential answer, my recommendation is to do one recipe worth of the meat at a time (if your pan can accommodate it all) and, with the second batch, add enough oil to make it look like the same amount of oil as the first batch had. While the meat may not absorb much, the flour may, and the meat will get coated - plus there's usually a good amount of splatter, so you will likely need to add at least 2-3 tsp of oil for the second batch.
As to the onion, I'd probably increase it by half again, so use 3 tsp. Since you're doing this all in the same pan the important thing is to really look at what's in the pan before you add oil each time. If there's still a lot of fat in the pan after you've finished your browning, use less oil. Alternately, if you're using a really fatty cut of meat, it may release a bunch of grease, so you don't really need to add a lot of oil. I find that, quite often, the amounts of oil are much more liberal than really necessary, so I can get away with using quite a bit less and still get good browning without burning.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.052848 | 2017-06-09T16:18:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82277",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Codeswitcher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44178"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81016 | Substituting Dried Cranberries for Fresh/Frozen
I have a slow cooker recipe (for meat) that calls for 4 cups fresh or frozen cranberries. Fresh are out of season, and frozen out of stock at my usual stores. All that's available are dried cranberries.
I'm wondering about the advisability of getting the dried cranberries and re-hydrating them in the other fluid ingredients of the recipe (e.g. apple juice) over the stove, and using them in the slow cooker as usual.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? If so, what measure of dried cranberries will substitute for 4 cups frozen? And how much fluid will that amount of dried cranberries require to re-hydrate to 4 cups?
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Be aware that most dried cranberries are sweetened, so the sweetness of the rest of the recipe might need to be adjusted. The trickiest part is figuring much dried cranberries to use. To give us every advantage, can you link to the recipe?
I'd be tempted to soak them in water for a couple of hours first and discard the water before cooking. This would only start to rehydrate them but would take away some sugar (especially any on the surface) if they're sweetened. If unsweetened you could work out the water loss and therefore liquid needed from nutrition information (dried vs. fresh found online). Possibly still if sweetened but not using csrbs or calories and less accurate.this also assumes they rehydrate exactly to the same state as fresh.
If your recipe already calls for apple juice and your cranberries are sweetened, perhaps swap a little bit of the juice for cider vinegar.
I wouldn't.
I'm guessing that a recipe which requires 4 cups of fresh cranberries has them as either the majority ingredient, or the #2 ingredient by weight. With that assumption in mind, I'm recommending against this.
Fresh cranberries are very high in ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). This makes them extremely tart, which is a big part of their flavor. In dried ones, all of this acid and about half their tartness is destroyed by the drying process. Dried cranberries are often sweetened as well. As a result, a rehydrated dried cranberry won't taste a lot like a fresh one ... compare fresh table grapes and raisins for a similar difference.
In a recipe where the cranberries were a minor ingredient, the substitution would probably be fine.
One could always buy a bag of powdered ascorbic acid, and add it to the rehydration mix.
@WayfaringStranger yeah, but it would take a LOT of experimentation to figure out if you had gotten the recipe right. And, you'd need a fresh cranberry version to compare it against.
Mind you, if someone wants to do the experimentation to determine the formula for "reconstituted cranberries", I'd be very interested to see the result.
This is exactly what I needed to know. Great answer, thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.053072 | 2017-04-18T04:27:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81016",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Codeswitcher",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jolenealaska",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67404 | Can I make hard / crunchy food without sugar or fat?
I don't feel "optimal" after eating sweet or fatty foods, but I miss the crunch of a granola bar or a potato chip. I realize that binding with hard candy and deep frying are for different uses, so I guess I'm asking the more general question of what makes things hard? My food science brother mentions "cross-linking".
Thinking about it, there are other crunchy things like nuts, pretzels, "baked" chips, or "popped" rice chips... What makes these work?
Links to further reading are quite welcome too!
Lack of moisture? Generally wet=soft, dry=crunchy... but I'm not sure I understand the question.
There are different kinds of "crunch". Some things are crunchy by nature, even though they contain lots of moisture — celery, apples, pickles, even grapes can be crunchy. It's largely about how the food reacts when chewed, the sensation against your teeth and the sound it makes when broken apart.
Blah ... this is getting to be a bit long for a comment, so I might as well reformat & expand more, even though it might not be an appropriate answer. (and I should note that this is mostly from memory as I got an engineering degree ~20 years ago)
Are you asking about the physics of what 'crunchy' is? It's effectively stiff, brittle things.
When you're dealing with strength of materials, you're looking at how much energy something can absorb before it fails. Strain is a measure of how much something deforms as it's being loaded. Items that can take a high load (force applied) without deforming are considered stiff. (stiffness = force / deformation)
Brittle is a characterization of how it fails -- something that deforms plastically (stretches and won't go back to the original shape once the load is removed) can become weaker as more force is applied, but still keep resisting. Think of something like taffy.
Brittle failures, however, are almost explosive -- it just breaks suddenly. Think of a concrete block being crushed -- you load it and it looks like nothing's happening, but suddenly bits of it shoot off and you're left with a pile of rubble.
Why things are crunchy is another issue entirely -- because there's lots of different structures that can result in "crunchy".
Crunchy baked goods are more like a wooden truss bridge. Wood can handle a lot of force without breaking, but once once member goes, the truss loses strength and is ripped apart, and it suddenly fails. There's often debris along the breakage because of how the item rips itself apart internally. (although we typically call them 'crumbs' not 'rubble' when talking about this kind of food).
For these foods, water will typically soften the structure making it so they can't support much load -- making them not stiff, and thus not crunchy.
Moist things like apples, lettuce and carrots are often crunchy, but it's a bit different. It's more like bubble wrap. Cells are effectively a bunch of tiny water balloons bound tightly together. As we apply pressure, they pop. (although they're so tightly packed together that unlike a single water balloon, it doesn't have space to deform). In this case, we don't see crumbs as much as the moisture from the cells breaking.
If the cells aren't full, then we consider it to be mushy ... maybe even chewy if we dry it far enough ... if the cells don't stay bound together well, then it's mealy -- it crumbles easily, rather than giving us that resistance before it fails explosively.
So anyway ... if you want crunchy without sugar and fat ... have some celery. If you're okay with a bit of sugar, then carrots. If a bit of fat, then crackers (but not ritz or really buttery ones).
"Crunchy" is frequently the result of dehydration. This can be accomplished in a deep fryer (potato chips, for example), an oven (pretzels, for example), or a dehydrator (or very low oven). I think the answer is removal of water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.053331 | 2016-03-14T01:37:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67404",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"Jasmine Gibson",
"Klempa",
"Luz Villacasten",
"Neil Ross",
"Shirlette Francis",
"StarCat Is the best",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77124 | In making a pudding, can you replace yolks with whole eggs?
Can I use six whole eggs instead of six yolks.
The recipe calls for:
6 yolks
1.5 c sugar
4 heaping T cornstarch
1 can evaporated milk
1 can regular milk (fill the above can)
1 T vanilla
What is the method? Are you talking about UK pudding or US pudding?
You certainly can replace the yolks with whole eggs but you wouldn't do one-to-one as that would give you too much volume. The average egg has more volume in whites than in yolks (it's about 60% white and 30% yolk) so you'd want to use three whole eggs, not six.
Unfortunately, whites may give your pudding a texture that you won't like - one site calls it "jellyish" (meaning like gelatin), so you may want to use a combination of whole eggs and yolks alone, say, two whole eggs and two yolks. This would be about equivalent to using six yolks but will reduce the gumminess.
Now I'm curious... what's the other 10%?
Shell, of course. :)
I don't make pudding very often, but I did last night. I didn't realize I had put in three whole eggs instead of three yolks until all cooking was done, and the assembled pudding was cooling off. I couldn't tell any obvious difference, so nothing clued me in I did anything wrong, until it randomly crossed my mind. No gumminess. Just pure, creamy yumminess. Though if the correct and goofed recipes were side by side, maybe I could sense a difference, for all I know.
I used the Joy of Cooking recipe (1c sugar, 3 Tbsp cornstarch, 1/4tsp salt, 3c whole milk, 3-4 large egg yolks, 3 Tbsp unsalted butter, 1.5tsp vanilla, wafers, banana)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.053674 | 2017-01-04T19:52:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77124",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Erik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283"
],
"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
} |
77187 | Do blueberries affect gelatin's ability to set?
Will blueberries cause gelatin not to set? I made orange gelatin adding canned peaches and fresh blueberries. It did not set completely. Is it the blue berries causing the gelatin not to set?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47450/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33957/67
No, the fault isn't with the blueberries. Certain fruits contain enzymes which denature ("digest" or separate) the amino acids in gelatin. Pineapple with the enzyme bromelain is one example. Blueberries don't have any protein digesting enzymes. The likely cause of your partially unset gelatin is not thoroughly draining the juice from the peaches. Possibly there was enough juice clinging to the peaches to thin out your gelatin. Next time, add a little less water when you make it.
Or, add more gelatin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.053821 | 2017-01-06T03:17:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77187",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"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
} |
70681 | Surfaces for bread making
I am a home artisan baker, and am looking to build a table for myself to do folding/dividing/shaping of my bread doughs. I usually work with wet doughs (78%-95% hydration) that stick to the surfaces I have in my house unless I use a gross amount of flour.
I would like to use less flour during the folding and shaping processes. I would like to be able to leave doughs on the surface for some time without them fusing with the table!
What surfaces are used in professional bread making?
What features should I look for in an ideal surface?
I've been known to knead on top of a silpat sheet. It might work for what you're asking for, if it's of sufficient size for you ... you just don't want to cut and such on it.
@Joe is there a way that you keep your sheet from moving across the counter? I will post this comment on your answer if you choose to submit it as an answer.
@Seth - The Silpat "Roul'Pat" addresses the concern of silicone mat slipping specifically. See my answer for a link to the product.
A vast array of surfaces exist but most people end up with either butcher block, stainless steel, or a natural stone such as marble.
People choose stainless steel for its ease of cleaning and it's sanitary properties. People choose natural stone because it is typically colder (great for pastries), dough tends not to stick to it, and it looks great. People choose butcher block because they want to prep/cut directly on it and because of the cost.
In your particular situation, for dough work the best general recommendation I have is to use natural stone. You really can't go wrong with it.
If you aren't replacing or installing a brand new countertop, there are many options such as the very typical pastry/kneading board with a built in lip(example), by purchasing "scrap" marble pieces, or a silicone mat such as the Silpat or Roul'Pat(example 1, 2, 3).
Finally, the surface matters somewhat, but far and away the key to working with high hydration dough is your technique. Make sure you nail that down and you should be relying very little on the surface itself.
Ocean state job lot sells what they call a marble dough surface, it's not really marble. It actually looks like polished keystone, but I also highly doubt that's what it is because that stuff is highly porous. I think this stone is made from a synthetic marble. However, it works really well. It's not great for making pie crust without using loads of flour so it can stretch without sticking, but wet doughs for things like Dutch oven kneadless bread (a very wet dough), it works great. But also at the same time, you pick up this dough with dough scrapers, not your hands.
Natural stone is not "colder" - temperature is an extrinsic property. Volcano lava is natural stone. So is the moon. They are not the same temperature.
I use a silpat sheet (silicone with some sort of fiber reinforcement in it).
As it's silicone on both sides, it grips the countertop well, but the bread dough doesn't stick to it too much. The only drawback is that you don't want to use metal tools with it, as you might damage the surface. (I avoid bench scrapers, and definitely no cutting on it)
I don't have much trouble with it, but I don't know if the dough that you're working with is significantly stickier than what I'm using.
In the past, I've also used various plastic mats and boards**.... some specifically have measurements and circles on them so you can make sure you're rolling out pie crusts to the right size ... but those tended to be for less sticky stuff.
** Although shortly after I bought a big huge pastry board, my brother stayed with me ... and used it as a cutting board, gouging it up, as he found that before he found the cutting boards.
Much of bread baking is not about surface but technique. A good surface is an asset but it's really convenience. When I am working with wet dough I don't even try to stop it sticking, I use the stickiness to stretch the dough. I find that I get very fast, good quality gluten development in about half the time as traditional kneading. I use a dough scraper to get it off the surface and into the proofing bowl. If I want to knead without flour I use oil instead.
The best surface for bread is one that is smooth and that could be stone, metal, or synthetic. A smooth wood can do just as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.053919 | 2016-06-13T22:54:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70681",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Seth",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243"
],
"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
} |
45048 | Mixing mushroom-potato-carrot soup and warming later (Should I?)
I've got what is probably a pretty basic question - but this is the first thing I've tried to prepare in my life that didn't involve boiling noodles and adding cheese afterwords.
I'm looking at baking chicken breast in foil packets with cream of mushroom, carrots, potatoes etc etc. The thing is I'm only cooking for two people, so If I follow the proportions on my recipe I'm gonna have a lot left over, so I thought I'd make the leftover mushroom/spud/carrot concoction into a soup (possibly by adding some cream of chicken to thicken it up). This unfortunately adds a whole level of work to what I'm doing and given the fact that I don't want to start heating until my girlfriend is on her way over (which is somewhat unpredictable time-wise) but want it to be ready when she gets here (20 minutes or so) I'm wondering if I can prepare some of the stuff ahead of time.
I don't see any reason I can't cut the fat off the chicken or wash/peal/dice the veggies, but will the veggies get soggy or loose texture if I mix them in with the cream of mushroom up to an hour before I start heating it? I assume if I were to do this, it would be ok to refrigerate? Thanks so much for your help. If something I'm spouting sounds like utter nonsense or would taste terrible, please feel free to let me know! =)
You're fine making those packets well in advance. You could even put them together the night before and leave them in the refrigerator until you're ready to bake (expect them to take five minutes longer to cook). The only possible negative to doing it that way is that the potatoes could get a little brown. You can keep that from happening too badly by making sure that they are completely covered by a thin coating of the soup mixture.
You don't want to serve soup made out of the same ingredients as your entree. That recipe is totally scalable, meaning you don't have to make any more than you will actually eat. At worst you're going to have some of the can of soup and part of a potato left over.
I wish the recipe described the making of the foil packets a little better. If you're at all unsure about how to fold those, come back and ask. We'll help you out.
BTW, that begs for a green salad to go with it. You could put a salad together a few hours before your girlfriend is expected and keep it in the fridge. Just don't add the dressing or any croutons until you're ready to serve.
As soon as I saw your answer I started making the packets. I agree whole heartedly with your edit as well. Thank you for your help.
You're very welcome. Good luck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.054355 | 2014-06-22T00:52:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45048",
"authors": [
"Anu",
"EatATaco",
"Forever",
"Gregory Hesser",
"His name is not Mark",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lauren",
"Segorian",
"Sidney",
"StonyKat ",
"Tom Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25539",
"user107177"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76324 | Can I make my spaghetti sauce with puree instead of sauce?
I have been making the same spaghetti sauce for about 50 years now. It calls for 2 small cans tomato sauce, 1 can tomato paste and 1 large can of whole peeled tomatoes. For the first time in all these years I purchased tomato puree instead of tomato sauce. How can I adjust my recipe to use the puree or should I just bite the bullet and purcahse the sauce. I'm not sure what I'd ever use the puree for.
I've been making sauce for even longer :-) and I think you'll be fine. If you, like me, always taste after all the ingredients are in, even before it has simmered, you'll know what you have to adjust. My proportions are generally one 28-ounce can pomodori pelati (Italian plum tomatoes), one 14.5-ounce can sauce or puree, and one 6-ounce can of tomato paste. If you find the puree thicker than the amount of canned sauce that you usually include, you can use slightly less or thin with a bit with water, but I don't think it will be necessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.054606 | 2016-12-10T19:12:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76324",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75784 | Crockpot is cracked
I was cooking a roast and one hour into cooking I tasted the broth and didn't like the flavor so I rinsed the roast really well and noticed that the crock had cracked - it hadn't been cracked when I started. So my question - is the roast still safe to eat if I finish it in the oven or should I throw out the roast because of the crack?
Do you mean that the entire thing broke in two or that there's a crack in the glaze? Maybe adding an image of the damage?
If you rinsed the roast in the crock, chances are good your crock pot cracked because of the temperature shock from the water you rinsed it in.
If the roast hasn't sat at room temperature for more than an hour or so you should be OK to put it in the oven and let it cook the rest of the way. If you have a meat thermometer, you should make sure the internal temperature of the meat reaches about 160°F before eating it. A lower temperature might still be safe however since 160° is the minimum recommended temperature for ground meat, which has more bacteria inside than solid meat. It doesn't hurt to be careful though.
I don't think the op rinsed the crock...
Oh, I see. It's a bit ambiguous, though how the crock cracked is beside the point I suppose.
When you tasted the broth was it warm / hot? If so you were into a normal crock cook so transfer to the oven should be no problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.054702 | 2016-11-23T18:08:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75784",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48147",
"triskit"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75935 | How long should I cook a half goose?
I have a 4.6 kg frozen goose from the supermarket. I have cut it in half along the spine and am planning to roast both halves separately. Presumably the bigger surface area means I don't need to cook as long as an intact bird. What would be a reasonable cooking time?
Can you clarify, 4.6 what?
I honestly think my answer on the whole goose question answers this because you should not be cooking by time, but by temperature. The method for the whole goose should still work perfectly fine for a half goose.
As @ElendilTheTall says, very correctly, cooking to time is a bad idea. However, it's good to have a working time figure for planning. In the case of goose the timeline is to cook 20-25 minutes per pound. 4.6 lb is a very small goose so I'm assuming it's 4.6kg, which is just over 10lb, so half that is 5 lb, which should take somewhere close to between 1 hour 40 minutes to 2 hours to cook. You would need to add at least 30 minutes for resting after cooking as well.
I would aim to have the goose in the oven about 2:45 before you want to serve, and then keep a close eye on the goose's temperature. Use an oven thermometer that you can leave in the bird in the oven, it's much easier than having to pull the goose out and check it every 5 minutes. A handheld one is also useful to back up your measurements in case your leave-in probe is out of position. Do not overcook goose, keep a good eye on that temperature because goose can go from underdone to overdone in a very short time.
However long it takes in your oven for your particular piece of meat to reach 165ºF/75ºC in the thickest part. Roasting by time is a terrible way to cook because there are far too many variables. Buy a digital probe thermometer (cheap as chips from Amazon) and do it right instead.
Those are the temperatures recommended for safe consumption, that's true, but the sources I've found suggest that breast is best rare around 145 F and the rest of the goose is better quite a bit higher, closer to 175 - 185 F.
If you want to open yourself up to a lawsuit @Catija, you go right ahead ;)
I already have the goose and not time to wait for a thermometer to arrive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.054840 | 2016-11-28T13:43:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75935",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Daron",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78131 | Induction cooking pan bottom is concave - will this affect performance?
I've just installed a convection cook top, I've researched it and am confident in my purchase. My question has to do with cookware. I've read reviews and bought a Cuisinart set that is "induction ready". I've cooked a few things with them and they work. I noticed that the bottom isn't truly flat though.
On a 12-inch skillet, the centre of the pan is 1/8 inch concave. I understand how an induction burner works (thanks to your site), and I want to take advantage of the efficiency of it. Is this a "flat bottom" or would a truly flat bottom pan be more efficient? Thanks for any insight to this, maybe I'm being picky, just want the best, thanks.
Welcome, Gerry! We are so glad that you're finding our site helpful and we're more than happy to address any questions you can't find answers for! Because we're a pretty strict question/answer site, we like to get right to the point with the content, so I've removed your very kind comments, though they will stay in the edit history forever. :) Welcome and enjoy!
Possible duplicate of Does an induction stove require flat bottomed vessels?
I don't think this should be an issue. The concave design is probably to reduce the amount of contact area between the cookware and the cook-top.
Having less contact area between the (hot) cookware and the cook-top keeps heat from flowing between the pan and the cook-top, resulting in:
- a cooler / safer cook top
- less wasted energy
For this very reason, those pans would not work well on a traditional electric stove where you want maximal heat flow (because the heat comes from the cook top, not the pan).
My understanding was that contact is required for induction, is that wrong?
The cook top produces an alternating magnetic field. While the pans need to be close to the source of this field (just under the glass top) they do not need to be touching the glass.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.055048 | 2017-02-04T23:29:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78131",
"authors": [
"Andrew C",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54146",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76920 | How to cook scallops that will prevent them from becoming too rubbery?
What will prevent pan seared scallops from becoming too rubbery? I find that cooking them in the cast iron skillet has not created a tender texture.
It sounds like maybe you cooked them too long. Searing the perfect scallop requires a few steps, and some thought, but it is not difficult. ...and, a cast iron pan is very effective, so don't be put off by previous comments. 1. Use only dry-pack scallops. 2. Before searing, make sure that they are a dry as possible, by placing them on paper towel and drying all sides (you want them to sear, not steam). 3. Find a pan that is large enough so that the scallops are not touching. Otherwise, use more than one pan. 4. Get said pan very hot (I use cast iron with great success, but try other pans to see what you like). 5. Add clarified butter (so that the milk solids don't burn). 6. Add scallops. 7. Don't move the scallops! 8. When you notice a brown crust forming after about a minute, flip the scallops. 9. Cook another minute on side 2. (Alternately, cook most of the way on side one, creating a deep brown crust...so perhaps a minute and a half to two minutes...then flip for 30 seconds) 10. Remove from pan to a paper towel. Bottom line: Dry, hot, fast.
Scallops, like any mollusk, are fast cooking. A cast-iron skillet, which holds heat, is the wrong piece of equipment.
Take them off the heat before you think they are done. By the time you get them out of the pan, onto a plate, and then served, they'll be fully cooked.
I'm not sure I agree about the pan. It's not like other pans don't keep on providing heat; no matter what kind of pan you use, you just need to cook them til they're done enough (still a bit underdone) then take them out.
First of all, the quality of the scallops is important. Cheap scallops are often treated with sodium tripolyphosphate. These scallops store excessive water and it's very, very difficult to get a good result with them, as you need way too much time and heat to cook them.
Second, your scallops should feel dry when touched. If they don't, dry them with a paper towel, salt them slightly, let them rest on a paper towel for ten minutes, then dry them again.
Third, for a decent result, you have no other choice than to carefully monitor and test the doneness. Fish and shellfish become dry and rubbery at 140°F / 60°C. So the inside of your scallops should be somewhere between 130°F / 55°C and 140°F / 60°C max. This is a fairly narrow margin and this is why undercooked or overcooked fish is very common, even in restaurants.
Experienced chefs can determine the doneness with their fingers; you can peer into a small incision whether the interior is still translucent. It's better to have one scallop used as test object than a whole pan of ruined scallops.
There is nothing wrong with cast iron skillets - you just cannot reduce the heat in time if the pan turns out to be too hot; but unless you end up with burned scallops, this is not your problem. Your problem might be that you are used to a timing that is correct for less heat and that you rely on a feeling, instead of actual monitoring and checking the doneness.
On Masterchef a few months back, Marcus Wareing shared a tip to avoid overcooking scallops.
Rather than tipping them all into the frying pan/ skillet at once, place them one at a time around the edge of the pan, starting at the 12 o'clock position and working clockwise.
Work in the same order when it is time to turn them over or remove them from the pan. By using this "first in first out" method you should get a reliable, even cooking time for each scallop. I've tried this several times now and it works well.
the advice that the cast-iron skillet is the wrong piece of equipment is right, however, it doesn't offer an alternative. Scallops should be seared in a heavy pan. The heavy base will diffuse the heat to all parts of the base, thus giving a uniform cooking area. Try a stainless steel or copper pan, and keep the heat down a little.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.055239 | 2016-12-30T01:59:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76920",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77068 | How long should I marinate Chicken?
I will be preparing a dinner which includes chicken which will be stuffed with different types of cheese, tomatoes and spinach but before that I have to marinate the chicken. In one of the recipes it was asked to marinate the chicken for 2 hours, but the chicken I bought is pretty thick. So how long should I marinate it?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. We aren't generally a "give me an answer quick" community, although we do pretty well. My guess is that the marination time isn't all that sensitive, unless your chicken is more than double the expected thickness.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39352/how-long-optimally-should-you-marinate-chicken-or-beef?rq=1. It looks like a duplicate, but I am not sure if it is an exact duplicate, since the answer to the more general question says "depends on the exact dish". I'll leave community votes to decide whether it is a dupe.
Marination is generally a surface treatment, so the thickness of your chicken is irrelevant. Really, the only thing that can penetrate is salt, primarily because of molecule size. You can read a good explanation here. I would say you're good with the 2 hours, but as you will see when you read the article, you might not even need that long...or you might want to rethink the marinade altogether.
Other than salt, hydronium ions will diffuse into the meat and interact with some of the proteins too. Ceviche is "cold cooked" by acid.
Marinades can be made with a many ingredients with dissimilar flavors and touches. Those unfamiliar with the procedure of marinating chicken should know that marinating can be a 2 minute, 2-hour, or 2-day procedure, depending on what you wish to achieve. So before getting stared you should plan which ingredients you will use and how you want to marinate the chicken, which flavor you like etc. Compared to other meats, a chicken needs a comparatively less time for marinating than lamb, beef, or pork. A usual roast takes 4-6 hours, while steaks and fillets need about a 4-hour marinating time for a very tender, flavorful cut.
I found a very informative article about "how long to marinate chicken" over online. I guess you will like that too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.055599 | 2017-01-03T13:34:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77068",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77077 | What is the American measurement equivalent of 3см.л in Russian
on a package of seasoning from Russia for Rice Pilaf, it suggests using 3см.л per 900 grams of rice. What would those measurements translate to in American measurements? I've seen translations for ct.L but not cm. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I'd guess it's 3 cubic centimeters which is a bit more than half a teaspoon (1 tsp = 5 C.C.s) I know nothing about Russian-specific markings, but I infer 3cm (whatever) probably means 3 cubic centimeters as a standard metric measurement unit.
a cubic centimeter would be abbreviated см³, or куб. см, not just см. Also, what would the л be then, after the unit? Russian is right-associative just like English, so the adjective comes before the noun.
3см.л OF WHAT per 900 grams. liquid, dry ?
I think this is a typo. The original is probably 3 ст. л, which means 3 tablespoons (an abbreviation for столовые ложки).
Note that, in Russian cursive handwriting, a т looks like a Latin small m, and can also, with the wrong amount of slant and writing speed, look like a Cyrillic small m. I don't know where cursive handwriting can have come into play in the design of a modern packaging, but it is one small pointer.
This interpretation also makes sense from a culinary point of view. I don't know the concentration of your seasoning, but 3 tablespoons sounds roughly feasible for 900 g of rice, which is quite a lot of rice, especially if measured dry. 3 cubic centimeters would not only be a weird unit to use in kitchen measurements (ml is the common one) but also it would only be a sufficient amount if you are using something like pure MSG crystals.
Russia does not use the Imperial system, so having a Russian recipe expressed in tablespoons is even less precise than an American recipe doing so. A Russian seeing this recipe would just use any real eating spoon in their cupboard to do the measuring. So, be prepared to treat this as a starting suggestion only, it might need some (or a lot of) tweaking to work well in your context.
That makes sense, Thank you for your helpful answer!.
The recent edit/rollback reveals a way this mistake could've been made - for some fonts/browsers, an italic т (т) renders like m (m). For example, that happens in Chrome on Linux: https://i.sstatic.net/5S1Sg.png. (It was fine in Chrome on Android, though, and apparently was on Catija's browser/OS.) So something could've gotten messed up by fonts, then transcribed from there. If my comment looks dumb (if it says "italic т (m)") then your browser/OS is tricking you too.
@Jefromi I see the m in Firefox on Linux, too. Going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_(Cyrillic) that may just be how it's supposed to look, though, as it specifies that the m-look is for italic as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.055795 | 2017-01-03T22:04:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77077",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"JAB",
"Voigt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77280 | Which potatoes are best for twice baked potatoes
Which potatoes in the US are best for twice baked potatoes?
My twice baked potatoes didn't turn out right. The skins broke, and punctured to easily. I was using Yukon golds of medium size lightly washed, and punctured with a fork.
How were you scooping out the insides? I use Yukon Gold, but split them open to let them cool for a minute or so, then use a spoon (with not to blunt of an edge), to gently scrape them out, while holding the potato half in my hand. If it feels like it's starting to break, I flip it over and work from the other side ... and I don't try to make them too thin ... maybe half an inch or so (~1.25 cm)
@JanDoggen That's not how we use tags here, really... I know that some sites do but we tend to reserve the "country-cuisine" tags for questions about that cuisine, not to indicate where the OP is. Please note the Tag Wiki Excerpt for American Cuisine specifically says not to use the tag for ingredient differentiation: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/american-cuisine
I split them, and let cool. Then used a spoon. I am sorry for not using the tags right. I appreciate you letting me know.
There are two main types of potatoes: starchy and waxy (although some are considered in-between). The difference, as you might imagine, has to do with the starch content of the potatoes.
When cooked, starchy potatoes (like Russet potatoes) tend to break apart. They are often used in baking and frying. They also are more absorbent of liquids and fats.
Waxy potatoes (like red potatoes) hold together more when they are cooked. They are more likely to be used in soups and stews. They also tend to have thinner skins than starchy potatoes.
Yukon gold potatoes are considered in-between starchy and waxy. Their medium levels of starch make them a good all-around potato.
But if the Yukon gold potatoes aren't working, I'd suggest using a starchier potato. One of the things that makes twice-baked potatoes so good is that the inside is mixed with other ingredients and then reheated. Starchy potatoes are more likely to absorb the butter/cheese/other ingredients.
Twice baked potatoes also benefit from a thicker skin, to hold things together. Something like a red potato doesn't have that because, as you noted, the skin is incredibly thin.
I have made twice baked potatoes many times. I have found Russet potatoes hold up the best. I bake them in the oven till they are slightly under done. 350F for about 50 minutes with out poking the skin. I know they can possibly explode but, I've only happen to me once and that was microwaving so I think you should be safe with oven cooking. Remove the potatoes form the oven and let cool. Cut in half and remove most of the flesh of the potato, leaving about 1/8' to 1/4' of flesh on the inside of the skin. Mix the potato flesh with what ever you want to add to it. I'm a big fan of blue cheese caramelized onions and sauteed mushrooms, or broccoli and cheddar. For a crispier skin place the unfilled skins on a baking sheet and bake for another 15 minutes at 350F, allow to cool and then stuff. Stuffed potatoes back in the oven at 350F for 30-40 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.056059 | 2017-01-09T01:00:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77280",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"william keeling"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75691 | Sous Vide Large Turkey Breasts
All the turkey sous-vide recipes on the web presume 2 small/medium turkey breasts placed together for a 2.5 to 4 hour cooking time. But I have 2 very large breasts rolled together in a cylinder 6" in diameter. How should I adjust the cook time?
Do they have to remain rolled together in a cylinder?
First, I'll echo Catija's comment and say that there's no major advantage to cooking these breasts together. I know Kenji does it here, but his purported claim toward greater evenness in cooking isn't really something you need to worry about with sous vide. In fact, by creating a thicker piece of meat for your water bath, you're guaranteed to make the cooking less even, since it will take much longer for the interior of the meat to reach water bath temperatures.
So, my first recommendation would be to just cook the two breasts separately, making sure water circulates around both. In that case, you probably don't need to modify your cooking times at all.
But let's assume that you really want to cook your 6-inch cylinder for some reason (perhaps to create a large "meat tube" for slicing if you tie it up well). Okay. Assuming your sous vide setup circulates water well, one advantage of sous vide (in addition to the precise temperature control) is the significantly greater heat transfer from water to food compared to, say, air in an oven.
In practice, that means that even rather large hunks of meat come to temperature a lot quicker than they would in an oven. The main reason to increase time with a larger turkey breast would just be to allow for the center of a large cylinder of meat to rise to the water temperature.
The following recommendation assumes you're going to be using a water bath quite a bit above the "danger zone" border, say at least 140F/60C.**
I played around with a bit of heat transfer modeling here just for kicks, and I'm pretty sure your 6" diameter cylinder wouldn't take that much longer to come to temperature. Allowing the center an extra 30-60 minutes might be reasonable, but that's still well within the parameters of your 2.5-4 hour recommended window. I'd tend toward the longer side of that time span (closer to 4 hours), just to guarantee sufficient time with the center above the "danger zone" limit to kill off bacteria. You obviously could go over 4 hours without compromising safety, but eventually the outer layers of the breast will start getting softer and more mushy (which might be a less desirable texture).
Lastly, for large hunks of meat cooked sous vide for relatively short times, I'd strongly recommend putting in a probe thermometer so you know what the core temperature is and when it gets above the "danger zone." (See this Modernist Cuisine video.) If you don't have a thermometer to leave in, I'd check the temperature with an instant-read thermometer after a couple hours to be sure you're at least getting above 130F/55C.
** Note: Precise sous vide temperatures are CRITICAL here for safety. The closer the center of the cylinder gets to the water bath temperature, the slower its temperature rise becomes. Getting the center up that last 5-10 degrees or so takes a lot longer. I've seen some sous vide turkey breast recommendations with water bath temperatures as low as 132F/56C. In that case, the center of a large cylinder may be skirting the "danger zone" boundary for much of the cook time and might not be safe even after 4 hours in a bath. In that case, you might need to add more cooking time to guarantee safety. Alternatively, you could raise the water bath temperature by a few degrees for the first hour or two, and then lower it to finish cooking. Either way, if you're not sure your breast will spend a significant amount of time near 140F/60C or above, I'd definitely check the core temp mid-cooking and consult sous vide guides to make sure you have enough time above 130F to pasteurize.
Whatever you do, I'd recommend choosing a temperature designed to get the center of your cylinder above 130F/55C within two hours. Sous vide turkey usually isn't heated to the much higher temperatures that people have traditionally used for oven-roasted turkey. Those higher temperatures not only guarantee killing off bacteria (and a drier turkey) but also serve as an additional safety measure because higher temperatures will break down some toxins that might be created by some bacteria during a longer period in the "danger zone." Spending more than a couple hours in the "danger zone" can create toxins in poultry that could still be present if the final temperature is still only 140F/60C or whatever. This is something not mentioned in most sous vide guides, which tend to be focused only on Salmonella death curves, but it's a legitimate concern if you're cooking a very large hunk of meat in a water bath at low sous vide temps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.056330 | 2016-11-21T05:30:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75691",
"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
} |
75458 | What foods to cook in a new cast iron skillet that will help improve the seasoning?
I've never cooked with cast iron before and just picked up a couple Lodge cast iron skillets (6" and 12"). They come preseasoned, but I imagine some additional seasoning is desired.
I tried bacon, which took a lot longer than I expected, and left a lot of brown bits. I also tried grilled cheese, which wound up being a terrible mess that I threw away, since so much of the bread stuck. I had buttered the bread, and put some oil in the pan, but still went back to my non stick pan.
I know there are some foods that really require a good season on the skillet to cook properly (like eggs). Are there any foods that help improve the seasoning?
Asking for dish recommendations is off topic but asking if there are specific foods that improve seasoning is a concrete, solvable problem that is more likely to be acceptable here.
It's probably more important that you properly clean, dry & re-oil your pan after each use, vs. what you're actually cooking in it. (if it's going to be long-term storage, I've heard of people heating the pan after oiling it, so you don't risk it going rancid.) There are a ton of questions on here about seasoning of pans .... If you're new to using cast iron, you might want to see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/seasoning-pans
Thanks for the edit @Catija. That's what I was trying for, just didn't ask it the right way
The best foods to make is protein swimming in lots of fat. For example, shallow-fried frikadellen. Take care to not simply use the pan as a griddle and spread a tiny layer of fat, fry in at least half a centimeter of fat, if not more. Meat and (not scrambled) eggs are good, but don't use fish.
Take care to have pure meat and not any short carbs (sugar) or long dry carbs kicking around. For example, bacon strips from bacon brined in a sweetened solution are bad. This stuff will caramelize on the pan and make it stickier than before. Bread or very doughy griddle-cake varieties (english muffins, etc.) are also bad, as they will char onto your pan.
Some doughy things are good for the seasoning, if they are not stick-prone. I find that Ruhlmann style crepes work great (2 parts egg, 2 parts milk, 1 part flour, by weight). Make sure to use enough oil before the first crepe. For later crepes, watch the pan permanently, and turn the crepe in the short time after it has self-released but before it has burnt onto the pan. You might need to play with the heat, remember that cast iron reacts slowly. Mekiza/lagos will also work well, if the pan is deep enough that you can comfortably fill it with enough oil (it doesn't have to be enough for deep frying, but you still need over a centimeter, and then enough space above it to avoid large splashes).
I wouldn't do vegetables at first, because they tend to sweat a lot of water, and may char onto the surface if you leave them alone for a short time.
Also, don't use butter at the beginning. Lard works really great for the beginning in a seasoned pan, coconut oil is also good. If you are using less saturated oils, don't do lineseed, that's very sticky when it polymerizes.
Once the seasoning "holds" better, you can expand to other things, of course. Still, your grilled cheese sandwiches are not something I would do in a seasoned pan at all, even with established seasoning.
To improve seasoning, any frying or searing will help. Frying chicken, searing steak, etc. Anything that has to do with heating oil. The things that can damage the seasoning are acidic mixes, and in long duration. An example: Simmering tomato sauce.
I would also like to add that actually seasoning the pan, and proper handling and storage will give you much better results in improving your seasoning. One good starting point is Kenji Lopez alt's advice on cast iron pans. There are other very good sources on this too.
I love to deep fry stuff, even like french fries. Most of the french/european carbon steel/cast iron pans like you to fry potato skins inside the pan before using. Well after you have thoroughly cleaned the cooking surface. Peel the skins off the potatoes and then fry them in the pan. then when the skins are nice and burnt and crispy throw them away. Clean the pan and then deep fry the left over potatoes as either chips or as fries.
When I get a new cast iron (pre seasoned or not) I always add a thin layer of oil to the entire skillet, usually vegetable oil, and bake it in the oven at 325° for about an hour. I also do this every now and then between uses to make sure it remains well seasoned and non stick. Also, to help prevent sticking, preheat your pan well before cooking. Hope this helps. Good luck!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.057051 | 2016-11-13T20:37:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75458",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mmathis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76208 | Can I finish cooking a pork roast next day after partially cooking it
I will be having 17 people for dinner, and I will serve a pork roast. Can I partially cook it, wait until it cools, wrap it and put it the refrigerator and finish cooking it the next day?
There is a standard food safety question but I don't have the rep to close anyway. Have cumulative time between 40 and 140 and there is something about getting it up to 165.
I think this question's answer addresses your question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16421/how-many-times-is-it-safe-to-reheat-chicken/16425#16425 The danger is exactly the increased time that the food sits between 40 and 140 degrees. WIth the extra cooling/reheating time, it sounds risky. Why can't you cook it the day of?
What is your motivation for only partially cooking it? If you have the time, why not fully cook it and then reheat it the next day?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43428/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/104119/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54506/67 . And I could've sworn I had an answer on here recommending that you slice up a roast and place it into warm gravy to reheat it, but I can't find it.
This is an instance where sous vide really works well.
You can pre-cook your pork roast to 140 for 4 to 6 hours in the sous vide the day before. Chill in an ice bath (still in the bag that you cook it in) to bring it down to safe temperature quickly, and then into the fridge.
the next day you can sear it in a number of different ways (broiler, on the grill, in cast iron, either whole or cut into chops and sear individually), and that should be plenty of heat to re-heat it nicely.
140 C is quite high a temperture for waterbath to reach. (I assume you mean 140 F, but that does not show in your answer.)
Yes and no. You can't safely half cook it. You'd be pulling it out of the cooking process at exactly the point where you'd made it more attractive to bacteria.
You can, however, fully cook it and reheat it. This is a tiny bit tricky with a pork loin, since the optimal temperature for a pork loin is actually somewhat below the temperature that's really safe. You'd want to cook it to at least 140F, a bit more than is really optimal. The best way to do that would be sous vide, though you can also do it in a slow oven. Other roasts, like a shoulder roast, with more fat, would be more amenable to cooking to a higher, safer temperature.
Cool it down quickly, and refrigerate. Then the next day you can reheat it. There are a number of ways to do this; see Reheating pork loin roast for a party for one example. A different tack would be to preheat the oven to 400F, put your roast in it, and turn off the oven. That would quickly put a nice crust on the outside, while gradually bringing the (already fully cooked) roast up to temperature.
A meat thermometer is highly recommended for this. There are too many variables to do it by time, and you want to avoid both under- and over-cooking.
I do not recommend partial cooking of any meat. You risk bacteria growth. Completely cook your meat, and then warm it up again wrapped in foil to maintain juiciness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.057430 | 2016-12-07T16:28:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76208",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"paparazzo",
"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
} |
76878 | How to evenly portion chapati dough?
A major part of our diet is wheat chapatis/Indian bread.
After we knead the dough for our chapatis, what apparatus or mechanism can we use to ensure that the pieces we use for making individual chapattis are of exactly same size/shape/weight?
Weight is much more accurate than estimating volume or size. You could add or remove small pieces to adjust.
Even portions means same weight: a scale is the tool of choice here.
Bakers that want equal sized products just weigh the individual portions, then proceed from there.
The shaping / rolling of chapatis was already discussed in this Seasoned Advice post. Or you could use a press1 to shape them.
If you are thinking of a larger scale of production, there are hydraulic chapati presses1 or even (semi-)automatic machines1 on the market, that shape chapatis of the same thickness out of equal sized (= weighed!) portions.
1 No affiliation or recommendation, just random samples from the Internet!
When I'm trying to portion things evenly, I start dividing the sough into parts ... then smaller parts, etc.
So, for the dough I would :
make it into a ball
try to cut it into two or four equal parts, depending on the size.
roll each of those parts into a log / cylinder.
cut each of those in half, thirds, or smaller portions if you're comfortable. (narrower logs are easier to portion into more parts; it's best to cut in half, then half (or thirds) again, etc.)
repeat steps 3 & 4 until you have the desired number of portions.
I typically don't do this all at once. I might start with a quarter of the dough and portion, shape, and cook it, then move onto the next quarter, so it doesn't dry out too much.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.057679 | 2016-12-28T07:35:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76878",
"authors": [
"James McLeod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76910 | What are the options when looking for gluten free chapati?
Hi does anyone know where I can buy gluten free chapatis or what is the best method of making them and storing them without any preservatives?
I use ivory teff tortillas from La Tortilla Factory as a gluten-free substitute for chapati. They are sometimes available at my local grocery store, but I've also bought them online. They are similar in texture and mouthfeel to wheat chapatis. When heated on a griddle, they brown and puff up just like the real stuff, and they then taste delicious with a little ghee. I don't miss wheat chapatis at all since I discovered these. They are much closer to wheat chapatis than gluten-free sandwich bread is to the genuine article. They freeze well and also keep in the refrigerator for several weeks.
If you're interested in making a gluten free Indian roti, I would suggest not trying to make something that approximates chapati. Instead, make some traditional preparation that uses other flours. For example, there's bhakri, which can be made with any of various flours like jowar (sorghum), bajri (finger millet), or even rice flour.
Or there's one of my all time personal favorite foods, a multigrain flatbread called thalipeeth. Most recipes online include wheat as one of the ingredients, but you can just leave it out and increase the amount of the other flours proportionately. There's also a sabudana (sago) version which is a lot simpler as it just uses whatever flour you have lying around in addition to sago.
Finally, the site Spice Up The Curry has a section on Indian Breads that includes recipes for rotis made with exotic flours such as rajgira (amaranth), singhara (water chestnut), and kuttu (buckwheat). I've never made any of those, so YMMV. In general I've had good success with recipes from that site, though.
Thank you so much. I live in the UK so I shall check if the tortillas which you mention are available. But I shall certainly try out your suggestion of the alternative flours for making chappati.
Teff is used in Ethiopian cooking so if you can find an Ethiopian grocery you might be able to buy some teff flour and experiment. I've never tried making these tortillas myself though. Good luck finding them in the UK!
Spice up the Curry is a great site that I have now just visited, thank you verbose for pointing us towards it.
It is possible to buy gluten free flour from most supermarkets these days, or health food stores. The problem you will face will be a rather crumbly mix. Perhaps try using rice flour and include a very (and yes I mean very) small amount of guar gum. You can buy guar gum in most health food stores, or even some pharmacies. Good luck. Edit: As long as you are not adding other products like olives etc... then store you chapatis (un-cooked) as you would items such as pastry - in the fridge in a zip-lock bag.
If you wish to have gluten free chapatis, then they cannot be made from wheat flour.
Chapatis/rotis made from flours such as rice flour, jowar (sorghum) flour, bajra (millet) flour, are all gluten free.
These rotis are very good for health in terms of ease of digestion and preferred when concentrating on weight loss.
Attaching pictures from Google for your reference
Jowar
Bajra
Rice Roti
Bajra Roti
Jowar Roti
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.057843 | 2016-12-29T19:12:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76910",
"authors": [
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53209",
"user53209",
"verbose"
],
"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
} |
74660 | Steelhead Salmon's Mercury content
How does Steelhead salmon compare with Atlantic farm raised salmon when it comes to mercury content?
Sorry, I know that this is old, but I wanted to follow up with some related data.
Caveat: I'm not a scientist, but my dad was a biochemist who worked in the aquatic biology field for more than 50 years, and I picked up a few things.
In 2001, a multi-species study was done on several species of fish including two types of local salmonid trout - cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and kokanee (O. nerka) in a large freshwater lake in Washington State (Lake Whatcom). Both of these fish are morphologically similar to Steelhead Trout (O. mykiss) in its non-anadromous form (also known as rainbow trout).
What all this means is, these are good marker-species to use because they are a lot like steelhead.
In a nutshell - even though these fish were raised in the wild and ate whatever they could catch (insects, small crustaceans and the like), their mercury levels were lower than most commercially-caught fish.
The cutthroat trout showed a mean of 0.08mg/kg mercury and the kokanee showed a mean of 0.12mg/kg mercury. This is pretty low. The paper that I used for my research is here: Mercury in Sportfishes of Lake
Whatcom, Washington, Including a
Review of Potential Impacts to
Aquatic Resources and People
Farmed steelhead/rainbow trout from the Columbia River and Washington and British Columbia coastal waters are very environmentally sound, having earned a "Best Choice" rating from Seafood Watch (https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/groups/trout?method=farmed&q=Trout,%20Farmed&t=farmed%20steelhead%20trout&type=rainbow&location=domestic&o=1327878260).
There are two sub-cultivars of this species - those that are raised in pens which are truly anadromous (i.e., they smolt, and spend half their lives in freshwater and the other half in saltwater), and those that are raised in raceways on one of the coastal river systems such as the Columbia, which are not anadromous and would technically be called rainbow rather than steelhead.
It is arguable that their flavor is not as strong in a salmon-y, fishy way as wild-caught fish. Those that are raised in pens are closer to wild-caught, because pens do not restrict the passing of small crustaceans and other species and thus allow the pen-raised fish to have a diet much closer to their natural one.
While I do prefer wild-caught fish for their flavor, I have often purchased and prepared locally-farmed steelhead.
I fundamentally have a problem with invasive-species that are farmed here in the Pacific Northwest (such as, for example, Atlantic Salmon). I do not have any issues with farmed steelehad, because it is a local species anyway and it seems to be a sustainable food source.
Lastly, here's a picture of some smoked steelhead I made in December of last year:
Actual numbers (ppm, etc.) depend on exactly where the fish were raised and how old they were when caught. Steelhead feed on zooplankten as fry, but they eat other fish, squid and mollusks as adults. Therefore, they take in whatever mercury has been consumed by their prey; the older they are when caught, it higher the probable mercury content in their bodies.
Farm-raised salmon are fed manufactured feeds which have strict limits on mercury content, and they have very little access or opportunity to capture wild prey, so their mercury content is usually significantly less.
Given the high levels of antibiotics, fungicides and other chemicals involved in fish-farming, however, there are substantially more of those chemicals in the fish. I'll take the mercury.
I'll take farmed according to organic standards, but good answer overall.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.058115 | 2016-10-11T03:15:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74660",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"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
} |
74024 | Battle Of the Gums? (effects on Ice Cream)
I am on a quest to perfect an ice cream recipe and am curious as to the texture and flavor differences between guar gum, agar agar, and xanthan gum.
I know all of these are used in various recipes, but is there a difference in overall taste and texture between these?
We can objectively give you differences between them but which we prefer is subjective, which we try to avoid here.
This has long been an interest of mine as well...
I have never used Agar Agar in ice-creams, however I've tasted some having agar agar in it... I've found the texture suffered a lot, and the flavor release wasn't really good in a cold application.
Xanthan gum is my go-to thickener in many applications; you can achieve almost custardy consistencies with it... And you can to some extend use it as a stabilizer in ice-cream as well, as it prevents big ice crystals from forming.
Guar Gum is poor man's Locust Bean Gum (in a way). It's has similar (or even better) crystal preventing capabilities like Xanthan gum; and it's also a good thickener. You can also combine it with Xanthan gum to achieve stronger thickening properties.
Now, my all-time favorite, even though you haven't mentioned it...
Locust Bean Gum is the best ice-cream stabilizer on its own... It's really expensive compared to other thickeners, and yet it has the best preventing capability of all. It's also an excellent thickener. In combination with many other thickeners (like... Xanthan gum, Kappa Carrageenan) it can form gels.
I basically find, LBG and Invert Sugar delivering the best ice-cream stabilizing effect and a great aid to the texture of it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.058391 | 2016-09-17T22:51:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74024",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"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
} |
75182 | Cooking frozen food that was cooked
I want to cook a big batch of food and store it in the freezer. Mainly these meals consist of vegetables and chicken. When I want to eat the meal I will take it out of the freezer and defrost it. The problem is sometimes I forget to do this. Can I cook these frozen meals in the oven and how do I do this?
These are not store bought Frozen TV Dinners but diners I make myself.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Your question isn't clear; you're storing cooked food, and plan to slowly defrost a portion at need, but if you forget you want a way to heat a portion quickly?
Sorry, Ill try and be a bit clearer. I cook a piece of chicken and some vegetables and put it in a lunchbox and freeze it.What I would like is to be able to take this frozen meal out of the freezer, stick it in the oven and eat it without needing to defrost it for a few hours. Most articles I read about preparing food like this tell you to defrost it overnight, I want to avoid that part if possible.
Instead of buying TV dinners, you're making them, a great approach. When you pop them right from freezer to oven, you'll have to add cooking time, anywhere from 10-20 minutes. Just as with a TV dinner, you might want to protect areas with foil, knowing that some elements cook faster than others (veg) and some may dry out from too much exposure (e.g., carbs). Have fun experimenting.
Google homemade frozen dinners or freezzer meals
Defrosting in a microwave is an easy way to do this - if you have one. Stirring or turning helps everything to happen more evenly, but don't do it too often in the oven as you'll let the heat out. As someone who makes and date eats homemade ready meals a lot: wetter foods are easier (stews, curries, chili etc.)
To add to comment by @ChrisH if you have meat in it, cooking meats in bite size pieces (instead of one big chunk) and having some wet sauce/gravy with it help a lot with quick defrosting.
It depends on how fast you want to eat. If it's a matter of quite a bit of time, then a safe route would be to have it in an oven-safe vessel, covered with foil, and leave it on the oven at a relatively low temperature (275 to 300) for a long time (depends on serving size and type of frozen meal, 30 minutes to an hour, usually). That's the method with least effort and intervention.
This will allow the food to get hot, all the way through, but not to scorch or overcook.
If you forgot to defrost and want to eat fairly quickly, the microwave, or defrosting in the microwave, and then moving to the oven is a quicker route to eating.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.058549 | 2016-11-01T22:35:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75182",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Giorgio",
"Ron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51639",
"paparazzo",
"user1016950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46144 | Where to get precise recipies?
I'm currently trying to learn how to cook and my main problem are the lack of precise recipes. Most of them tell you what to do in very abstract steps but lack a way of verifying if what you do is right.
For example: When cooking polenta you have to mix the corn semolina into water. If you do it all at once the powder chunks but not one recipe I found tells you that.
Do you have a recommendation where too look for very verbose recipes?
For the beginner wanting explicit instructions, I don't think you can do better than a 14 day free trial of the America's Test Kitchen website. They break everything down to where it's almost foolproof (which can actually be a bit of a negative to highly experienced cooks); it's great if you're stepping outside of your comfort zone.
You can learn a LOT from that site in 14 days. Cancel within that window and you won't be charged. If you want one more month or simply to pay one month at a time instead of a 1 year lump payment, talk to customer service, they will accommodate.
Immediately upon free registration you will get access to some 14 or 15 seasons worth of videos, with accompanying recipes, taste tests and science lectures from the shows "America's Test Kitchen" and "Cook's Country", along with articles from the magazine, "Cook's Illustrated".
They're very highly regarded, and geared especially to help non-expert cooks not mess up.
This may sound a bit like a paid ad, but I assure you that it is not. My subscription paid up through the calendar year. I may or may not resubscribe, but I've totally gotten my money's worth so far.
EDIT I looked up your example. There are 2 recipes for basic stove-top polenta on the site. One says this:
... pour the cornmeal into the water in a very slow stream from a measuring cup, all the while whisking in a circular motion to prevent lumps.
and includes a 3 minute video straight from the television show demonstrating this recipe for polenta from beginning to end. In the video they cover the hows and whys of pouring the cornmeal in slowly while rapidly whisking in a circular motion and you see her actually doing that.
In the other recipe they use a wooden spoon.
very slowly pour the polenta into the boiling liquid while stirring constantly in a circular motion with a wooden spoon (see the illustration below).
They're like that with everything. If there is a way to screw up the recipe, they'll keep you from doing it. They'll also tell you what brands won their taste tests and their recommendations. I don't think for a second that they're willing to sell their influence. For polenta, they recommend:
Jolenealaska Great answer! ATK is a great learning resource. Just wanted to say that an alternative is the Complete ATK TV SHOW COOKBOOK. It includes all episodes from 2001 - 2014 and is currently available through the ATK bookstore for $19.99.
I always sneered at the idea of this, but I saw a couple of episodes one day, and I was surprised. They really are quite good, and they go into really interesting detail on the "whys" of things I'd never questioned before.
internet recipes are often lacking, because generally all you get is the recipe itself. i've found that the best recipes come from cookbooks, which often have explanations and tips for many of their recipes.
of course, buying cookbooks requires an investment that beginning cooks might not be willing to make. but if you identify a well-respected cookbook for each cuisine you are interested in, you can often find what you need by googling the cookbook or author name, plus the name of the recipe you want to try.
for example, the benchmark italian cookbook is Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking by Marcella Hazan. if you google "hazan polenta," you'll find her recipe. it clearly addresses the issue you mention!
Good cookbooks are a great resource and you don't have to pay a subscription to get them. Scour used bookstores for them, I've had some incredible bargains from them.
It is very rare that recipes are written with such detail. It is supposed that a cook's technique is sufficient for the recipe he or she attempts, and doesn't need to learn it from a recipe book. After all, a route planning application doesn't tell you to look left and right between crossing a street either.
It is preferrable to learn cooking techniques from books which teach techniques, and not search for such knowledge in recipe books, or even worse, internet recipes. But there is seldom a strict separation, because technique books almost always include recipes in order to teach the tecniques, and some recipe books for beginners are very verbose.
You should just page through a cookbook before buying it and see if it's right for you. It is very hard to judge a book just from online reviews, I have been disappointed more than once with books turning out to not be in a style suited for my intentions.
Here are a few points for quickly recognizing suitable books:
its title or preface notes that it is oriented towards beginners. The more advanced a book, the less likely it is to explain steps.
it has a whole section on techniques.
it is a general, compendium-style book with sections on different types of food, as opposed to these cute recipe collections found in supermarkets (e.g. a book on waffles only).
each recipe takes up lots of space
Note that there are exceptions to each of these points. For example, Death by chocolate is a book with very advanced techniques from a hard discipline, but it explains the technique anew in each recipe. There are also books which attempt to teach techniques, but are poorly written. Then there are very specialized books which teach an exact technique for a certain class of foods, Herme's macaron book is such an example. And lastly, there are long recipe descriptions which are sadly nothing but fluff. So take care to really look at the book, and don't despair if it doesn't work as well as expected.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.058787 | 2014-08-06T12:10:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46144",
"authors": [
"Assad Barhoum",
"Auditionify",
"Cindy",
"Dinda Azahra",
"Elisha Bellotti",
"GdD",
"KiranM",
"Majestic Handyman Ogden",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"karmaandcoffee",
"xingxing"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84078 | How to prepare cinnamon tea without sludge?
When I prepare my cinnamon tea in hot water it produced a sludge at the bottom but I don't drink the sludge. Is there a way to make this tea so that there is no cinnamon remaining in the cup?
Welcome, Judith! We can address your question about preventing the sludge but we do not address health benefits here, so telling you whether not drinking the cinnamon left in your cup after drinking the liquid has weight loss benefits or not isn't within our scope.. Could you please add some detail to your question to explain how you prepare your cinnamon tea?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.059367 | 2017-09-01T21:15:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84078",
"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
} |
78804 | Soaked urad ki dal too long - Is it safe?
I soaked black dal for too long (24 hours) and its colour changed from black to green and it smells very bad, can I still use it or not ?
If it was soaked in the refrigerator for that amount of time, it should not have a very bad smell, and should be safe. However, if it has been sitting at room temperature for that long, and has developed an unpleasant smell, it likely has fermented, and should not be risked. While there is no guarantee that it is yet harmful, it is not recommended from a food safety standpoint.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.059445 | 2017-03-01T16:49:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78804",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81668 | Broken pasta sauce
The other night I was experimenting with pasta. I had a few cloves of choped garlic and one choped dry tomato slowly frying in about 3 tablespoons of olive oil (aglio olio style). Next I put some tomato paste into the pan to fry off a bit at first and then I added about one ladle of pasta water, hoping that it would make this tomatoey, garlicky sauce. However, the sauce broke. The oil and tomato paste kept separating. The look of the sauce was compromised even though it tasted good. Any idea how to prevent this? How to make the sauce not to break?
I presume it was one ladle of pasta water. From the sound of it, there was too much water. Did you put the whole ladle in in one go instead of adding it a bit at a time? As a fix, you might want to use a thickener like corn starch, disperse the starch using either pasta water or some of the sauce, then add it a bit at a time into the split sauce. Xanthan gum would work better if you have it. Tomato paste is full of salt as is your pasta water I suspect. This will only encourage emulsion breaking.
I'd try cooking the pasta in with it, from a similar question (that was about fresh tomatoes, so there are answers there that won't work with dried tomatoes) : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/30414/67
I'd argue against @user110084's advice - you should never put cornstarch or xantham gum into fresh sauce. There's simply no need for it, not to mention it can compromise flavour.
Adding too much water is not really the problem here - adding too much oil is. Tomato sauce is not an emulsion sauce (e.g. mayonnaise, vinaigrette, etc.) so oil should be used in smaller quantities. Aglio Olio is an oil based sauce but I see why you may want to combine the 2 to create something new so here are some ideas:
Fry the garlic and tomato in less oil at first.
Fix/create an emulsion of oil, water, tomato paste before adding to the pan.
If you need to thicken, add more tomato paste. You should be able to easily find tomato paste with no salt/seasoning added. (I typically use half to 1 tube (or 1-2 small tins if in the US).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.059517 | 2017-05-14T15:01:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81668",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83488 | How can I mimic glutinous rice inexpensively in Latin America?
I know that certain rice should be bought for cooking meals like sushi (glutinous rice which is almost 5 dollars per kilogram). In Latin America the most common rice is about 1 dollar per kilogram.
Is there a possible way to get the same sticky effect with regular rice instead of glutinous "expensive" rice?
Sushi rice is not the same as "sweet" or "glutinous" rice. Sushi rice is simply a short grain rice. It is seasoned, after cooking, with a sugar/salt/rice wine mixture that helps flavor it and hold it together when used for making sushi. If that is your goal, you could probably come close by experimenting with other short grained rices.
"Sweet", "glutinous", or "sticky rice" is soaked then steamed. It sticks together naturally, and is often eaten with the hands in small clumps.
So, I guess the more important question is what is your goal?
Hello, thanks for telling me some hint.. my goal is to make sushi so i will try as you said with short grain rices :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.059689 | 2017-08-04T02:08:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83488",
"authors": [
"LuxBellum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60697"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86361 | Food was left in Instant Pot for a month and it grew mold. Is it safe to use it after cleaning?
I have an Instant Pot. I made some rice about a month ago and haven’t used it since. Unfortunately someone in the house put the cover on the pot with the rice inside and left it there. I just opened it and it was covered in a very think layer of green mold.
Can I use the Instant Pot again if I clean it with hot water and soap?
Welcome! Actually, the second question is off topic here, so I'm going to edit it out. We can't advise users about health because we have no way of knowing whether or not you're safe. If you're really concerned, you should contact your healthcare provider.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/39928/67
No pics or info about how & where - Depending on exposed vs inner parts where mold grew - if not cleaned out then at risk for contamination. So until you can be sure of where it grew outside of "visible" surfaces you need to check.
While the other answers here all suggest overnight soaking with chemicals and/or high-heat treatment I would say that cleaning it thoroughly is enough. Get all that you can out of it, then clean it with soapy water. If you still have stuck on rice soak it with cold water for awhile as that will help the starches release. Once you have all the rice out then clean it with hot soapy water and you're good to go. A spray of anti-bacterial cleaner inside before wiping it out and rinsing wouldn't be a bad step, but remember you're going to be pressure cooking stuff in there, that's going to kill anything that could make you sick. Remember to try and avoid scrubbing as you could damage your non-stick surface, multiple soaking is your friend here. If your pot is stainless then scrub away.
What I would be more concerned with is what may have gotten not in the pot itself but the cooker unit, for instance spores and bacteria. I would use an old toothbrush and anti-bacterial spray to get into all the nooks and crannies like hinges and seals, and don't forget to clean the lid!
Honestly? I would scrub the pot, and then toss it in the dishwasher and be done with it. So long as the smooth surface (notice I did not say scratched up) is clean meaning no visible soil, then running it through the dishwasher with its hot water, detergent and possibly drying cycle will be more than enough. It's not like you have some biochemical experiment you need to avoid doping. Just practice good hygeine with your cooking equipment and you'll be fine.
If the instant pot is non-stick then scrubbing and putting it into the dishwasher isn't good advice....
@GdD My instant pot inner pot is stainless... that's what comes with it by default.
Not everybody's necessarily will be @Catija . Instant pot is as much of a class of device than a brand name.
Yes it is the stainless steal version. I did pretty much what this answer said: scrubbed the heck out of the pot and lid and threw it all in the dishwasher on the highest heat with sani rinse. We cooked dinner in it last night and so far we are fine...
Water and soap (only) is probably a bit less that I'd suggest for this problem.
Get the bulk moldy glop out and wash with water and soap, then rinse.
Fill with Water and chlorine bleach, and a nice long soak (overnight, or even a few days) would be one further component of a through cleaning.
Rinsing very well (do not combine disparate cleaning chemicals) and then using baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) with adequate boiling water to fill the pot would be another step - let that soak overnight as well.
Rinse throughly, wash again with water and soap, rinse throughly again, and give it the "sniff test" - if it doesn't smell moldy, and it looks clean, you are good to go.
Wow, you like your stainless, stainless! I would note that a full 5 quart/liter Instant Pot would only need about a cup and a half or 350 ml of bleach in a full liner of water. Figure 1 cup per 4 quarts/4 liters/1 gallon which is more than generous. A stronger solution than that is no more efficacious. The baking soda/boiling water step seems like overkill to me, but I'm pretty relaxed about that kind of thing. OP, also remove the rubber gasket from the lid and soak that in the liner and treat the lid with bleach water too. The gasket and inner pot can go in the dishwasher when you're done.
Beer brewer, among other things - I've met mold where I don't want to find it, and I want it gone without a trace when I'm done.
Any culturing scenario requires a higher level of hygeine than simple cooking. I don't think this applies as much to whether an instant pot will be safe to use after growing mold in it for regular cooking isn't the at the same level. All culturing techniques require an unusually high level of hygeine starting with a sterile or near sterile baseline.
Could you include the right ratio of water and bleach? I think a teaspoon per quart, at least that's what I've seen for countertops e.g. here from the FDA. That's what I immediately thought of for sanitization too.
This is a pressure cooker after all - surely the first time you run it, you'll get sufficient heat to sterilize? Leaving it to soak overnight, even with baking soda, seems more like a way to grow more stuff than to kill it.
@Jefromi The cup per gallon/4Liters is strong, probably overkill and promoted by Clorox. Vinegar may actually be better for killing/cleaning mold, but since we're talking about a stainless steel surface that will reach over 250F when used, meh. Bleach is cheap :) The OP should check the label though. With the proliferation of super-efficient washing machines, not all bleach is the old standard sodium hypochlorite at typical strength. Beware of differing brands/formulations, they may have different concentrations. Standard bleach (old-style Clorox) is 5.25% sodium hypochlorite.
I have encountered similar problems a few times. My approach is:
Scrape or otherwise remove as much as possible.
Spray with bleach-based kitchen cleaner which I have anyway (meant for worktops and sinks, it warns about rinsing well before contact with food) and wait at least a few minutes .
Remove the rest by scraping/rinsing (repeating these steps if necessary).
Rinse well
Put through the dishwasher (including non-stick: I've only found the dishwasher to make existing damage worse, not to cause new damage). This is one time I use a 65 or 70°C wash rather than my usual 50°C eco wash.
Instead of a dishwasher you could hand-wash as the main purpose of this step is to remove all traces of bleach.
Avoid bleach and other high pH stuff if the pot is made of aluminum. You'll get corrosion.
@WayfaringStranger, good point, but do they exist? I've had a couple of ceramic ones and one non stick steel.
Nonstick aluminum would not surprise me. Never seen one, but there's a lot of cheap stuff made in this world.
Instapot replacement pot liners are 20 bucks, and you should replace the rubber inner seal while cleaning the lid which is another few dollars.
Throw it in the garbage and buy a new cooking pot.
Don't get so anxious about mold, mold is not necessarily as frightening as people seem to think. To generalize, the truly dangerous mold comes from rotten meat, the mold from rice, bread and vegetables is gross, but much less dangerous.
You do not need to take any extraordinary precautions. Wipe and wash out your pot, use dish soap, and smell it. If it no longer smells like mold, your job is done. If it still smells like mold, use a cleanser, and wash the cleanser off thoroughly. You can also simply boil water in the pot, and that kills all mold as well. Dishwasher shouldn't be necessary at all.
Your nose is the tool you are endowed with to detect dangerous mold, if it doesn't smell awful to you, then it's fine.
Andrew, you missed the "I made some rice about a month ago" part of the question ... so there's a high risk of this being dangerous mold.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.059817 | 2017-12-13T23:20:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86361",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Escoce",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user2884789"
],
"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
} |
68122 | What are the equivalent amounts of these sweeteners?
I've been looking into using one of/some combination of the following:
Powdered sucralose,
Sucralose liquid,
Powdered stevia extract,
Liquid stevia extract,
Erythritol
I'd like to know which one/combination is the most economical for sweetening recipes, and I know prices can vary, so what are the equivalent amounts of each?
So is your question actually what the equivalent amounts are? Prices can vary a lot, so I'm not sure how useful it is for people to just tell you which seems to be cheapest from where they're sitting.
Do you think the cheapest will give you an acceptable flavor profile? The cheapest sweetener combo could possibly not taste well.
Let's not have a health discussion here, y'all. Head to [chat] if you have anything to say about it; any health-related comments here will be deleted.
I had always wanted an "artificial" sweetener that worked for me, but I have always been extremely sensitive to them. Not that they give me headaches or anything like that, I just find them vile. The aftertaste especially was just nasty to me.
Then one day I was offered a water with a couple of drops of flavoring. It was like drinking lemonade. Sugar sweetened lemonade! Well, it obviously wasn't sugar sweetened, because that would have taken more than a couple of drops. I'm a naturally curious food nerd, so I read the label of the drops. The drops were the brand name Dasani, and the sweeteners were sucralose and acesulfame potassium (Ace K). I had never heard of Ace K, and I already knew I didn't like sucralose (alone). This was not boding well, but I was intrigued. So, I used every bit of Google-fu that I had (and a lot that I didn't) to learn this:
Pure sucralose is about 600 times as sweet as sugar (by weight). Ace K is about 200 times as sweet as sugar (also by weight). Combine them, and they become "sweeter than the sum of their parts". This is not within the scope of your question, but I will tell you this too (also borne out by my lengthy research): Ace K works beautifully to wipeout the aftertaste that other artificial sweeteners tend to have, particularly sucralose and aspartame (nutrasweet). So, by combining Ace K and another sweetener (I recommend sucralose), you get two benefits. Number one, it takes less of each to sweeten whatever it is you're trying to sweeten, and number two, you knockout the aftertaste of the sweeteners.
So, to get started, you need a gram scale (they're not just for chemists and drug dealers):
This one is mine, $10
You also need pure sucralose, 50 grams lasted me over two years, $19, 100 grams is only $3 more
and
Ace K, the smallest amount on Amazon might last a lifetime, 1 pound, $13
Use the gram scale and mix the sweeteners 50/50 by weight. Pull your shirt over your mouth and nose or wear a mask to mix them, otherwise you will taste sweet for days. A scant 1/8 teaspoon of the combo will sweeten an entire double-strength, 12 cup pot of coffee (which I mix with milk to create iced coffee). You can also bake with it. It's amazing stuff. To me (artificial sweetener phobic), it's indistinguishable from sugar.
EDIT: Yoplait has recently started advertising that their light yogurt is aspartame free. What are they using instead? Ace K and sucralose.
Interesting, I'll certainly look into it. Do you happen to know how much of this sweetener mix is the "equivalent" to a cup(or any other amount) of plain sugar? You give the example of a 12 cup pot of coffee but that's kinda vague.
Have you experimented with Stevia and Ace K combinations?
Only minimally. I find Stevia difficult to choke down, so I only tested it a few times with Ace K because I didn't want to do it again. I didn't see the same effect with Ace K and Stevia that was apparent with Ace K and sucralose or NutraSweet.
@user2649681 Well, considering the fact that a scant 1/8 teaspoon sweetens what is basically 24 cups of coffee, I think you could start with that as equivalent to 3/4 cups of sugar.
@user2649681 I do recommend using a scale (a gram scale like the one in the answer) instead of volumetric measurement at least until you know what you're doing. A very tiny difference (volumetrically) can make a huge difference as far as taste.
@user2649681 In that case (using the scale), 400 parts to 1 is going to be pretty close after you mix the two sweeteners equally by weight. Volumetrically that won't seem right, but sugar is a lot heavier by volume than sucralose or Ace K.
Removing health stuff here too. Feel free to head to [chat] if you want to talk about it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.060429 | 2016-04-08T16:54:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68122",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41190",
"user2649681"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
89321 | What is the English name for chleb bez maki?
Can't remember how I stumbled onto this but everything I google for chleb bez maki is in Polish. Can't find a Wikipedia article. Is this a traditional polish bread?
What is the English name for it? I see there are chleb bez maki mixes but can't seem to find them online for purchase and even if I did I wouldn't know how to use it. Id like to know the English name. Looks like it's made almost totally out of seeds.
Do you have an image of it? Just googling "Polish seed bread" gave me this: https://www.mynewroots.org/site/2013/02/the-life-changing-loaf-of-bread/
'Chleb bez maki' translates to 'bread without flour'.
@Cindy when I translated maki I got poppyseeds?
@Catija I translated the whole phase.
@catija The actual word is "mąka", flour, and because most Slavic languages have cases, it gets changed to "mąki" in the phrase. This is different from the word "mak" (notice that it uses an actual "a", which is a different letter from "ą") which means "poppy" and has the plural "maki".
Chleb bez mąki means literally in polish "bread without flour", you may find hundreds of recipes in the web. They are breads based in whole grains, oatmeal, etc...
Chleb bez mąki
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.060770 | 2018-04-21T16:57:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89321",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
89400 | How can I keep a slow roasted pork belly roll warm while roasting potatoes?
I'm hosting a dinner at mine in two weekends time (a first for me!) and have already noticed where my main may not end up as tasty as I'd hope.
I'm looking to roast a roll of pork belly at around 170C/Gas 3, which isn't an appropriate temperature to achieve a nice, crispy roast potato. That means I'm going to have to cook them separately. Does anyone have a good tip on how to keep pork belly warm with a crunchy crackling whilst I roast the potatoes? I was thinking of putting back in the oven but worried it may dry out before that happens. Would it be a better idea to reheat the potatoes instead?
I've been over-reading and don't know what to believe anymore!
It's normal to rest meat before carving, sometimes for quite a long time.
The oven will already be hot after cooking the meat, even if not quite as hot as you'd use for potatoes. so I suggest you parboil the potatoes (often recommended anyway) and put the roasting tin and fat into the oven to preheat when the pork is nearly done. Then take the pork out of the oven, put the potatoes in and turn it up. The pork should rest under cover on the container in which it was cooked. A loose (tented) foil lid with a tea towel or two over the top is good insulation. If you want to speed things up further, you could turn up the oven a few minutes before taking the pork out. The effect on the pork will be minor (in most ovens) but the potatoes will cook quicker and may be more crispy. I doubt you'll get very crunchy crackling at that temperature anyway.
170C isn't far off a good temperature for crispy roast potatoes. If they're a floury variety, and you parboil them, then when as dry as possible, and still warm, gently shake them to rough them up a bit in a bowl with the hot fat you're going to roast them with, they should take about 40 minutes at about 180 (turning once or twice,) to be golden and crunchy on the outside, and fluffy in the middle. Don't overcrowd them: steam is the enemy while roasting.
Crackling is helped by scoring. blanching the skin with boiling water, and drying as much as possible before salting generously.
(The pork crackling may require a higher temperature to finish, too. I would have no qualms about stripping it and putting it back in the oven while the meat rests, if necessary, if it doesn't wreck your carve.)
That aside, you should be able to overlap your cooking times. Put the potatoes in about 25 minutes before the end of the meat's cooking time, and then when you take the meat out, give the potatoes a turn, and turn the oven up to about 185C.
This is assuming about 15 minutes resting time for the meat. More won't hurt it. The potatoes, on the other hand, don't want to hang around for too long.
I rest meat in a just-warm place; its surprising how little heat it takes to keep meat cooking and going too far. With pork belly that's not too much of a concern. If it's gone far enough, the crackling should improve while resting. Wrap the meat loosely in foil, letting it vent well at the top. You don't want the meat to steam. A bit of extra length in the foil end to end will let you make a spout from it, to pour excess juices from, maybe more than once. I usually make, or at least start, a gravy in the tin the meat roasted in - in my case, that's where the juices go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.060891 | 2018-04-24T22:30:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89400",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96917 | What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
I'm allergic to coconut - this is a new allergy, so I really miss Thai and Indian curry! I also have issues with dairy.
Would it work to use roasted cauliflower puree as a curry base instead of coconut? Maybe with a little raw cashews pureed to add creaminess.
Are there other options to satiate my dreams of curry without coconut or dairy milk?
Hi. I edited out your recipe request because that is off-topic. Welcome to the site. Take the [tour] and check out the [help]. I hope you get a good answer to your question.
Be on guard (but not paranoid) of nut milks if you're newly allergic to coconut.
You could try a touch of vanilla extract mixed with onions cooked long enough to be sweet (or a variety known to be sweeter). I'm leaving this as a comment because I haven't tried it but in my head it tastes similar.
Possible duplicate of What would be a good substitute for coconut milk in curry sauces?
In India, Maharashtra state many families use peanuts for curry, you can find online videos for same on youtube.
The roasted cauliflower puree is a good idea!
Thai curry recipes often use a lot, and the flavour is distinctive. You'll need to experiment. Your idea of cashews is a good place to start. What I've often used in Indian curries is ground almonds (almond flour would be better but I can't get it easily). They have some thickening power and quite a suitable taste. You could also try cooking with nut milk - I've only done this a couple of times because it's not something I normally have, but recently used some almond milk in a sauce with lentils etc. It ended up with a fairly creamy texture. This was a brand marketed for cooking and a little thicker than I've come across before
As an aside, I hope you've had medical confirmation of the allergy - it's not exactly unknown for these things to be deceptive.
Yes, allergies can be deceptive. That said, I seem to have developed an intolerance towards coconut myself recently. Several dishes containing coconut based products (from different sources, so no real chance of contamination) and with no other ingredients in common gave me the same intestinal upset, intestinal upset I don't have otherwise. Not bad enough to seek medical attention, but a few days of stomach ache and excessive acid reflux after eating something isn't worth the trouble.
Substitutes have been mentioned already, but how about going the other way?
There are more curries without coconut than there are with it. Many many curries use an onion base for thickness; coconut is a Southern Indian/Sri Lankan twist on what is a continent-full of cuisine.
Look down the even just the standard sauces of any take-away menu...
Bhuna
Madras
Vindaloo
Jalfrezi
Rogon Josh
Dopiaza
Pathia
Dansak
The list goes on... & not a coconut in sight.
Or for more variety, how about Ethiopian Wat, or a Moroccan Tagine?
For Thai, have a look at a Jungle Curry - again, no coconut.
I don't know much about Thai curries but there are plenty of Indian curries that are broadly similar to coconut-based ones but with sauces made with cashews and other nuts. Typically, you'd want to soak the nuts for a few hours and then blitz them into a puree, or just use a nut butter because life's too short.
Indeed, there are many Indian curries that don't use coconut or any other nut. Coconut is basically a south-Indian thing and being allergic to coconut doesn't stop you eating Indian food, just like being intolerant of pasta wouldn't stop you eating European food. I suggest you get yourself a good Indian recipe book. I'm a huge fan of Camellia Panjabi's 50 Great Curries of India, because it has a pretty long introductory section that explains what all the different ingredients are for, which is really helpful when, for example, you can't eat coconut but you want to make something similar.
We cooked a lot of vegan at home for some time and often used soy cream as substitution for sauces that demanded cream. It has a unique taste, but I do not find it unpleasant. It has about the same thickness as coconut and I think the taste is also quite fitting for curries. As others mentioned, some almonds or cashews could enhance the experience. In Germany, I usually find this soy cream in the vegan/non-dairy aisle next to the other soy products.
Note that depending what country you are in, many soy milks/creams are significantly sweetened, so you may want to look carefully for unsweetened ones. (Although of course in some curries a sweetened one would be fine anyway.)
Coconut isn't vegan?
@RonJohn Coconut is vegan. Ian says he substituted soy cream for dairy cream but suggests that it would also be a decent substitute for coconut milk.
As we do not know exactly what you allergic to (you said coconut but it could be coconut milk, an additive in the milk or coconut in general), I will make some extra suggestions:
1) You might be able to try adding natural coconut flavouring to the already mentioned nut milks (cashew or almond). This might tip the scales in making an Indian style almond based curry taste like a Thai coconut milk based curry.
2) If you are allergic to everything coconut then you could try Imitation Coconut Extract which shouldn't contain any coconut. Again, this might tip the balance on the other nut-based milks.
3) You could try adding gorse flower extract. I have never tried it but I do know from roaming the coastlines and moorland of Devon, that gorse smells a lot like coconut. It is edible, is common year-round and according to eatweed.com, has a subtle coconutty taste. I see no reason this could not be added to a curry to infuse further coconut tones.
Finally, if you are allergic to all coconut, here is a quick and helpful guide to replacing all coconut ingredients.
I can only speak to south indian curries. I don't have a substitute for coconut but you can certainly make a great curry without dairy or coconut added to the mix. You can make a delicious sauce from just water and emulsified fats combining with your choice of spice meats and veg.
I have only experience with meat based dishes so this may not work out for any vegetarian attempts. Meat releases fat and water when covered and heated. After I sauté the veg (typically ginger, garlic, onion), I add the meat which has been marinating in spices and oil (or just dry rubbed with spices). I cover the pot and keep the heat on high for a few minutes until I see water appear at the bottom of the dish. Then I reduce the heat to med low and leave it covered for 30 mins or so. Over time more water and fat is released and the meat should be practically swimming. From there I simmer uncovered for as long as I need to thicken the mixture. This also concentrates the flavors.
Chicken stock also can be added. Even plain water. You'll also get water from watery veg like tomatoes. I'm pretty sure you could add kool aid if you wanted to. Most of the flavor comes from the spices and chillis.
North indian and Pakistani food uses a combination of onions, tomatoes and ginger garlic paste to form the curry base. First you fry some finely chopped onions until they turn golden brown, then add about a tablespoon of ginger garlic paste, finely chopped tomatoes and the spice powders (chilli powder, turmeric etc.). You let that cook stirring from time to time until the tomatoes turn into a slurry. That's your curry base! There are many videos on youtube that show you how to make this in case you want to see it in more detail. It's also possible to substitute yoghurt (curd) for tomatoes.
From my reading and research, I've found that there are organic non-dairy yogurt alternatives available. There is also silken tofu that may be used to replace the coconut. They do state that it is dependent upon how creamy you want your dish to be., as the yogurt and tofu would make the dish much creamier. As I believe was mentioned above, there are other non-dairy milks that can be used and can be thickened slightly be adding a bit of arrowroot (or similar) flour. (Also found in my research). I've studied this for years for personal use because many people, like me, are allergic to coconut AND to tree nuts.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.061178 | 2019-03-15T02:07:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96917",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"JJJ",
"PLL",
"RonJohn",
"Summer",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73553",
"jmathew",
"jwenting",
"prasad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91959 | Is it possible to use jam instead of sugar to make a dough?
I followed this recipe to make a dough for cookies to dip in milk:
300g flour
1 egg
70g sugar
60g milk
50g butter
10g yeast
However I replaced sugar with jam (~100g) and butter with yogurt (~200g).
The result are cookies kind of fluffy, that took slightly more that twice the time in the oven (25m instead of 10m at 180C) and are chewy! And they do not dip really well in milk... I am not sure if I added too much yogurt or it is the pectin in the jam working against dipping. The fluffines might have been an overdosage of yeast.
I think that replacing sugar and butter with jam and yogurt just added a lot more moisture to the batter; it is normal that it will take more time to cook.
Your substitutions have likely more then doubled the amount of moisture in the recipe. Maybe experiment with reducing the amount of milk, yogurt and perhaps even how much the egg you use for the recipe.
Curious whether you have ever made these cookies without the substitutions. And if so, did those dip well in milk? Other commentators' remarks about more moisture taking longer to cook are very believable, but I question whether cookies leavened with yeast would ever be good for dipping. Your observations, "kind of fluffy ... and are chewy! And they do not dip really well in milk..." sound like consequences of leavening with yeast instead of the more usual (for cookies) baking powder or baking soda.
Using jam would be not dissimilar to using thick syrup (which some recipes use).....
Almost any substitution is about making a trade-off and understanding the ratios involved. In this case replacing 70g sugar and 50g of butter with 100g of jam and 200g of yogurt you both increase the moisture and remove the sugar crystals from the texture. During the creaming process (where sugars and fats are blended) the sugar crystals play a vital role in creating air pockets that will determine the final texture.
Why Do I Cream Butter, and What Happens If I Don't?
In pastry-speak, this process is described as "mechanical leavening":
physically cramming air into a dough so that it'll puff up in the oven
like a hot-air balloon. Google around, and that's what you'll be told,
time and again. Creaming adds air. Air is fluffy. Fluffy is good. Good
is great. Yay, cookies!
The yeast almost certainly made up for a lack of 'mechanical leaving' that didn't occur because of the jam, which lacked the crystalline structure granulated sugar would have provided.
If one substitutes enough elements of a cookie recipe at what point does it stop being a cookie? Your own question answers itself that it is possible to replace A & B with C & D. It even looks like you created something quite good (I'm tempted to try it out), but is it still "a cookie" or something else all together? But then there is the whole "dipping it in milk" goal. This creation is more likely to breakdown in milk (as you have observed) and short of putting it between two graham crackers, probably always will be.
The "cookies" don't break down in milk, but they don't absorb any. My idea of cookies for milk is that they should get soaked, right? I increased the dosage of yogurt and jam so that the equival of fat and sugar would stay somewhat the same, I think the yogurt was closer to 125g however, not 200g. Anyway while doing the dough I kept adding flour until it would stop being sticky, so maybe moisture is not a problem? Another error I made was using beer yeast instead of yeast for cakes, not sure if that also contributed to it.
I might have also overstated the chewy part; They definitely require more teeth and if you want to take a bite you have to pull because of their elasticity, but they are not gums!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.061890 | 2018-08-29T15:32:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91959",
"authors": [
"Glenn Stevens",
"Lorel C.",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68961",
"rackandboneman",
"untore"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66540 | How can I make oatmeal cookies softer/more chewy?
I am using the vanishing oatmeal cookie recipe on the container of Quaker oatmeal. I do not like the way the cookies turn out. I am looking for a more chewy or softer cookie. It calls for two eggs - would reducing the eggs to one make them more chewy? I'm not experienced in making adjustments to recipes so I'm not sure if the eggs are the problem. I thought they might be the problem because I really loved the results I got from a sugar cookie recipe that only had one egg.
The full ingredients list is:
1/2 Cup(s) (1 stick) plus 6 tablespoons butter, softened
3/4 Cup(s) firmly packed brown sugar
1/2 Cup(s) granulated sugar
2 Eggs
1 Teaspoon(s) vanilla
1-1/2 Cup(s) all-purpose flour
1 Teaspoon(s) Baking Soda
1 Teaspoon(s) ground cinnamon
1/2 Teaspoon(s) salt (optional)
3 Cup(s) Quaker® Oats (quick or old fashioned, uncooked)
1 Cup(s) raisins
Your question header and the body of the question contradict one another. If you want softer chewier cookie, an extra egg would help get there.
I'd say the contradiction that has been pointed out means that I am not experienced in the matter, hence the question, . I suppose I could have asked what is the purpose of eggs in baking cookies. I did bake the best sugar cookies ever right after the oatmeal with only 1 egg and they had the texture I was going for. Was more than the egg I am sure that created such a perfect cookie! Ill try the oatmeal cookies with an extra egg and see what happens, thanks!
Well sugar cookies and oatmeal cookies are very different beasts :-) see if you can clarify your question and include the new information you have with the sugar cookies. Right now the question is impossible to answer.
The oatmeal cookie recipe would help too. Also, old-fashioned or quick-cook oats?
melting the better might help (so it’s available to make gluten). Alton Brown covered some of the things that change the texture of cookies in the episode “Three Chips for Sister Martha”, and you can find the transcript at https://web.archive.org/web/20050312134420/http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season3/EA1C05.htm
More crunchy without eggs to moisten.
Another factor is how long the mixture sits to absorb the liquid egg before baking. Longer = chewier
I use molasses and white sugar in place of the brown sugar and that also makes them more tender less crunchy.
Also adding 1/2c more oats to recipe will be chewier if they aren't over Baked/dry.
When using a modified version of the Dropped Oatmeal Chippies recipe from the Doubleday Cookbook, I find that they get softer and more chewy if I make the cookies big enough that they connect as the leavening functions while cooking. So, basically, make the cookies as large as possible. You may have to alter your baking time to compensate, too (larger cookies generally need to be cooked a little longer, but not much longer). The longer you cook them, the less soft they will be.
My recipe was modified in that I tripled the recipe, used baking soda instead of baking powder (less, by comparison), used whole wheat instead of white flour, and melted the butter with the sugar/vanilla (and added the eggs to that) instead of following the directions they use (this is nice, since it lets you begin with hard or frozen butter, and it makes the dough less dry, and the cookies end up a bit shinier).
Don't worry about the cookies connecting. They pull apart.
FYI: The modified cookie recipe still makes cookies that taste pretty much the same as the original (a little different, but not much). Yes, I used 100% whole wheat flour (not partial). The reason for the modifications was increased nutrition, decreased aluminum, and decreased hassle (with the butter).
First, let me apologize for you feeling inexperienced is bad or even embarrassing. I normally only share my recipes with my Daughter—In—Laws & Granddaughters & I’d never answer their questions with the negative connotation we see above. So I think it’s a great time to share some of my experiences with you. I’m no expert but I’ve found learning bakers can look at recipes with fresh eyes and their search for options often leads to better results YAY FOR US ;-} I also started with the same recipe & changed a bit to fit my tastes.
OPTIONS:
1 teaspoon of cornstarch per cup of flour.
Replace each cup of brown sugar (200 g) with 2/3 cup (160 mL) of liquid sweetener of your choice. I LOVE USING HONEY!!
For every 2/3 cup (160 mL) of liquid sweetener used, reduce other liquid sources by approximately 1/4 cup (60 mL).
Adding fruits also adds a wonderful burst of flavor and moisture to every bite! My faves are adding:
1 cup broken pecans, 1/2 cup dried cranberries,
1/2 cup dried cherries and
1 cup raisins.
= Be sure to soak your dried fruits in hot water for a minimum of 20 minutes. I like soaking them for an hour.
Let us know how your treats turn out! I’d like to know any new options you find! Enjoy and God Bless the hands that cook joy into life!!
Cornstarch is a good trick to help make cookies more soft and chewy. It helps to bind and hold the moisture after baking.
Increased sugar will also make them more tender.
One egg vs. two eggs won't really make a world of difference, but maybe replace the missing egg with a tablespoon or two of something liquid (milk, maple syrup, water, etc)
My recipe is almost the same but it has ½ C butter and ½ of shortening. IDK just saying. Mine calls for 2½ oats and says for cheery add ½ C yours already says 3 C oats do is try the extra butter/shortening
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.062227 | 2016-02-15T21:05:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66540",
"authors": [
"Community",
"ErL",
"Escoce",
"J S",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Linda Caperna",
"cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43424",
"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
} |
69198 | Is it ok to store peanut oil in the container it came in after being used?
I am starting to get into frying again. I was wondering if it is ok to store the oil after it has cooled down in its original container or if there is a better option for storage.
It would be helpful to know more about the actual container. Is it metal, plastic or glass? A link to the actual product (in the same container) would be great.
Why would it not be safe? What are you concerned about?
If the container is labelled with one of the standard logos that mark an unconditionally food safe container, there should be no concern: Used peanut oil is still food, so a container specified to deal with food should deal with it too.
If not, assume that the container has only been designed to be safe with the exact, unaltered ingredient shipped in it (oil and plastic chemistry can get very complicated, some edible oils WILL dissolve some plastics).
The best option will always be an airtight, food safe, glass, stored in the dark container well filled.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.062670 | 2016-05-23T21:00:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69198",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97196 | Replacing quick-cooking oatmeal in a two-ingredient cookie recipe with cooked steel-cut oats - why doesn't it work?
Right now, I have cooked steel-cut oatmeal, water, banana, cinnamon powder, sugar, and dark chocolate in my cookie batter in the following amounts:
2 cups of cooked oatmeal
1 banana
half teaspoon of cinnamon
~30 grams of chocolate
~2.5 teaspoons of cane sugar
enough water so that the batter is somewhat sticky
This is an adaptation of the "healthy two-ingredient breakfast cookies" recipe on CafeDelites.com.
When I baked it (at 375 degrees Fahrenheit for 10 minutes), however, the cookies came out as leathery, chocolate- flavored skins encasing a blend of bananas and chocolate- flavored oatmeal. It seemed as if the insides hadn't been cooked at all. I tried baking it for an additional five minutes, but doing so didn't change anything.
Why did this happen? And what should I do to fix this problem? Thanks in advance!
There is no leavening in your cookie dough?
I tried it once, but the cookies merely expanded and then flattened themselves. It may be that I added too much baking soda, but regardless, the leathery exterior and oatmeal interior still remained.
Most cookie recipes have baking soda and eggs.
Is this based off an existing recipe? Which ingredients do you definitely want to keep (e.g. oatmeal), and are there ingredients do you need to avoid (e.g. why aren't there eggs)? Also, including quantities will be helpful in troubleshooting -- right now, I have no idea how watery, sweet, chocolatey, etc. your batter is. Could you please [edit] to give us some more details?
I started off with the recipe from https://cafedelites.com/healthy-2-ingredient-breakfast-cookies/ , but it all went downhill when I chose to use cooked steel- cut oatmeal in place of the quick- cook oatmeal. The mix was very watery (since I boiled the oatmeal right before adding it to the batter), especially by the original recipe’s standards.
If you want to use steel-cut oats/oatmeal, you'll probably want to start with a recipe that calls for it. You can substitute old fashioned oats instead of quick-cook oatmeal in most (possibly all) cookie recipes but you can't substitute cooked oatmeal without making major adjustments.
In this case, old fashioned oats are specifically called out in the recipe as a substitute with the note that quick cook oats will give the best result:
Quick oats give the best results, however you CAN use rolled oats. Use Gluten Free Oats for gluten free cookies.
Oats are a dry ingredient. There's no water in them so they absorb moisture from the other ingredients to cook. In this case, the banana. When you cook the oats first, you're introducing a lot of extra water and it's likely to make them take much longer to cook and change the texture.
In a recipe for cookies made from instant steel cut oats, I found this substitution note:
If you’re using traditional steel cut oats (not quick cooking), you’ll want to cook them first, just like when you’re making oatmeal. To use cooked oats, simply substitute one cup of cooked oatmeal for the instant raw oats listed in the recipe, and add an extra half cup of flour (or more as needed to achieve a non-runny dough consistency).
You might be able to salvage this recipe by doing something similar but if you really want to use steel cut oats, you'll get better results by finding a recipe that actually calls for them. If you want to use this specific recipe, use old fashioned or quick-cooking oats.
Unlike Catija, I think your mistake is adding water - twice! The recipe you linked to does not ask for water in the mix, and it only asks for the oats.
Your first mistake is making "cooked oatmeal", by which I assume you mean porridge. So instead of finely-ground dry oats, you've got a soggy mush to start with. And then you add more water.
You even call the result "batter". You don't want anything that's even close to batter though - you want something that holds its shape like grainy modelling putty. As the recipe says, these cookies don't expand at all, because there's no baking soda or other raising agents - how they go on the baking sheet is the exact shape they come out. If you're pouring on a thin sheet of batter, it'll come out as a thin sheet of something very un-cookie-like.
I've done recipes like this with rolled oats. They'll come out more flaky than the original recipe, but they're perfectly tasty. But you do need to follow the recipe - when it says "two ingredients", it really means "two ingredients", and water is not one of them!
If you want a texture more like the original recipe, my top tip is to sieve the rolled oats through a colander with holes which are just big enough to hold back whole oat flakes. You'll end up with a colander full of whole flakes, and a bowl full of oat flour and partial flakes. The contents of the bowl will make this recipe perfectly. And the sieved oat flakes are perfect for making granola bars (what we call "flapjacks" in Britain), because you get a better texture on them by getting rid of the flour.
I think that doubling the water is definitely a problem! One note, rolled oats are not the same as steel cut oats. I'm not sure if that's a typo for you or a misunderstanding. While rolled oats cook in minutes, steel cut oats take much longer (30-40 minutes). Trying to make cookies with the steel cut oats would leave you with broken teeth, I fear.
A clarification: the water I mentioned in the ingredients came with the cooked oatmeal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.062792 | 2019-04-01T01:05:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97196",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Strawberries",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73810",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66023 | Why does my calzone crust lose its crunchiness within minutes of being removed from the oven?
I have tried making meat stuffed Calzones from pizza dough. It came out really crispy, but after 10 minutes or so the bread was kind of rubbery. It was weird because I made pizza the other day using the same recipe and it came out fantastic.
The dough was made from a simple mixture of 500g white flour, 400ml water, 21 gram fresh yeast cube and a tbsp of salt. I kneaded it until it was elastic and let it rise for two hours before taking it out of a warm oven and into the cold room, where it sat for three hours or so before getting into the oven.
Do you think pizza dough itself isn't fit for calzones, or was it the recipe?
Are you putting sauce (or other liquidy stuff) inside your calzone? Are you leaving vent holes in the top?
Do you bake on a rack or on a baking sheet and do you cool on a rack? I read that sprinkling cornmeal on the baking sheet helps keep the calzone just enough off of the surface of the sheet to allow the heat to flow around the calzone. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110904055739AAfQ4Sh
No vent holes. There was some cooked ground beef with a drizzle of olive oil inside, though the bread was rubbery even in one flatbread I made from the same dough with no toppings. @catija
I sprinkled semolina below and above the calzone.
Did your method differ between this batch and the batch you used for pizza? For example, did you also leave it sitting out for three hours?
What temp did you bake at?
It didn't differ. I baked the bread at 220c (420f).
The lack of vent holes would have been a problem.
Vent holes allow steam to escape, reducing the amount of internal moisture. This moisture will both prevent the crust from cooking fully through, and will cause the crust to soften as after it comes out of the oven.
That's not to say that there wasn't also some other problem, just this is one thing that you should correct.
Does that rule hold for other types of flatbread (but not folded) as well? If I want a cripsy flat bread should I pierce it with a toothpick so the moisture will escape?
Also, how big should the vent holes be and at what shape?
@BarAkiva : No, it's an issue with things that have been sealed in a crust (so it applies to pies also). For flatbreads in general, you can dock them to prevent them from puffing up. I've seen some recipes call for making pitas that puff up, but you then pierce it to let the internal steam escape. As for shape and size of the cut, it can just be a straight cut, but size depends on number of vents and size of the item being vented. For smaller hand pies, I'll go with 2 or 3 cuts about 1/2" (1.25cm). For meal-sized ones, I might do 3 to 5, each about 3/4" (~2cm).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.063474 | 2016-01-29T17:00:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66023",
"authors": [
"Adam Johnston",
"Andre Hamilton",
"Bar Akiva",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Gülistan Örüm",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Ruth Little",
"Sharon Payne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paul carnall"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66195 | What is a non-pork substitute for Italian sausage?
We do not have genuine pork Italian sausages here in Israel. When a recipe like Ragu or Bolognese calls for Italian sausage, what meat could be used as a substitute for ground pork, and what seasonings should I add to match the seasonings that are commonly found in Italian sausage?
I have a friend who doesn't eat pork and I sometimes like to cook for her. I was about to ask a similar question. +1
A little fennel seed in the dish can trick people into thinking they're eating Italian sausage.
Well, with Ragù alla Bolognese you can simply substitute your entire recipe with one that uses exclusively minced beef. It's quite common in Italy, perhaps in some regions more than the version with minced pork mixed in (in which pork should never ever exceed 50% but is usually much less anyway).
You may want to try alheira.
Most stores here in the US at least in NY sell Itlian style sausage using chicken instead of pork.
By "Italian Sausage" I think you mean the seasoned pork sausage available in many supermarkets throughout the US.
I've found that a 30-70 mix of beef and turkey/chicken works reasonably well as a substitute when pork is not available. Beef is too strong a flavor and turkey too weak in its own. Flavor-wise most italian sausage has red wine, fennel, and oregano.
Are the seasonings different between the two specific sausage types OP mentioned? (I've never seen varieties beyond "Italian" in my grocery or butcher shop, so I'm quite curious!)
@Erica : ragu and bolognese are sauces that include meat. I don't believe they're actually varieties of sausages. (Ragu means 'rags', and is a slow-cooked sauce where the meat completely falls apart. Bolognese is another slow cooked meat sauce from the Bologna area.)
Lamb might be a viable alternative as well. It's commonly used (and commonly available) in Mediterranean cuisines.
@Erica: certainly there are differently-seasoned Italian sausage types. Based on this Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_sausage, it might be that in any case the recipe isn't calling for a sausage typical of those from Italy, rather it's calling for a thing that speakers of US-English call "Italian sausage". So season with fennel plus whatever. I've certainly had sausage from Italy that's absolutely loaded with fennel seeds, but I haven't (knowingly) had the US product so I don't know how it compares.
Lamb can be used to make a mean meat sauce, however is too strongly flavored to be used as a substitute for port sausage @GalacticCowboy
There are plenty of "mild Italian" and "hot Italian" chicken and/or turkey sausages in the grocery stores in the mid-Atlantic US. Whether they are available everywhere or not, they are out there. I've successfully ordered great sausages shipped from California before, so anyone who doesn't want to make their own and can't find them locally might have some success online.
@ToddWilcox: There's something amusing about shipping "Italian sausage" from California to Israel. It could wave hello to Italy from the boat on the way past. But it still might be easier than finding a non-pork sausage that's actually from Italy :-)
A lot of the chicken/turkey sausage available in California grocery stores comes in a pork casing, so if that matters, caveat emptor.
To be fully accurate, @Joe, "Bolognese" is a kind of ragù.
@Joe, Ragu doesn't mean rags. It's borrowed from the french ragout, meaning stew.
@Joe, you're definitely right about the meaning of bolognese, though.
@Joe, actually "bolognese" is the English name for "Ragù alla Bolognese", which roughly translates as "Bolognese-style Ragù", i.e. "Bolognese-style sauce with minced stewed meat". Compare "Pesto alla Genovese" (the green one) and "Pesto alla Siciliana", respectively Genovese- and Sicilian-style pesto. A reasonably popular but somewhat expensive variant of Ragù (which has nothing to do with the city of Bologna) is "Ragù d'Anatra", being "Duck ragù".
@TobiaTesan, right, but bolognese does mean "from Bologna", just like genovese means "from Genoa", etc.
There are more @Joe s in this thread than styles of Ragù in Italy. Consider changing your names to "Joe alla Bolognese" and "Joe di Cervo" or something :P
@Joe of course, "Bolognese" is an aggettivo di nazionalità, like Francese (French). "Alla Bolognese" or (slightly archaic form) "alla moda Bolognese" means "Bolognese-style", "in the Bolognese fashion" though, not simply "from" - so you can prepare it outside the city walls as well :)
If you have not already looked, check the vegetarian section of where-ever you get groceries. At least here in the USA there are several varieties of Italian "sausage" that are entirely meat free and kosher. YMMV, but I find them to be an entirely satisfactory substitute.
Bar Akiva, you are very lucky as this is a really easy problem to solve: just don't use sausage in your ragu!
Traditional ragus don't have sausage at all. The usual recipes call for minced beef or minced calf meat as a primary ingredient; to it you can add a quantity of minced pork to add more flavour (by adding fat), balancing on your taste between 50% pork/50% other meat, to 100% other meat plus a bit of bacon, to no pork at all.
We even have duck ragu, rabbit ragu, wild boar ragu...really, don't let yourself be limited by pork.
Traditional Bolognese is also totally without pork.
@Jefromi the OP is actually asking for a substitute of the sub-par substitute of an optional ingredient. I suggested at least one and added a few more valuable information that will make the final product taste much better than substituting a substitute with, for example, a vegetarian sausage...
Okay, sure, maybe "not an answer" is too harsh, sorry - the part of your answer that actually talks about what kinds of meat you might use does answer the substitute question. However, I would ask that you refrain from all caps (looks like shouting) and preferably also avoid calling entire groups of people lazy or incompetent because they don't make food the way you prefer it. The world has room for a lot of different traditions, and there's no need to be hostile about our differences. I've therefore gone ahead and edited - feel free to edit further, but please keep it civil.
Well...I totally agree about the caps part (I like them from time to time, but I have no problem if they are not ok here), so no problem with the edit at all. For the rest...dunno, problem here (in the answer, not with you, obviously) is that I was trying to put things into perspective for the OP: modern recipes call for sausage not for the taste it adds, but as an actual shortcut to avoid to have to use the correct ingredients to achieve the correct taste. Sorry, but if you find a recipe for the ratatouille saying "ingredients: canned ratatouille" you can't dismiss it as...
"they don't make food the way you like it". Here in Italy you use sausages in ragu when you are lazy, it's a matter of fact, not my taste, not a problem of traditions or be hostile whatsoever. We do ragu without sausages; and Bolognese is a kind of ragu that is even without pork. How can I'm supposed to correctly answer to a question which spun off from the objctively wrong premises, if I can't point they are wrong? That said...I'm civil. I promise :-) (by the way...I'm ok with all the edits, as I expressed my opinion here in the comments, OP can read them here)
The OP isn't wrong. They're doing something different. It's up to them to decide what they want to make. So how can you "correctly" answer? Look at my edited version of your answer. It still conveys that you and other people making traditional Italian food wouldn't do this, without telling the OP that they're wrong. Turning "different" into "wrong" isn't the most hostile thing I've ever seen, but it's still not nice.
Let us continue this discussion in chat. (and I'm removing obsolete comments)
I'm not sure why the part about sausages generally not being an ingredient in other dishes (with the possible exception of Risotto alla PIlota and a few other weird-ass preparations) has been edited out. It was highly informative in my opinion.
Still ragù alla Bolognese doesn't require sausage. Substitution of pork is another story, but there are no sausage in bolognese nor in similar Italian sauces. Still there sauces that call for luganega, because even what is an italian sausage is a question itself. Plus 1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.063757 | 2016-02-04T10:48:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66195",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Ax.",
"Cascabel",
"Colin Wong",
"Dan C",
"David Moles",
"Erica",
"Evelyn Pierce",
"GalacticCowboy",
"GdD",
"Jessica Mayes",
"Jessica Militello",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie Mitchell",
"Kelly",
"Lori Smith",
"Michael Weber",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Sam Tramontana",
"Stacey Gilland",
"Stephanie Perkins",
"Steve Jessop",
"Steve Paparatto",
"Tobia Tesan",
"Todd Wilcox",
"danielle willems",
"debra enscoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68701",
"jscs",
"motoDrizzt"
],
"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
} |
78598 | What can substitute for the non kosher ingredients in bolognese sauce?
I am trying to make bolognese kosher for my family and struggling. Here is the list of ingredients I hope to find a substitute for:
Pork
Pancetta
Heavy cream
Milk
Parmigiano Reggiano
Are these not ingredients for a carbonara sauce?
@JeanHominal There's no cream or uncured pork in an authentic carbonara. Many Bolognese recipes include dairy for richness and pork for flavour.
I just don't get the idea of having milk and meat together can be kosher in the first place.
@Hagoy I think that's the point... it's not kosher. Plus, the pork itself is not kosher.
To be fair, I never used any of those to make a bolognese sauce. Bolognese is usually made with beef, not pork, and those other ingredients are complimentary but not part of the basic recipe. The old school bolognese (as in the ancient recipe) has cream as a optional extra, but depending on the regional variant you can drop it entirely. The South Brazillian variant adds tomato but removes the cream, for example - and it's a recipe that's around for something like a hundred years around here.
None of those is a necessary element in bolognese; find a recipe that doesn't use them (use beef mince, or quorn).
Agreed. Just make a meat sauce/ragu - beef, onions, garlic, tomatoes, carrot, celery, beef stock and wine, slow cooked.
And for such a recipe, try Gourmet Kosher Cooking. I have no affiliation, btw.
Quinoa is a surprisingly effective texture substitute for minced meat, and in a bolognaise most of the flavour comes from the vegetables. Also, I thought garlic was generally not used in a ragu?
@ElendilTheTall the wine is not needed, and as this is for a family, would probably ruin the flavour for the kids (if there are any).
@MarkGardner I make a pasta sauce involving very reduced red wine which is then diluted by adding tomatoes. The wine flavour comes through quite noticeably, but that doesn't put children off. The actual alcohol content is miniscule because most of the liquid (ethanol+water) in the wine is evaporated before any other liquid is added.
There are many bolognese variations out there, some which have milk in them, but there are many which do not as well. My understanding is that a traditional bolognese does not have milk, but as always with Italian food what's traditional is what Mama makes. In any case, you can drop the milk products without substituting anything for them. I don't think that adding soya or anything else will give you the same effect.
As for the pork you can replace it with ground beef or turkey, beef has more flavor than turkey but turkey is generally leaner. I make bolognese with a mix of beef and turkey because I find it's less greasy while still flavorful, but that's subjective. Pancetta adds richness, but is not essential.
Some people, myself included, use bacon in a bolognese. If you want a substitute for that there are turkey bacons out there in some places but to be honest the ones I've tried generally haven't been very good substitutes for the real thing. Bacon has fat, salt and smoke flavors (presuming it's smoked), so you could try and substitute any kosher cured and smoked meat sliced into thin strips. You could just leave it out entirely as well.
You've never seen one with cheese? Parmigiano cheese? Really? ô.O "No cheese => More traditional"? ... Nope?
@Seth but in the sauce? Surely it's added at the table.
I've seen plenty of sauces what have dairy in them, but never a bolognese sauce @Seth. Cheese is an extra you can add on top if you like.
Oh, yes. That's actually what I was referring to. I was speaking about the final dish, not the sauce, my bad! (Didn't read the title fully)..
Many Bolognese recipes include milk (just use your favourite search engine to look for "Bolognese milk"); cream doesn't seem too much of a stretch as an extension of that.
Pancetta isn't smoked, by the way.
Point taken, @DavidRicherby, I usually use bacon. Because I love it. I've edited to respond to some of these comments.
@GdD That's a very good reason for using anything. :-)
You can replace the cream milk for a slightly sweetened onion cream / pureé. It gives out a similar texture without messing up lactose-intolerant people!
In the original italian recipe of "Ragù alla bolognese", pork is optional, there is just beef mince simmered with red wine until reduced, some vegetables (carrot, onion and celery), tomato sauce, and absolutely no compulsory dairy products (cheese is added on personal taste when the dish is served).
this one seems perfect, notice:
olive oil or butter
and
½ glass of milk cream (optional).
There is "the" original recipe?
Apparently yes, there is a ratified "official" recipe. There are some variants, but the italian recipe is more or less the same, I don't know bolognese, bolognaise or the other "international" variants. the above recipe in my answer is on the international Bologna site.
Uhm, actually the official deposited recipe (from your link and other sources) includes milk and pork meat, both non-optional.
Milk (and, I guess as an extension, cream and cheese) is included for richness, pork because a mix of pork and beef is somewhat lighter than beef alone, and pancetta for flavour. None of these ingredients is essential and a "basic" Bolognese sauce would work just fine without all of them.
When I was growing up, my family had a tradition of having bolognese once a week. We liked putting cheese on top and my mother is vegetarian, so for both of these reasons we used soy "mince".
I don't know how easy it is for you to find but I often see both dried and "fresh" varieties in my supermarket. It's often sold under the name "textured vegetable protein", or TVP.
As long as you're not eating any other meat, you can use as much or as little dairy as you like.
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seitan, perhaps?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.064560 | 2017-02-21T09:15:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78598",
"authors": [
"Bob Tway",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Federico Poloni",
"GdD",
"Giorgio",
"GodTaxist",
"Hagoy",
"Jean Hominal",
"Mark Gardner",
"Robert",
"Seth",
"T. Sar",
"can-ned_food",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54815"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86463 | What size pan should I use if I want to split a recipe in half that calls for a 13x9 inch pan?
I have a recipe that calls for 13x9 glass pan, which I have used over and over successfully. This year for holidays I would like to split the recipe so that I get two smaller end products to give as gifts. How do I do this? What size pan should I use?
I have a couple of 8.5" x 6.5" pans (designed for toaster ovens) that I use for exactly this. The height is about the same as a standard 13" x 9" pan. I've split solid dishes like carrot cake or Spanish Bar Bread and looser ones like Spinach Marie or macaroni and cheese successfully. Just remember to check on the dish earlier than usual as the smaller portions will bake quicker.
Nominally you want 1/2 the square inches so it will be the same height.
(13 * 9) / 2 = 58.5
Anything close should be good enough.
The answer from user61524 is good (55.25).
A geometric consideration aimed at perfectionists. If we count the perimeter / surface ratio, the splitting is a bit more complicated. The perimeter is usually more crusty and the center of a pie tends to have its peculiarity. In simple words one should not leave much from the original pan proportion, especially if the pans are of medium or small size. Forget in case of not baked spoon- like desserts, such as tiramisù
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.065028 | 2017-12-17T00:49:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86463",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84083 | Are accidentally fermented foods safe to eat
I grew tomatoes this year and then made sauce out of them about 3 weeks ago (tomatoes, onion, garlic, basil, olive oil, salt). When I opened the jar I heard the distinct sound of C02 releasing. I looked in the jar and saw a good amount of bubbling. No visible mold in the jar. It doesn't smell bad, just fermented.
I've made a variety of pickled and fermented foods before and never had a problem eating those. Kimchi comes to mind as a similar food where the fermentation comes without adding any starters, just salt, cabbage, and spices. For some reason the fact that i didn't intend to ferment the sauce is making me second guess eating it. Is it possible to use salt/vinegar to kill off any bad bacteria lingering in the sauce? What if I were to convert the sauce into a fermented ketchup?
Can you give us some additional details? What did you do with the sauce after you put it in jars? Was it refrigerated? When you made the sauce, how did you prepare it - was it canned, for example? This sounds really dangerous, but I'm not an expert, so I strongly encourage you to wait to eat anything until you get an answer here.
It's not fermented, it's spoiled.
I cooked the sauce on the stovetop put it still warm into a glass jar and then in the fridge.
Sounds like a great way to get botulism. Please, please don't eat this. No amount of cooking can remove the toxins that are possibly present here.
I generally agree with not eating this, but it's incorrect to say that the toxins can't be neutralized. Botulism toxin (specifically) actually can be neutralized by cooking. "Though spores of C. botulinum are heat-resistant, the toxin produced by bacteria growing out of the spores under anaerobic conditions is destroyed by boiling (for example, at internal temperature greater than 85 °C for 5 minutes or longer)." [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs270/en/ ]
The fact that that it was "improperly canned" but then refrigerated also cuts against botulism, which is otherwise a great bet (onions and garlic are very likely to have spores.) Botulism is supposed to be effectively inactive below 38F. so if it's been under refrigeration since it was made, something's going on, but it's probably not botulism.
AFAIK, no one makes tomato wine. Pickled tomatoes and tomato kimchi are made. How far is your recipe from those? Randomly fermented tomatoes are generally not a taste treat you'll want anything to do with -Bad!
Thanks for all the input everyone, I'm going to toss out this old sauce and do some research on proper canning techniques.
Do.
Not.
Eat.
The assumption that it fermented enough to be safe because it fermented some is likely incorrect. Lacto fermented food recipes are specifically formulated to encourage the rapid and significant growth of lactic acid producing bacteria which lowers the ph so quickly that it overwhelms pathogens which are also trying to grow. Even then, consuming lacto fermented vegetables before they hit a ph level of 4.6 is still not safe. Almost no tomato sauces would be acidic enough to discourage pathogen growth on their own.
Even if the lactic acid in the sauce slowly built up enough to kill all of the live pathogens with acid alone, many food pathogens create toxins (Shiga, Botulism Toxin, etc,) and those could still harm or kill you, even if you heated the sauce up to serving temperature. Though botulism toxin can be neutralized by boiling for some amount of time, after looking around for a bit, I haven't seen anything that guarantees Shiga or other common toxins do too. Is it worth it?
There are lots of pathogens which thrive in that very environment, and plenty that produce gas as waste. You don't know what was growing in there, or what it left behind.
Y'all are overthinking WAAAAAAAAAY TOO MUCH, this product probably won't be pleasant for much other than kimchee, however it absolutely will not hurt you, the acidic value alone is not an environment for ANY bacteria
That's just my take on it, I'm a bartender and we ferment all kinds of things in AND out of the refrigerator for weeks at a time.... look at Kamboocha Tea, how is it made...
There's a big difference between controlled and accidental fermentation as ChefAndy explains. Fermentation recipes are set up to quickly induce the growth of the desired bacteria. If fermentation happens accidentally, who knows which bacteria have grown.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.065167 | 2017-09-01T21:46:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84083",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElectronicToothpick",
"MyNameisTK",
"Peejat",
"SnakeDoc",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73584"
],
"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
} |
86419 | How to compensate for diminished taste when cooking?
I have a condition known as hyposmia, or a diminished sense of smell. For instance, I cannot smell flowers unless I am within 1" or so of the centers, but I can smell bacon a mile away (Who can't?), and the perfume counter is a reek of alcohol that is overwhelming.
I also really enjoy cooking, but I am no better than a recipe follower as the sense of smell also affects and diminishes my sense of taste. As a result, any time I deviate or create on my own, the result is usually reported to be heavily under or over seasoned, even though it tastes good to me.
Are there known techniques to compensate for hyposmia and altered taste when cooking? (I read about a known chef who has no sense of taste, but the name escapes me).
I could've sworn that we had a similar question once before (although it might've just been about salt), but I haven't had any luck finding it.
Is your goal to make something that tastes good to you or to other people?
@RossRidge for other people. I have a family of 4, plus have the occasional dinner party.
Could you clarify to help us decide whether answers like Max's address your question? I'm concerned that you may get a lot of guesswork and overly generic advice that doesn't help, if we're not specific enough.
@joe this might be the question you were remembering, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/66720/35357
@DebbieM : yes, that's the one. Thanks. (I was searching questions only, and it was a person who answered that said they had finished taste)
I'd say experience will be your best help in the long run.
Use known recipes, quantities and ingredients.
Err on the side of blandness; better have people add salt/pepper/hotsauce than spit it out because you over did it.
Try to have someone with you when you try out new recipes or ingredients so they can help you gage the taste and smell so you can adjust the ingredients.
Good luck.
This comes close, but it also relies on the taste of another individual, and what happens if that individual is not around at the time I am cooking? I'd like to find a way that I can cook independently, but for the greatest amount of commonality if that makes sense. Obviously there are different tastes among people, but there is a general base of "good".
You do not need to have someone with you all the time for simple recipes that you already know;
let's say you want to try a new recipe, you call your friend John or Cecilia and say "Hey, can you come around, I'd like to try a new recipe, and I need your help for tasting it for me; I'll serve drinks and make it a party.!"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.065516 | 2017-12-15T17:39:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86419",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie M.",
"Joe",
"JohnP",
"Max",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63756",
"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
} |
82856 | How to season my tagine if my oven doesn't have setting for the temperature the instructions call for?
I recently bought a tagine for cooking. I have to season my tagine by heating it in the oven with the temperature below 300 F. My oven works with two settings of 350 and 375F. May I prepare my tagine for use on the stovetop with a diffuser or does it has to be prepared for the initial use in the oven? May I use a higher temperature of 350F? Please help me with your advice.
Is there a name of a company on the instructions for seasoning? If so, you might try contacting them. Does the seasoning call for just heating, or for oiling or other prep before heating?
What odd oven only has two presets like that?
Can you give us more information? What material is the tagine made of? What are the instructions for the entire seasoning process?
Ask a good friend, neighbor or nearby relative with a real or proper oven, if you can use theirs for the short period of time required to accomplish this task.
Make them a nice, flavorful dish and carry it over as a Thank-you gift after you are done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.065737 | 2017-07-08T01:53:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82856",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82888 | How can I replace sweetened condensed milk in key lime pie with goat's milk?
I want to make a Key Lime pie using only goat's milk(cow's milk allergy issues). The filing is usually, if not always, made with condensed milk. No one sells sweetened condensed goat milk - not even Meyenberg. Any suggestions?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46129/cajeta-with-powdered-goats-milk-or-evaporated-experiment-results
Here is a sweetened condensed milk recipe using evaporated goat milk.
1 - 12 oz can evaporated goat milk; 1-1/2 cup sugar.
Combine and simmer at least 30 min stirring often.
Maybe not as thick as "regular" condensed milk but when 4 egg yolks and 1/2 cup of lime juice are added it sets up just fine when baked in a graham cracker pie shell. A perfectly acceptable non-cow's milk Key Lime pie filling.
I think your best bet would be to either make your own sweetened condensed milk using the goat milk or to use a different non-dairy substitute - apparently they sell sweetened condensed non-dairy milks, specifically coconut.
Apparently many of the recipes for homemade sweetened condensed milk use powdered milk, which might be troublesome but I did find this one or this one that use whole milk. I don't think there's any reason it shouldn't work with goat milk instead of cow's.
Alternately, you can find a recipe that doesn't use sweetened condensed milk at all... a vegan one or a non-dairy one should do the trick. I'm sure there's tons of options out there.
I made an amazing key lime pie with tofu once. I wish I still had the recipe, I liked it far better than the dairy version!
Thanks for the suggestions. Last night I made the filling using a can of evaporated goat milk and sugar. Simmered at least 45 min. Then added the lime juice, lime zest and egg yolks. Baked in a Keebler non-diary graham cracker pie crust, 350º, 30 min then chilled.Very firm texture and tasty. Making whipped cream with evap goat milk was a disaster. Very runny. Next time either meringue topping or non-dairy whipped cream product.
@TonyCassens You're more than welcome to answer your own question with that information. I had no idea that condensed goat milk was even an option!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.065866 | 2017-07-09T14:02:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82888",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Tony Cassens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59101"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82012 | Using hardware store dowel as rolling pin?
Is there any reason not to use the wood dowelling I always see in the hardware stores/wood shops for a rolling pin for pastry?
Assuming that the wood is untreated (ask the store!), you can use whatever you find in the wood isle.
There are very few woods with questionable compounds that might leech undesirable substances, but neither is a typical mass market material. And even for woods like yew or oak, the amount of tannins or other is extremely tiny if used as rolling pin. I would hesitate to store wet or humid food in an oak bowl, though, unless I'm aging wine.
Try to find a hardwood dowel, pine and its relatives are rather soft and dent easily. Not a problem if you need a quick substitute, but if you want to use it as rolling pin for years, probably less sturdy. Also, make sure you pick something resin-free, especially if you have fluctuating temperatures in your kitchen.
Before you use the wood for the first time, clean it well, note that it was neither produced nor stored in necessarily the cleanest of enviromements. Then after it's dry, check for splinters and loose wood fibers. You might want to give it a quick wipe with sanding paper to get rid of them or they could make your dough stick to the pin. You might also want to go along the edges of the ends, to be sure nothing can hurt you during use.
For long-term use or to further reduce sticking dough, you could season the pin with a light coating of oil, like for chopping boards. Find more on that procedure here. After that, the grease in your doughs should suffice to maintain the wood.
Everything is fine with using wood from the hardware store. I have also used wood sold as a broom handle, and I have seen a teaching video of complicated cake decorating where the vlogger rolled out the fondant with a piece of PVC pipe. The important thing in a dowel is the shape, and if you can find the shape somewhere, use it.
You might want to ask the store if the wood has been treated, and if yes, note what treatment was used and research the exact chemicals.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066141 | 2017-05-26T22:09:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82012",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85730 | How to triple the quantity of ingredients in order to make 12 standard sized muffins?
I found an interesting recipe and I would like to triple it in order to make 12 standard sized muffins.
These are the ingredients and based on this recipe, it makes 4 muffins.
1/4 cup butter
1/4 cup semisweet chocolate chips
1 egg
1/4 cup sugar
1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup chopped pecans
How can I triple the recipe and make twelve standard-sized muffins?r
I have an idea...what if I do the following ? do the scaling in such a way...3/4 cup butter
3/4 cup semisweet chocolate chips
3 eggs
3/4 cup sugar
3/4 teaspoon vanilla extract
3/4 cup all-purpose flour
3/4 cup chopped pecans..............................................................................what do you think ? is it going to work like this and be successful ? I need some feedback as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your help.
Yep. 3 x 4 = 12. Triple everything.
Triple means "three time". Multiply all the ingredients by 3.
To double a recipe you would multiply everything by two.
To halve a recipe you would divide all ingredients by two.
(and so on)
This must be the most elementary answer I have seen on this site. Nothing more to say, really.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066322 | 2017-11-18T21:22:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85730",
"authors": [
"Electra_mar",
"Ian",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62986"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92270 | Alternative for tartar sauce?
Is there a substitute for tartar sauce? It is difficult to find in India. I need an alternative that can be obtained in Indian markets.
Tartare sauce is mayonnaise with capers, pickles and lemon juice. Recipe varies to consumer taste.
It's easy to make at home.
You forgot the minced spring onions... (or maybe that's a local variety?) +1 anyway! ;-)
I find plain yogurt a more than adequate replacement for mayonnaise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066431 | 2018-09-15T07:16:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92270",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94517 | Adjusting muffin recipe ingredients when adding a can of pumpkin
I want to add a can of 100% pumpkin to my favorite bran/ww flour/oatmeal muffin recipe and think I may need to add a bit more dry ingredients. Picture of recipe card is below - hopefully. This is just my second posting at this site. I will greatly appreciate any advice on amending the recipe.
Recipe:
3/4 c milk
3/4 c bran
1 egg
1/4 c vegetable oil
1/4 c molasses or honey
1 c uncooked oatmeal
2/3 c whole wheat flour
1 tbcp baking powder
1/4 tsp salt (optional)
1/2 c raisins, nuts, chopped apple (optional)
Bake at 400 F about 15 minutes
for the record, no recipe I have seen for muffins contains that much pumpkin per batch, usually it's 1/2-1 cup (or 1/4-1/2 can). That could replace your oil. Otherwise, you are better off finding a recipe that uses pumpkin from the start. It will not be "the same recipe you love, just with pumpkin", it will be a whole new thing, so it isn't much different to start from scratch with a new recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066497 | 2018-12-05T15:50:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94517",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88561 | Where to purchase sushi-grade ahi tuna in Arizona? (or purchase online overnight shipping)
I was looking around and I couldn't find any good options for buying ahi tuna for sushi/sashimi in Arizona and was wondering if someone could point me in the right direction.
I've also tried online at Honolulu Fishing Market, Seattle Fish Company and Catalina. No luck here.
BONUS: If I go to Costco or the like is the fish here also acceptable for sushi/sashimi/nigiri?
I've not heard of 'ahi grade tuna' - can you clarify please? I thought ahi was another name for yellowfin/yellowtail (a species of tuna).
@NatBowman typo, fixed.
You can't use fresh fish for sushi. The process for making fish safe for raw consumption is to freeze it.
@Catija correct. However depending on where you buy it from they may freeze, thaw, freeze, etc. So I'm just being safe.
If you mean sushi grade ahi tuna, you can’t buy it or consume it fresh, because of parasites in the flesh. All sushi grade fish is held frozen at 0°F for at least forty eight hours to kill the parasites.
If you don’t have a local source for sushi grade tuna, you can find a variety of reliable shippers on-line, although they can be a bit pricey.
Correct it cannot be "fresh," in the typical sense. Rather fresh in the sense that the distributor is handling it correctly so that it may stay usable for sushi.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066592 | 2018-03-23T15:22:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88561",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"FatalSleep",
"Nat Bowman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65997"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82857 | How to properly handle an all clad pan
I just bought all clad's chef's pan (HA1) and their 10 piece set.
However, I quickly find out it's very uncomfortable to hold it by gripping the U shape handle from upper side or sideway, the edge of the handle cut in to my palm. And because the pan is very heavy (for good reason), it becomes very hard to lift it up and tilt it.
I did some research and find lots of people having this complain. There are some solution like this YouTube video, but it does not actually solve the lift and tilt problem.
I wonder what did professionals did when handling such kind of job?
Welcome! If I had to guess, I'd bet that pros pick up the pans and try them out before buying and wouldn't buy this pan if it's not comfortable to hold.
It looks like there's a helper handle on the other side to help lifting it. But I'd recommend investing in a good leather, silicone, or thick padded pot holder, as it'll help pad the handle. A kitchen towel can help, but dedicated pot holders tend to be a bit thicker and stiffer, which helps to spread the pressure out more.
Oh, and my understanding is that although high-end chefs (tv, personal chefs, etc) might use expensive pots & pans like this, many professionals are using relatively cheap pans or really large ones that you'd never use if just cooking for a family (of less than 12 people, at least)
If impressing guests is not in order, some string and cork (possibly cut to shape) is the cheap way to improve a handle. E.g. I got tired of the all-metal tea pot handle being hot and probably in hindsight used too much string
That's inventive. And I don't think too much string; it's beautiful.
I like this idea, even though I'll probably put the cork on top.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066732 | 2017-07-08T02:17:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82857",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Terry Shi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"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
} |
86427 | Accidentally omitted salt from my gingerbread cookies... what should I do?
I forgot to add the salt in my gingerbread dough, and it's already in the fridge. Should I re do the dough? Is there a way to add it in?
Salt is primarily a flavor enhancer in cookies. It's unlikely that omitting it will affect the recipe greatly. I know people who regularly omit salt with no problems.
Bake the cookies! Don't waste the ingredients. You probably won't notice a huge change in flavor.
As a note, you're unlikely to get an even incorporation adding it at this point, so don't try that. You'll either end up with tough dough from overworking it or salty pockets if you don't.
Spot on. I routinely omit all salt in sweet recipes and most people can't tell the difference
I would suggest sprinkling salt on top of the dough just before baking.
Salt is a flavor enhancer, as Catija mentions, but for some people, and for some recipes, it may make a big difference to leave it out. And it will be difficult to incorporate the salt cleanly, at this point. But sprinkling it on before baking should give that enhancement back with a fairly even distribution.
You may wish to use somewhat less salt, as it will be more noticeable on the surface of the food. Less salt and a fine grind of salt with an even dusting technique should make the addition much less noticeable.
Alternatively, you can use the full amount of salt, perhaps even larger flakes or specialty finishing salts, which will leave the addition more noticeable but may create a very nice effect that seems to be deliberate.
If the amount of salt seems less after baking, you might use a salt wash (just a bit of water or milk to dissolve) since dry grains will be less likely to stick to the already baked surface.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.066891 | 2017-12-16T01:52:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86427",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60199 | Is it necessary to remove the seeds of Tinda before cooking Tinda sabji?
Is it necessary to remove the seeds of Tinda before cooking? And if so why?
Tinda also called apple gourd, indian round gourd and most commonly Indian baby pumpkin is despite its name actually a gourd rather than an pumpkin. It is consumed when the gourd is very young so the seeds of this plant will be very soft.
When you are preparing Tinda, you typically peel it and then slice it in half. A huge majority of the time the seed should be very soft so you can use it without removing the seeds. However since these plants are harvested before its fully ripe, there will be discrepancy with exactly when they are harvested. Riper Tinda that was harvested later might have tougher seed in which case you want to remove them. You don't have to throw it out. It can be roasted in the oven and consumed much like pumpkin seeds.
Here is a photo of a Tinda dish where you can distinctly see the seeds still in the Tinda. The photo was from here.
Note: The photo is of Tinda Masala which is a type of Sabji. Sabji refers broadly as vegetables cooked in spices and curry flavors.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067042 | 2015-08-24T12:34:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60199",
"authors": [
"Bernie Sullivan",
"Brenda Graves",
"Edward Clemson",
"Janine Pollack",
"Justin Parker",
"Long Mou",
"Shingai Mpinyuri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55894 | Mackerel brining time before smoking
Having only just bought a charcoal fired barbecue/smoker, I am confused about brining times. Having searched the web I found some sites recommend 20 minutes, for mackerel, others much longer, who is right?
While your question is a bit different I would suggest reviewing http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54559/6279 (especially Athanasius' lengthy analysis of Marinading vs. Brining)
Is your question specific to mackerel and/or other similar fish? Or are you interested in brining times for different types of meat? Either way, an edit to clarify would be helpful.
I smoke mackerel and eel just with fine salt and ground black pepper in the open belly (kept open with a couple of toothpicks). Vertical smoking about 6h at 35-40ºC smoke.
If you marinate them, I don't know if the meat wouldn't fall apart. I marinate (just the fillets and just marinated) covered with wine vinegar and lemon juice (80% to 20%), garlic, a little salt or no salt and black pepper. After 4-6h it's ready to eat over toast, as a snack with cold dry white wine. Best next day. Holds for a week in fridge (covered with marinade). Sardines are the best like this.
Hello and welcome to the site! I took the liberty to edit your post a bit for easier readability, if you disagree, we can always edit more or roll back. Please note: It's usual here to skip all kinds of greetings etc., so I deleted this, too. Not because we are impolite, but because we want to collect the essential information and ensure quick and easy readability.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067174 | 2015-03-20T20:06:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55894",
"authors": [
"Alan Perl",
"Asres Takele Take",
"Cathy Membury",
"Cos Callis",
"Jerry Minor",
"Leeoni Tam",
"Post Malon",
"Stephie",
"arun john",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"lindadish",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55416 | Liquid glucose in marshmallows
What does liquid glucose do for a marshmallow?
Has anyone replaced liquid glucose with golden syrup or any other syrup for that matter?
What are the effects of using alternatives for marshmallows?
I see a lot of American recipes have corn syrup as a ready alternative but this is not widely available in the UK.
Corn syrup is a type of glucose syrup. See also : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7237/67 , http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12145/67
The recipe I usually use for marshmallows is this one: http://nothingbutonions.com/2013/09/marshmallows/ - originally from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. I've made it many times and it works really well, and requires neither corn syrup nor liquid glucose.
I've used invert sugar before(it's usually liquid), and substituted in 1/4 of a recipes' sugar allotment for dark malt syrup, both with great success. My experience is that the liquid sugar is easier to work with than the crystalline version when making marshmallows. See this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14590/what-is-liquid-glucose
Glucose is used to supersaturate the refined sugar. Without it, the refined sugar would crystallize after some time. We don't want our marshmallow to be like that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067336 | 2015-03-05T11:30:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55416",
"authors": [
"Carl Sobie",
"Cheryl Bone",
"Joe",
"Little White Lithe",
"dopiaza",
"eduardo mendes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28655",
"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
} |
85201 | Best temperature to freeze pie filling?
I am in the process of replacing my commercial freezer. We typically freeze our pie fillings to simplify production. In looking into new freezers I can choose between 0 Degrees Fahrenheit and -10 Degrees Fahrenheit depending on the unit we purchase.
I was thinking I might try out the -10 degrees model for our pie fillings. My thinking being, pie filling is kind of sort of very loosely like sorbet (in so much as it's basically fruit and sugar) and may benefit from the lower temperature due to the sugar content.
I have no additional info to back that claim up other than a hunch, so I figured I would ask if anyone else had additional experience on this topic.
We don't use cornstarch in the filling, so I'm not concerned about the freeze/thaw stability issues that presents. We do use tapioca though.
Additionally if the lower temperature is preferable (-10 Degrees Fahrenheit), would that same temperature also be appropriate for the pie crust dough or would that lower temperature have other consequences?
Whether colder is better would depend on how freezing "simplifies production" for you and how long the food will be stored.
In a long-storage scenario, lower temperature is definitely beneficial as it does improve storage lifetimes. If it's a matter of weeks or days so that you can prep a batch and cook as needed, no real benefit.
Without knowing how freezing "simplifies production" for you, it's hard to say if colder would be of any benefit on that mark. All other things being equal (as they often are not) a colder freezer will take more energy to run, since additional refrigeration is not free.
My sorbets typically hold more than long enough at 0°F. If the mixture is not churned, it freezes hard at that temperature. Some sugar syrup will weep out, but that will also happen at cooler temperatures. Even if churned, it would not slop out of a pie shell, so I'd say it would handle similarly.
{not that you seem to be considering one - but mention might be made of "blast freezers" which are sort of the convection-oven of freezing, and may run as cold as -70F - those have the benefit of very fast freezing, minimizing the size of ice crystals - then the product is typically moved to a storage freezer once it's been "flash frozen" - not clear that this would offer your product any benefit, as the filling will be cooked after thawing. }
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067462 | 2017-10-24T02:38:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85201",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87634 | How is baby bok choy cooked in Shanghai?
During many business trips to Shanghai I often had baby bok choy that was served in a thin (unthickened), pale yellow sauce or broth - common in restaurants in Shangai. Very delicious! What kind of sauce would this be? It had a nice flavor, but not distinctly lemony or chicken-brothy or anything I could identify. And how can I cook it this way? Thanks!
I've never cooked or eaten in Shanghai, however, based on a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese cooking, cooking it at home, and with the support of Google, I would guess the following:
Bok choy is blanched for a short time in boiling water, and then refreshed in an ice bath.
It is stir fried in a very hot wok, probably with some garlic.
A slurry of cornstarch is added. It is made with water, soy, perhaps some sesame oil. This produces the light sauce.
I suspect that sometimes, fermented black bean might be added.
The most common way to cook leafy vegetables in most of southern and southeastern China is probably stir frying, so I'm afraid it's just the liquid left from stir frying (for some reason, the liquid might have been thickened using starch, but that's not very common). It could also be Chinese broth, which wouldn't taste chickeny because the main ingredients would be Jinhua ham and pork bones.
Baby Bok Choy. Is that with the green stem. There is more than 1 type of Bok Choy. It is dropped in boiling salt water for Shanghai stile. About 40 seconds till bright green. Then drained. Sesame oil is used as the base with soy sauce, corn starch. What ever else.It is then glazed in that sauce. 100 ways to make this. So boiled in salt water, green stem Bok Choy, sesame oil used. Shanghai stile. What sauce you had I do not know.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067643 | 2018-02-09T03:43:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87634",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88752 | How can I remove a stuck babka from a stoneware baking bowl?
I just baked an Easter bread (Babka - Polish sweet bread) and allowed it to cool in a stoneware round bowl. Now I can not remove the bread from the bowl. Any suggestions?
glazed or unglazed stoneware? (not that I have a sure solution for either one, but I'd try a relatively stiff plastic spatula for unglazed; I'd be wary of grinding it down if unglazed)
My sister had this exact issue last Easter, we just couldn’t get the babka out. Eventually, she just tore out what she could using a clean pry-bar, and then let the family dog clean out the rest of the bowl. Then she soaked the bowl in water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067788 | 2018-03-30T15:29:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88752",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
} |
89293 | Are there negative effects of freezing for bread and cake?
Are there any negative effects to flavour and or texture to freezing breads/cakes and such?
I notice many layered cake recipes have to bake a cake cover it in a layer then cool or freeze in the fridge, is there any negative affect to the cake?
Not that I know of. In fact, freezing is usually beneficial because it keeps the cakes firmer for assembling, layering, and frosting. It also helps crumb coats adhere better.
I have frozen cakes from time to time and I freeze bread regularly as I make large batches of bread and freeze the extra loaves to last through the week.
I have not read authoritative science on this topic and so my answer consists of my own observations and supposition.
I have never noticed a cake deteriorate in quality. Even wedding cakes frozen for a year are often indistinguishable from when they were frozen.
On the other hand, my homemade bread does change. After a loaf is frozen, even if it is used just the next day, it will be slightly more crumbly than the loaves from the same batch that were not frozen. It is only a problem if the bread was too crumbly to begin with. In that case it may be impossible to even slice afterwards. I still freeze the extra bread as the change in texture is usually not enough to offset the convenience.
I suspect that the effect on the bread is because of drying. Though I haven't tested for it specifically, it seems like the crumbly effect is more pronounced in lower-hydration breads. My homemade sandwich bread is much lower hydration than an artisan or french loaf, for example.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.067862 | 2018-04-20T19:43:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89293",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90612 | How can I recreate canned whipped cream from scratch?
I tried by using two quarts of heavy cream, two cups of sugar and a spoon of honey and mixed it all together but I feel like it's missing something to the flavor.
I'm trying to create something similar to what you get out of a can of whipped cream. Reddi-whip to be exact.
These are the ingredients: Nonfat milk, cream, sugar, corn syrup, maltodextrin, inulin (chicory extract), cellulose, mono- and diglycerides polysorbate 80, artificial flavors, carrageenan.
Can someone explain what these are: (maltodextrin, inulin (chicory extract), cellulose, mono- and diglycerides polysorbate 80, artificial flavors, carrageenan)
Sigh, I was trying to avoid answering this, but feel compelled to provide some information after all your revisions. I'm answering only this part of the question:
Can someone explain what these are: (maltodextrin, inulin (chicory
extract), cellulose, mono- and diglycerides polysorbate 80, artificial
flavors, carrageenan)
Let's break that down:
maltodextrin is a sweetener
inulin is also a sweetener
cellulose is a fiber (wood, basically) used as a stabilizer
mono- and diglycerides are emulsifiers, that make the cream smoother
polysorbate 80 another emulsifier
carrageenan algae, also a stabilizer
Now, "artificial flavors" could literally mean anything, which is a big challenge for your recreation experiment. Not only does it not say which flavors they've added, the formula may be a trade secret.
I believe the artificial flavor is mostly imitation vanilla, so I'd definitely add that. No idea what the rest of the flavoring is.
If your trying to imitate the flavor of 'reddi-whip' then you're going to have to play around with the chemistry to get at what you want. If you are wanting to make home-made whip cream come spraying out of a canister, then I have just the thing for you: An NO2 whip cream canister can be purchased at any of several outlets.
NO2 Whip Cream Canister
Just add whip cream, sugar and give it a good shake then connect an NO2 cartridge (or CO2, cheaper and more readily available but be careful to get food grade, your average 'paint ball' CO2 cartridge can have unpleasant additives) and you have 'ready whip' (you can also add a variety of other flavorings, I enjoy Amaretto... ) Be careful, a little bit of sugar and some flavored syrup can go a long way in here.
Thanks, I said CO2, but NO2 is probably a better option for food items.
The choice of CO2 or NO2 depends on the food. NO2 is highly soluble in fat, making it ideal for whipped cream. CO2 dissolves readily in water, which is why it's used in carbonated drinks. Also note that CO2 makes water acidic, which is another reason you wouldn't use for whipped cream.
Reading the label gives you a long list of stabilizers, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and "artificial flavors", none of which are likely to significantly alter the flavor profile of your homemade replica.
If you are needing to bump the flavor, a (small!) pinch of salt helps accentuate flavor without making things salty. Vanilla extract could help -- however, at that point you're starting to move beyond just whipped cream flavor.
Your biggest challenge is going to be consistency, regardless of the flavor profile you accomplish. Texture, or mouthfeel, can be a big influence on whether something "tastes right," and homemade whipped cream is definitely thicker than its canned counterpart. To replicate texture of Reddi-Whip or similar brands, you need a whipped cream canister that aerates the cream-sugar mixture, and Cos Callis answered that thoroughly.
I agree too, tried vanilla last time and he liked it but his answer was not very promising. I just do not understand how can I replicate something that is factory made, without having that recipe
Honestly, the hardest thing to replicate about canned whipped cream is the texture. My homemade whipped cream tends to be much thicker (something I like, but not "authentic").
Mine comes out the same way, except not super white like the one in the cans, but thats because of the heavy cream
I would take exception to the notion that canned whipped cream is authentic. Authentic whipped cream is just that, whipped cream. The canned stuff is an imitation aerated convenience. That said, some prefer that, and that is fine. The only way I can think you are really likely to come close though is a CO2 type pressure aerator.
I did have "authentic" in quotes, hahaha ;)
;) I know. And I am one of those that canned whip cream, the only use I have for it is for "chipmunck cheeks", while my family looks at fresh whipped cream as if it is left over roadkill. I think I am adopted.
The texture has to be recreated with a gas syphon, shown in the other answer. As for the flavor, that's much harder, it could be anything.
It is highly likely that because of the major ingredients in Reddi-Wip (real cream for one), that Conagra is using a homoginizer in their process. A homoginizer and the needed support equipment and installation is not cheap or something to practically do at home.
@Cynetta True -- but OP can probably get away with it since he won't need to make the whipped cream shelf stable, just taste/feel similar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.068014 | 2018-06-27T18:59:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90612",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Elcubanitoese506",
"Erica",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67739",
"mrog",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88479 | My baked cookies are crumbling
I bake these cookies every day but with varying results. It's a simple recipe where flour sugar and oats are combined and hot butter with baking soda are added. I sometimes add a little shortening to the dough. Today the butter solids got too hot and burnt the bottom of my saucepan while I heated the butter so I'm assuming the quantity of butter was reduced a little. I'm not too experienced a baker but I bake these for my restaurant very frequently.
So, what is your question? How to get reliable results, or why this result was crumbly? Or what affects the crumbliness of your cookies?
Is there water in this recipe? or liquids other than butter?
With the information you have provided I would guess that you are getting 'crumbling' because you have insufficient fat in your recipe (or are loosing some to the your process). Make sure your volume and temperature of melted butter is consistent. You will also want to let your melted butter cool slightly before adding it to dry stuff (after melting let your butter rest till it is below 130°F(55°C). If these are still 'too crumbly' increase the amount of fat. Not all fats are created equal here. If your recipe does not include egg (at all) then I would bump the butter by 1 tablespoon (up to one half the current measure of butter) If there is already 'some egg' start with adding one additional egg YOLK (no more white).
Consistency is going to be the most important part of addressing this issue. In the kitchen insanity is doing something different and expecting the same results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.068471 | 2018-03-21T13:49:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88479",
"authors": [
"Layna",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"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
} |
85011 | Tramontina lid stuck to pot
Loved my tramontina 3 piece induction system from Costco until this happened. Was boiling some eggs as I do every morning and had done for 9 days in a row with this system. This morning I might have had the temperature a little higher but not much more. When the water came to a rolling boil I put 2 eggs in. When it was time to pull them out I shut off the cooktop and went to pull off the lid, but I couldn't because it was stuck. I thought that maybe it needed to cool down so I left it alone now 12 hours. However the lid is still stuck to the pot. I do not wish to force it. I have even held it upside down as pictured.
since you're still getting answers on this question, is there any chance you could come back and tell what worked or accept one of the answers? I'm curious to know how did you solve it.
It seems really unlikely it somehow rusted shut or anything like that while you were boiling, so it seems most likely that there's just a partial vacuum inside. While boiling, it'd have been full of hot air and steam, and now that's all cooled down, and the steam has condensed, so it could shrink down you end up with low pressure inside sucking the lid down. It's a bit surprising that the seal is good enough to hold the pressure for this long, though!
In any case, if that's it, assuming there's still liquid in it, I'd try just heating it again. That would increase the pressure inside, hopefully back up to normal, enough to let you get the lid off. I'd also try twisting and angling it, because if that's it, all you need is a tiny opening to equalize pressure.
If this does turn out to have been the issue, you could probably avoid it in the future by opening the lid immediately when it's done.
I've had that happen to me, and a vacuum is exactly what happened. I ended up prying it apart carefully, with some clamps and tools, as I had unfortunately, boiled it completely dry. My mother in law also did this as she lit a giant pan on fire, and I threw a lid on before she burned her kitchen down as she starting screaming and moving it around her very flammable kitchen. So yeah, this can totally happen. If there's still liquid in there, then heating it would be my first solution too.
A variant of this is how my mother cracked a ceramic cooktop...
@talon8 Thanks, that's helpful, I edited to clarify that heating is for if there's water in it. (It looked like probably so, given the droplets and that it was boiling eggs, not just a small amount of water.) If it's dry... yeah, I'm impressed you managed to pry it open like that! The only other thing I thought of was gentle heating and maybe even freezing, in hopes that the two parts would expand/contract differently from the glass lid, possibly to the point of opening enough of a crack for a tiny bit of air flow.
I don't think that's a glass lid? I did rip the handle off the lid. But the pot still works. I suspect given two metal surfaces... I don't know that you could expand the base sufficiently without also expanding the lid to break the seal. But In my case, my next choice was throwing the whole thing away.
If it's a vacuum it may also work to put the whole thing in another low pressure space (think something like space bag), since if the outside pressure is reduced it should allow it to open as well.
There's no way you'd get enough of a vacuum in a space bag to allow opening the pot. Because the bag collapses, you'd eventually compress the pot more. You'd need a rigid walled vacuum chamber to make that work.
Most pot lids have a small hole in them for exactly this reason
I found an easy way to get the lid off after it happened to me with a pot of brown rice. I had set a timer, so I was pretty sure there wasn't any water left in the pot which made me reluctant to heat it back up. Instead I boiled a different pot of water and set the stuck pot on top of it. Within a couple of minutes the top released without any problems or noise.
So this just happened to us. I found this site and learned it was a vacuum problem. So I used a small blade screwdriver to pry the rubber seal away from the glass at one point. Voila! Vacuum broken, lid comes off.
We have this pot and have had the lid stick every time we use it. I'm thinking; drill a small hole in the lid. Have used a small thin knife to open the lid before but have almost stabbed myself doing it that way. Can't believe this problem hasn't been corrected by COSTCO.
Just had my first experience using this product and trapped my dinner. I did not burn my kitchen down but the thought did come up. I thumped the pot edge in a stainless sink till the vacuum was broken.
Customer Service did say to heat it up but when the trapped item inside is burning this seems dangerous to me.
I see this as an answer. It contains two suggestions (thump the pot edge or heat it up) and testimony that one of them worked.
Carefully slide a single edge razor blade inbetween the lid and pot and it will release.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.068630 | 2017-10-15T02:39:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85011",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"JNK",
"Luciano",
"Marti",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
} |
82831 | Is burnt milk that sticks to a pan something used in cooking ever? Does it have a name?
This might be a weird question but I have to ask it anyway. I make my dad boiled milk and I find the burnt milk that sticks to bottom of the pan has got a really great taste.
Does it have a name and what sort of recipes would it be used in?
Welcome! I've made some slight edits to your question to make it on topic here. We aren't a recipe trading site, so asking for recipes is off topic but the name for this and the typical usage is on topic. How burnt is "burnt"? Can you add an image?
What kind of milk are you boiling? 2% A&D homogenized, pasteurized cow's milk?
Short answers (in Indian languages): Thirattu paal (in Tamil); Doodh peda or Khoya (in Hindi/northern dialects).
If you mean you just boiled and reduced the milk to its minimum volume, that is a common recipe for a "milk sweet" in many parts of India, to my knowledge. In south india, in the state of Tamil Nadu, it is called 'Thirattu paal'. That just loosely translates to 'stirred milk' where paal definitely stands for milk.
In the northern regions of india, it is an intermediary to "doodh peda" where doodh means milk and I dont know what peda means. Maybe it means "soft block".
Here's is one 'recipe` that calls for a low heat simmer, so things don't burn unless your vessel is thin bottomed. Usually heavy bottom vessels are used for low heat stirred sweet recipes with milk. You can add small amount of sugar, grated vanilla or cardamom powder etc to flavor it additionally.
'milk sweet' is roughly the translation of the Mexican 'dulce de leche', (sweet of milk) but most modern (American?) recipes start from sweetened, condensed milk rather than fresh milk.
It does not look that your answer is related to burnt milk.
It is, all you have to do is forget that you're simmering it and go watch your favorite show on demand. You WILL get burnt milk. Have lot of experience with this accidental burnt milk recipe.
Seriously though, it depends on the level of "burnt". Burning that occurs while boiling milk at medium heat is fairly similar in consistency to what I was attempting to describe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.069034 | 2017-07-06T23:47:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82831",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Catija",
"Enivid",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"spicetruck"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40562 | How to store a Christmas pudding to make it drier?
I have prepared a Christmas pudding but it came out too wet to our taste. What is the best way to store it to make it drier but without spoiling it?
A storage method that will dry out your pudding will essentially be staling it. Starches retrograde (lose moisture) fastest between 17F and 46F (-8c and 8c). Unfortunately, this not only causes the starches to release moisture, they also revert to their crystalline form which can make them unpalatable. If you still want to do this, the refrigerator is the perfect place to keep it in this temperature range, but it will still take some time to lose moisture.
Alternately you could speed evaporative moisture loss by storing it somewhere warm and dry (a low oven or over a pilot light?) Again, this will probably make your pudding dry in an unappealing way as the outside will dry faster than the interior.
Thanks. I've chosen to store it in the fridge at +2C. the texture and flavor definitely improved after being stored overnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.069474 | 2013-12-24T19:08:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40562",
"authors": [
"D Laquay",
"Enivid",
"Marilyn Pearse Piraino",
"Sushil Shukla",
"corporal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94342",
"pi a"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84069 | Am i able use overripe bananas in pancakes?
I'm trying to think of a different way to make pancakes and didn't want to throw away a banana I have, that's almost completely brown, but still has a little yellow. I heard you can use overripe bananas to bake, but wasn't sure if maybe i could cook it in a pancake. I'd really appreciate any advice and thank you.
Have done it many time, and quite good to me. Be prepared for a bit more cleanup than usual with pancakes. If they hit the griddle for me, they always stick.
My grandfather would have said it was just starting to be ripe enough to eat. IOW, your over-ripe banana is perfectly safe, as it's not over-ripe other than "by your expectations, having been trained to eat under-ripe bananas."
Yes absolutely! It's always a shame when people throw away perfectly good "baking bananas" because they think it is moldy. If you aren't quite ready to use it yet, you can keep dark bananas in your fridge. This will greatly slow the ripening process.
When bananas turn from green to black, a few things are happening:
Starch is turning into glucose
Acids are being neutralized
New aromas are developing
Below is a picture from Epicurious of the ripening process. And yes, you can absolutely get your bananas to turn completely black (assuming you have the patience!).
There are 2 ways you could add the banana to pancakes, and it really just depends on which you prefer.
Chopping the banana up into cubes no larger than 1/4", and mixing the pieces into the batter. This works best if the banana is firm.
If the banana is very soft, you can squish the banana up and then add it to your wet mix. Because it will be adding additional moisture to the batter, reduce the primary liquid (milk?) in the batter by around 1/4 cup. Add additional liquid if needed.
Sounds delicious. The ripe banana would work great incorportated into a standard batter - maybe even with a dash of cinnamon/nutmeg (i'm so ready for fall flavours now), or some chocolate chips, or as is!
You can also create a simple "healthy" pancake, with mashed ripe banana and egg mixed together.
Go for it! Ripened bananas are very versatile, flexible and easy to incorporate into most sweet recipes (sugar and starch).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.069607 | 2017-09-01T16:24:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84069",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84797 | Baking a tall cake in a regular pan
I need to make a thick one layer cake (3-4") but I don't have a pan that deep. Can I use parchment to add height?
Yes, you can do this like:
...though I would recommend multiple layers around.
That said, why is it that you "need" to do it this way rather than in layers? The actual baking of an 'extra thick' cake is likely to leave with cake that is over done at the edges and under done in the center.
... and probably very domed. +1
Thanks! This is what I was thinking of - hubby fixed the issue though when he found a 10" Calphalon loaf pan at the 2nd hand store. Plenty deep!
I am making a Batman cake, with the "bat signal" inside it. So I will make a sheet cake, about 1" thick, use a cookie cutter to cut out the bat. Then freeze the 10 or so bats, then put some batter at the bottom of the pan, lay in the bats and then surround them with more raw batter. Bake the whole thing - cut it open to see the bat! Like this: https://sweetandsavorymeals.com/easy-surprise-inside-batman-cake/
Thanks so much for your help!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.069802 | 2017-10-03T15:35:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84797",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Terry Haddix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61976"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84516 | I need a translation from Moroccan to English
My mother brought some spices back from her holiday in Morocco but I can't seem to find a translation of them they are
Cuorre
Pikante
Pimante Negra
Pimante Rojo
Kanela
Comeno
7 Especais Mexta
Jengebre
Courcuoma
Welcome! I've added bullets to your list. The way our formatting works, you need to either use double returns, bullets, or add a double space at the end of a line to have it actually break when it's rendered.
A lot of that looks like french.
@JourneymanGeek not at all. Reads like a mix of Spanish, Italian and a pinch of Portuguese with some "creativity" thrown in.
After a quick googling and just looking at the words.
Cuorre Pikante : Crushed Red Pepper Flakes
Pimante Negra : Black peppercorn.
Pimante Rojo : Pink peppercorn.
Kanela : Cinnamon
Comeno : Maybe the brand name of the 7 spice mix ?
7 Especais Mexta : 7 Spice mix.
Jengebre : Ginger
Courcuoma : Curcuma/Turmeric
Comeno - if I had to guess... "cumin". As a note, if you looked at the markup for the post, all of the items were on separate lines. I've added bullets now, to make it more clear, though.
Curcuma is more commonly called turmeric in English, I think.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.069930 | 2017-09-20T15:25:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84516",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kareen",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
86485 | Sugar won't dissolve in cacao butter
In an attempt to make (vegan) white chocolate I noticed that the sugar doesn't dissolve in the melted cacao butter.
For reference, this is the recipe I'm using: Organic Authority's "Four Ingredient Vegan White Chocolate Recipe"
I melt the cacao butter au bain-marie, add the coconut oil and melt that too. Then I add the vanilla and sugar. What happens next is that the sugar forms clumps and sinks to the bottom. Why does this happen? I'd love to understand this. (Putting the mixture in a high speed blender didn't help as well.)
In a previous attempt I tried heating the mixture directly in a sauce pan to the point where the sugar would 'melt' but this turned out to be a big mistake. The sugar seemed burned and the result was cacao butter with burned caramel. Needless to say I didn't eat it.
I have a hunch that I need an emulsifier in order to get a smoother result, however I have no experience in this at all.
When melting factory made chocolate au bain-marie I get a much creamier result which actually looks like melted chocolate. The chocolate I'm making is just very oily (with sugar lumps in it) and looks nothing like I would expect. What does it take to get such a result?
Sugar won't dissolve in cocoa butter. Or in coconut oil, for that matter.
When making chocolate, the sugar is smoothed and kept in suspension by prolonged grinding, conching, which is really a mechanical process... and one of the reasons making actual chocolate at home is very rare, absent specialized equipment, as the sugar crystals will not dissolve and this leaves a gritty product.
You might have better luck with powdered sugar, since it's already more finely ground. Or superfine or castor sugar, perhaps. I see that the recipe calls for coconut sugar, and I'm not sure there's commercial powdered or superfine, but you might be able to grind it more finely for a better result anyway. For powdered or castor sugar the amounts in volume will be a bit different - as the sugar will physically settle differently, plus the addition of cornstarch for powdered - but weight should be the same and there are conversions for volume measurements.
It may also help to cool the cocoa butter/coconut oil mix down to a thicker consistency (semisolid, maybe like softened butter, something of the sort) before mixing in the sugar, as the thicker texture should help keep the sugar in suspension rather than letting it settle out before the mix finishes cooling. With the cocoa butter/coconut oil mixture in that thicker state, the incorporation would look more like creaming.
Oh wow, I didn't know about the conching process, I guess I'll stick to store bought products. I might try mixing in the (powdered) sugar when the butter/oil is semisolid. Thanks :)
@siebz0r - yeah, most "homemade chocolate" either starts with storebought and modifies it, or else mixes it with something sugar can dissolve in (which makes a chocolate fudge, sauce, or confection, not pure chocolate bars or chunks). Conching chocolate at home is possible if you have a quality wet grinder, but that isn't common (outside of Indian households) and costs, as most quality kitchen appliances do, a couple hundred.
Your recipe states:
In a double boiler, gently melt the cacao butter over medium-low heat. Make sure to stir frequently. Mix in the coconut oil until both oils are uniform in texture. Add in the sugar and vanilla and use a whisk to help the sugar dissolve.
I think dissolve is the wrong word. I think what you're trying to achieve is creaming the sugar into the fat mixture. I'd absolutely believe that creaming the sugar wouldn't work well in a blender. Creaming is easy to do with a electric hand mixer in a bowl, or double boiler in this case.
Do you have any reference on how to do this creaming? Last time I did try using an electric hand mixer but I just got oil everywhere with the sugar lumps still in there.
Never done it with your particular ingredients, but there are a zillion hits on creaming the sugar with Google.
I agree that "dissolve" is the wrong word here, but "creaming" is also wrong. Creaming means that you whisk sugar crystals into solid butter at high enough speed and for long enough to slightly foam the butter (the sharp sugar crystals help). You cannot do it in melted fat, and doing it by hand (with sugar and solid butter and a whisk) takes over an hour (says McGee, I have only done it with a mixer).
Honey also separates out of a cocoa and coconut oil mix. After freezing the honey is all at the bottom of the moulds and the top mix is bitter.
Add a bit of milk (about1/3rd the amount of oils you used), helps the sugar dissolve almost immediately, but keep the amount low, don't want it to become fudge. Alternately, I've used Maple syrup with success.
You can always try using honey or corn syrup to sweeten your chocolate instead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.070065 | 2017-12-17T20:55:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86485",
"authors": [
"MaxW",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rumtscho",
"siebz0r"
],
"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
} |
82172 | Oven temp for dishes with different nominal cooking times?
I want to cook two dishes simultaneously (for efficiency's sake): carrots, which have a nominal cooking temp of 350 F / 180 C for 30 mins. and chicken, which has a nominal cooking temp of 400 F / 200 C for 45 mins. The Seasoned Advice posts I've read on this subject (here, here, here, and here) suggest the thing to do is cook at the lower temp first, then turn the oven to the higher temp; I can do that if necessary, but if possible I'd prefer to have everything in the oven at once, since the second dish cooks for a while.
If I put the carrots in at 400, how much should I reduce the cooking time? And how severely will it affect the result?
Roasting carrots at 400F for 20 minutes, according to this Food Network recipe: Roasted Carrots
I haven't followed that specific recipe, but changing your temp and time accordingly shouldn't create any problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.070428 | 2017-06-04T20:12:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82172",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.