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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
74446 | I am trying to design a pie, but I'm not sure what to take into consideration
I think a blueberry salmon pie with goat cheese would be delicious, but I am not a professional baker - just an amateur with a decent amount of experience and a good pie crust recipe.
So here are my questions:
Am I insane, or would that actually be tasty?
What things do I need to consider?
Chemistry.
Basically, if you were trying to make such a pie, what considerations would you take into account?
Questions about flavor pairings are off topic here because it's a matter of personal opinion. Everyone has their own thoughts on it and there's no "correct" answer. Can you be more specific about what you mean by "chemistry"? What are your concerns? Have you considered looking for similar recipes to try to find a recipe you can simply change rather than having to start from nothing? If so, you should consider posting it here and we will be more able to help you change the recipe rather than make one from scratch.
Question2: I think you should really consider the appearance of the resulting food. When the salmon contacts the dark blue/purple coloring of the blueberries, is that something you and your guests will be able to eat?
experiment, taste, experiment, taste, and experiment and taste some more; take notes; look at other pie recipes, check to see if there is a common thread between them.
And with what Max said -- you can experiment w/ the flavor by just making the blueberry, goat cheese, and crust separately, and then collecting some of each on a spoon, and taking a bite . (and then adjust amounts 'til you find a good ratio, or adjust in other ways (remove stuff, add stuff, etc.))
I suggest serving the blueberry component on the side (at least the first time) . Maybe something like redcurrant jelly or Cumberland sauce, but made with blueberries. This may well have more visual appeal as well as allowing you to leave it if the pairing doesn't work.
We can't answer #1, because it is simply a matter of opinion. You need to consider two things: crust and filling. Since you already have a good pie crust, this is just about filling. Flavor aside (as that is personal preference), you are going to want to consider consistency, that is, how the filling will behave when you cut the pie. You are probably going to need to experiment a bit. Traditional thickeners are flour, tapioca, and corn starch. Other considerations include visual appeal and flavor, but again, that is a matter of opinion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.070533 | 2016-10-02T16:27:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74446",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
83851 | How to explain why aluminum won't work on an induction stove?
Those cooks who use induction ranges love them, but some lament the limited type of pans available. Alas my powers of explanation are not good enough to explain how an induction stove works well enough to explain why aluminum is not suitable.
Now I think I could build one, but apparently I cannot explain them simply.
Induction cooking works by inducing a field in the metal of the cooking container so that the resultant currents cause energy dissipation.
For metal in the order of say 3 to 10 mm thick, at low enough frequencies the induced fields occur throughout the metal.
As the frequency is increased the heating zone occupies an area increasingly near the exterior of the metal due to what is known as 'skin effect.
Good Wikipedia discussion here: "skin effect".
Wikipedia says:
Skin effect is the tendency of an alternating electric current (AC) to become distributed within a conductor such that the current density is largest near the surface of the conductor, and decreases with greater depths in the conductor. The electric current flows mainly at the "skin" of the conductor, between the outer surface and a level called the skin depth. The skin effect causes the effective resistance of the conductor to increase at higher frequencies where the skin depth is smaller, thus reducing the effective cross-section of the conductor. The skin effect is due to opposing eddy currents induced by the changing magnetic field resulting from the alternating current. At 60 Hz in copper, the skin depth is about 8.5 mm. At high frequencies the skin depth becomes much smaller.
and, crucially:
Skin depth also varies as the inverse square root of the permeability of the conductor. In the case of iron, its conductivity is about 1/7 that of copper. However being ferromagnetic its permeability is about 10,000 times greater. This reduces the skin depth for iron to about 1/38 that of copper, about 220 micrometres at 60 Hz. Iron wire is thus useless for AC power lines.
This combination of features, that leads to high losses in iron compared with copper, makes it useless for low loss power transmission lines BUT superior for causing inductive losses and heating when using the best practically available technology.
However, one of the factors in losses in material is the frequency of the AC field. As the frequency increases the skin depth decreases, the resistance of the conducting material increases accordingly and losses increase. For copper skin depth with frequency varies as shown in the table below. :
Skin depth in copper
[Table from Wikipedia. ]
At present consumer market power switching semiconductors are limited to maximum switching frequencies of around 100 kHz by economic considerations. Frequencies in this range re entirely adequate for heating iron cooking equipment. Typical frequencies in use are in fact in the 20-100 kHz range with around 25 kHz being common.
When (or if) developments in semiconductor switches allow economic power switching at frequencies in the 1 to 10 MHz range copper skin depths will be reduced, compared to that at 20 kHz by a factor of about 10 to 30 times. This would reduce the Copper skin depth to about that of Iron at 20 kHz. Due to the higher resistivity of iron the losses and thus the heating in Copper would still be lower but probably high enough to allow innovative Copper based heating solutions to be developed.
Copper compared to Alumium / Aluminum / Aluminium *
Aluminum skin depth is about 1.25 x that of Copper.
Aluminium resistivity is about 1.6 x that of Copper.
So Alumium heating at the same frequency is liable to be about 25% more than for Copper. Which is close enough to identical given all the second order affects liable to be encountered.
Re Alumium / Aluminum / Aluminium -
blame Sir Humphry Davy :-)
As understand the ad copy, Panasonic's "all metal" induction hob is switching at 120kHz. http://business.panasonic.com/KY-MK3500.html Which would indicate that 1MHz is not needed.
@ShannonSeverance They MAY use pure cooking vessel targeted induction, BUT I suspect that they are "cheating". After reading your comment I searched to try to establish what they claimed to be doing. It's not totally clear anywhere (that I could find) BUT they mention heating of the actual cooktop almost everywhere, and on this page they say ...
... " ... Efficient 1200 copper-wire coil detects different pan types and generates energy up to 90 kHz to heat only the cooktop area in contact with the base of the pan in conjunction with the IR sensor for optimal efficiency in the kitchen. ...". || Also: The heating capacity of 3500 Watts is utterly immense and suggests that they may produce a power level that is vast overkill for steel pots but which a smaller fraction of is adequate for eg Copper. TBD ...
The linked Panasonic is a commercial product. In that market offering 3.5kW induction hobs is very ordinary. I think the PR Newswire piece is poorly written. From the product page, "The electrical resistance in the pan's metal heats only the pan, not the entire cooktop." But I don't know the physics side of this at all to evaluate their claims from that angle.
I would recommend against too high of a frequency. 2.45 Ghz heats water molecules very efficiently (which is why it is the frequency that microwaves use), but lower frequencies also interact with water molecules. The human body is mostly water, an induction stove that cooks the cook is not very safe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.070841 | 2017-08-18T02:20:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83851",
"authors": [
"Questor",
"Russell McMahon",
"Shannon Severance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949"
],
"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
} |
37070 | How to substitute butter with combination of butter and shortening in cookie/biscuit making?
Sometimes when I bake cookies, they either come out too soft or they become rock hard. I have read somewhere that baking cookies with butter makes is spreadable in the oven and gives it crispy texture, while using shortening makes it firm in the oven and gives it a flaky texture. What if I can use both in any of the cookie recipe replacing it with 100% butter or shortening? I want my cookies to have melting in the mouth and flaky texture.
The texture of a cookie is based on much more than the fat used, shortening or butter. In fact, within some basic limits, they are fairly interchangeable in most cookie recipes, flavor not withstanding.
Switching to part or all vegetable shortening will not yield a flaky texture.
The method by which the ingredients are combined, and how the cookies are treated, mixed, or rolled is a dominant factor in the final texture.
As Sourd'oh points out, your variation is more likely to be a result of over-cooking or under-cooking. The individual size of each cookie can make a considerable difference, especially with very small cookies.
If you are getting inconsistency within the same tray, you may not have uniformly sized cookies. A cookie scoop or disher can help with that, as can practice.
To get a truly flaky texture, you would need to use a recipe and method specifically designed to create flakiness. These cookies are often built with a variation on the laminated methods used for biscuits, where butter is cut into the dough, and then moistened. When they are rolled out, the pieces of butter flatten into layers, separating the flour layers, and providing the flakiness.
You certainly can use a combination of butter and shortening in most recipes. The key difference is the melting point of each. Butter melts at a lower temperature, so the cookies will begin to spread before the starch and eggs set. Shortening melts at a higher temperature so the starch and eggs will begin to set up before the shortening melts. Neither one of these will make your cookies "rock hard" though, that's more likely from them being overbaked.
You can replace shortening 1 for 1 with butter in most cookies. I commonly replace up to half or all of the butter in a cookie recipe with shortening. (I like to get shortening stick form for this; to simplify measuring.) It's been my experience that using shortening instead of butter can reduce the greasiness of a cookie, though you will usually see a little less browning during baking. So start out by baking a batch with half the butter replaced by an equal volume of shortening.
But, if your cookies are either too hard or too soft, the main culprit probably isn't the presence of butter. The first thing I would look at is how you're measuring flour - too much flour will lead to hard cookies and too little will prevent the cookies from staying together. The most accurate way to measure flour is by weight with a scale. If you only have measuring cups (measure by volume), then the most accurate method of measuring would be to pour flour into the cup, and level it off the cup with a flat edge.
If your cookies are spreading too much, it's more likely that your dough is too warm (due to a warm room temperature); try chilling the formed cookies for 20 minutes in the refrigerator before baking. Also, it could be that your oven's temperature is too low; use an in-oven thermometer and perhaps a baking stone (or bricks, or any other thermal mass).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.071267 | 2013-09-25T14:57:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37070",
"authors": [
"A L",
"Bruna Mclaren",
"David Medinets",
"George Massih ",
"Jakedalus",
"Joanne Basham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87088",
"idrissa soukouna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77244 | Why didn't my cheesecake bites come out right?
I used cream cheese, condensed milk, sugar and vanilla extract and some chopped oreos to make Oreo cheesecake bites. The crust was an actual Oreo. I baked this for an hour and when I took it out it wasn't sweet and it didn't come out like a cheese cake. It wasn't creamy like a cheesecake and it was a little bit hard on top. What did I do wrong? Please help
Did you use a recipe? If so, can you post it?
The only thing I can think of that'd make a cheesecake not sweet (without some really obvious failure, like being burnt to charcoal) would be not enough sugar. Did your recipe maybe expect sweetened condensed milk, and you substituted regular condensed milk? (Well, presuming you know the recipe works—there are plenty of terrible recipes on the Internet).
The 'not creamy' can come from overcooking -- because the bites are much smaller than a full cheesecake, it's much more prone to overcooking.
I think Joe is right... An hour baking for something cupcake sized is a lot. If your recipe was for a full-sized cheesecake and you didn't cut the baking time considerably, these are really overbaked.
Please post the recipe and any changes you made, as currently it is a little bit too much guesswork.
My immediate response would be that an hour for cheesecake bites seems to be way to long. The smaller your baked goods are, the faster they bake. I
I would lower the baking temperature slightly and reduce the time by at least half and test fro there.
If they are baked as a pan and cut, then the oven itself might be running hot, and you may want to check if it is accurate. Again try baking at a lower temp, cheesecake does well at lower temperatures. Could even try baking them in a water bath to keep them from getting to hot.
As to it not being sweet enough, the simple fix is to increase the sugar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.071568 | 2017-01-07T23:51:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77244",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Scherer",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77436 | My new pan has a max temperature of 350 F but the recipe calls for 425 F. What should I do?
My recipe calls for an oven temp of 425 degrees but my pan can only withstand 350 degrees per manufacturers instructions.
If the original recipe called for 15 minutes at 425 degrees. How long would it be at 350 degrees?
What are you making? There's no universal conversion; some things may just not quite work the same at 350 as at 425.
What sort of pan? Check if the specified temperatures are degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Yeah, a pan doesn't seem too useful if it can only go to 350. Unless its like a rubber handle or something on a pan designed for the stovetop?
a "disposable (possibly reusable a few times with care) aluminum
foil pan" would be a cheap route to a pan that takes normal oven temperatures. A secondhand store (yard sale, garage sale, jumble sale, flea market) would be another.
If general temperature conversions worked like that, you could leave something at 20°C room temperature for 10 hours instead of baking it at 200°C for an hour. Won't work.
The best solution is - use a different pan if you want the recipe's advertised results.
If something is baking at 425 F for only 15 minutes, it's very likely that you need that high heat to get the result you want - which is generally going to give you a toasty, well-browned exterior and a cool, just done interior.
If getting an oven-safe pan isn't possible, you can certainly change your oven temperature to 350 F but be aware that, depending on your oven, it may not be properly calibrated1 and it may actually be hotter than 350 F, which means you may be damaging your pan or exposing your food to fumes that the plastics in it are giving off when being overheated. So, even then, I'd be hesitant to recommend cooking it at 350 unless you have an oven thermometer and know your oven heats to the correct temperature.
So, my recommendation would be to go even lower, 325 F or so and then start at your original cooking time (15 minutes). If this is some sort of meat (including fish) use a probe thermometer to check the internal temperature every few minutes after that. Depending on the readings you get, you can go for more or less time... if you're half-way to your target internal temperature after 15 minutes, you can probably go about 5-7 minutes more before checking but as you approach the temperature, you're going to want to wait only a minute or two.
If this is some sort of baked good (cake, cookie, etc), I'm more concerned that you won't like the outcome at this lower temperature but you might get lucky. Check it after 15 minutes and then every couple of minutes until it reaches the done test described in the recipe, whether that's poking it with a toothpick or golden color etc.
I can't give you one number to aim for because time is an incredibly poor way to cook anything, so you shouldn't be using time to cook anyway. Always cook based on the doneness cues mentioned in the recipe. If your recipe doesn't include these non-temporal cues, you're probably better off finding a new recipe.
For a scientific discussion of this, I recommend you read the excellent answer to this related question.
Note, even a properly-calibrated oven will still heat to a temperature around your target because it cycles on and off. So, it will likely overheat slightly, turn off the heating element until the temperature drops below the target and then heat back up again.
First and foremost I hope your pan is oven safe (all parts can be heated and won't melt in ex. plastic). To be 100 % sure read your manual or there might be a specification on the pan itself. As for the time you need to cook it, it will always vary so the universal rule of cooking is to cook until it's done. You should never follow a recipe blindly (your slices might be thicker, oven weaker, etc), instead just check your dish in 6-7 minute intervals once you think it's near cooked.
Hope this helps :)
6-7 minute intervals when something is only baking for 15 minutes total, is a really, really wide interval.
I agree, different applications will definitely call for adjustments in method! Think of it this way: you do it once per recipe - next time you know the exact time it takes you and your pan/oven/grill...
Assuming the temperature limitation is caused by some plastic parts on the handle, take one or two sheets of tinfoil, wrap the handle with it and proceed with your recipe and the original temperature instructions.
I've done this uncounted times, works fine and my pans don't suffer from the oven heat.
However, if the limitation is not caused by some plastic parts but the pan itself: throw it out and get yourself some real tools. 425 F (220 °C) are not extraordinarily high, so your cookware should easily withstand them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.071752 | 2017-01-13T23:23:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77436",
"authors": [
"Adelina",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53591",
"rackandboneman",
"vclaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76559 | Adding water to a pan-fried burger
I picked up this trick from one of the restaurants I used to work at.
When cooking a beef hamburger on a med-high stove-top, they would add a half ounce of water midway through cooking and cover the pan. It's the only way I cook my burgers now, as I've noticed a significant difference in fat content reduction.
Can anyone explain the science behind this reduced fat content?
Possible duplicate of Why do fry cooks use water to cook burgers?
What do you mean by "fat content reduction"? Do you mean you think the burgers contain less fat or that they loose less fat?
I'm voting to leave open because the dupe only addresses half of the question posed here.
@Catija Then I would VTC based on too broad (multiple questions). They are not even directly related questions and no proof to the assertion that steam reduces fat content.
A question based on a false premise isn't closable. Answer the question and say the premise is wrong if you feel that it is.
With this method, you are effectively steaming the meat which allows the top of the burger to cook directly, instead of the gradient heating that happens from pan to bottom to top of the burger. Therefore the cooking time will be reduced because you can cook for less time once you flip to the other side.
I've not seen this technique used to reduce the fat content before, and I can't comment on the science behind that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.072129 | 2016-12-16T20:55:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81730 | How crucial is cornmeal?
I have a recipe for bread bowls that are made from scratch and seem to be lacking cornmeal.
From the recipe:
Place loaves on lightly greased baking sheets sprinkled with cornmeal.
Is cornmeal necessary?
If it is, is there a substitute?
This will be my first time making bread properly, and I don't want to mess up anything crucial.
The cornmeal gives some texture to the end result, and helps prevent the bread from sticking to the surface by acting as little ball bearings. It's not essential unless you have a very sticky dough, then I'd suggest using baking parchment if you have it. Otherwise, if the dough is not super sticky grease the pans really well and you ought to be fine.
A good substitute for cornmeal is semolina, but if you can find that cornmeal isn't likely to be an issue to source.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.072275 | 2017-05-16T21:45:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81730",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81574 | Can I substitute condensed milk for evaporated milk in icing?
My icing recipe for German chocolate cake pecan icing calls for evaporated milk, but I only have condensed milk. Can I use the condensed milk instead?
If so, do I need to make any adjustments to it?
Yes you can.
If you have unsweetened condensed milk, that is another name for evaporated milk and they are interchangeable.
If you have sweetened condensed milk, you can use one 14 oz can to replace one cup of evaporated milk and one cup of granulated sugar.
By 'oz' do you mean weight ounces, or fluid ounces? I ask because the other two measurements you gave are both cups (volume based). Better safe than sorry.
@mech I was referring to a particular can size which is stated as 14 oz. on the label.
@mech It would be fluid ounces.
Yes, you can. Condensed milk and evaporated milk have the same consistency (almost) simply because both of them are made by the same process of evaporating 60% of the water content but the similarity ends there. Because sweet condensed milk contains added sugar you can substitute condensed milk with evaporated milk by adding some sugar in it.
Hi Madison and welcome! The last sentence of your answer is confusing and, in fact, opposite of what your linked reference states. Please edit to correct the provided information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.072372 | 2017-05-11T01:21:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81574",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"mech"
],
"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
} |
79003 | UK laws regarding consumption of food or beverages in a commercial kitchen?
When cooking in a commercial kitchen in the UK, what are the rules about consuming food or beverages while on shift?
I was previously trained to not eat or drink freely in the kitchen. If hydration was required, we had to drink our water it at the allocated sink and go back to work. The place I'm at now seems to allow sipping constantly from a mug of tea or bottle of water leaving the bottle or mug here and there on work tops.
Does it depend on place of work, or is there a food hygiene law about it?
Cooks taste food in the kitchen all the time
About the only perk to being a chef is eating the fancy foods, which you have not even the dream of being able to afford on the measly less than minimum wage you get paid for slaving over rich ungrateful customers food night in night out.
No safety law I've ever heard of, probably just some over cautious owner trying to increase their bottom line by ensuring nothing is ever eaten or drank that may possibly cost them any pennies.
In one place I worked, we had to learn to shove full sandwiches in our mouths, so the boss didn't catch us eating during our 14 hour shifts (with no staff food or dinner breaks).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.072502 | 2017-03-09T16:42:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79003",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82100 | Pound cake sticks to pan - need alternate solution
My pound cakes stick to the pan regardless of the efforts I take. I have used baking spray, olive oil, butter, butter & flour, and tin foil strips. I have cooled completely, placed in the freezer until solid and still have to chip it out. The recipe is 3 cups granulated sugar, 1 cup butter, 6 eggs, 2 cups all purpose flour, 1 cup self rising flour, and for the liquid I use 8 oz of either sour cream, buttermilk, sweetened condensed milk. One time I added 6 bananas, chopped pecans and mini chocolate chips and it did NOT stick quite as bad. What can I do to prevent this?
What type of pan are you using? Can you post the recipe you're following? Do you have success releasing other recipes from this pan?
Did you try lining the bottom with parchment paper?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/32877/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/59887/67
@Catija - It is any pan I use for this recipe. I use 9" rounds, a bundt pan, or loaf pans all non stick surfaces. The recipe is 1 cup self rising flour, 2 cups all purpose flour, 3 cups sugar, 6 eggs, 8 oz liquid (sweetened condensed milk, buttermilk, sour cream, etc) 3 sticks butter and vanilla baked at 325 for one hour. I have used parchment and tin foil to line the pans.
I am wondering if it is the recipe. It is a hand-me- down from the 50's and I think that it is using too much sugar and maybe butter.
Which of the liquid options are you using?
Try to lower the sugar content a bit. And edit the question to add the recipe, as stickiness depends on the recipe and the mould. Normally if it sticks too much, regardless of oiling and flouring the mould, then the culprit is the sugar content...
There are thousands of recipes for pound cake out there... if you really have this much trouble with it, you might be better off finding a new one.
What can I do to prevent this?
You can line the pan with parchment, including folding it into the corners, so that the pound cake never even touches the pan.
You can liberally lube the bottom of the pan and/or use parchment just in the bottom. When you remove the cake from the oven, run a knife between the pan and cake on all four sides to release it.
Before adding the batter, you can make sure the pan is very clean, i.e. no burned on bits, solidified oils, caramelized sugars, etc. Conversely, if it's a cast iron pan, you could try to season it again by coating in a neutral oil and baking it (empty) at high temperature for an hour or so.
You can use a different, possibly non-stick pan. Loaf pans often get scratched up when people use knives to cut slices of loaf cakes right in the pan, and those scratches can make it hard to get the cake to release. And just switching to a different material might make a difference for your recipe.
You can use a different recipe. Proteins and sugars both like to stick to surfaces, and moisture level plays a role too; fats should help to promote better releasing.
You can make sure you're baking at the right temperature and not under- or over-baking the cake. If the cake isn't sufficiently cooked it may be too moist on the bottom, which can prevent it from releasing. If it's overcooked, it may start to burn or at least really stick to the pan.
You can lower your standards a little. Cakes and quick breads made in loaf pans often have trouble releasing from the pan without help. Unless you want to present the cake outside the pan, it's often easiest to slice them in the pan. (Just avoid using a knife with a sharp point so you don't scratch you pan. ;-)
Thank you for your suggestions! I was wondering if the sugar or butter content was too high so I asked the original baker. She said that she has always had a problem with the cakes sticking. I think I am going to adjust the recipe and reduce the sugar content to see if that will correct the issue. She also uses an old fashioned cake pan that I think is for angel food cake made out of aluminum.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.072630 | 2017-05-30T18:19:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82100",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Sherri C. Schoolcraft",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82498 | Why does whipped cream use nitrous oxide instead of nitrogen gas?
It seems that nitrous oxide (N2O) is frequently used to create whipped cream. But why can't just regular nitrogen gas (N2) be used instead?
This seems to have more to do with chemistry rather than food (it probably applies to many pressurized food products). You might ask on Chemistry SE.
If someone could translate this article into an answer, it might be a good answer. Sadly, I can't do it now and I can't verify if it's accurate.
Because N2O produces "bubbles" that combine with the fat when expelled from the can, N2 will not produce the same "bubbling" effect and simply will expel thickened milk. But sure a chemist will say you why ;)
Ahh, so N2 would be too inert for that purpose?
For cross-referencing purposes, this question has be re-asked at Chemistry SE: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/76505/11616 where it has several answers.
To aerosolize the cream to make whipped cream requires the gas be able to be dissolved in the cream. Nitrogen just does not dissolve in cream that well. It could be done with O2. But that would cause it to spoil almost as soon as it was made. For these reasons Nitrous Oxide is used instead of just Nitrogen or Oxygen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.073042 | 2017-06-19T23:30:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82498",
"authors": [
"ManRow",
"Mołot",
"R.M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58686",
"roetnig",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82945 | Difference between "Sweet" , "Yellow" ,"White" and "Chives"
So I am working on this recipe here. I have previously used this meal service, but I loved it so much I am making it again. But I don't want to pay for all the ingredients again.
I have a small farm and have grown my own lemongrass just for this purpose. But, I have also grown my own "Sweet onions" as well.
They look similar to this, but are not done growing. They have a larger bulb though (And on the picture of the seed bag, it showed a much larger bulb).
So, can I use my garden onions or are these different? The tops of my onions are hollow (Not sure if that means anything).I heard that Yellow and Sweet are the same, but I thought they were not. I live in Texas, and I think it might be a kind cultivated in the area? Or not. I don't know.
Also, what exactly is a chive. I am not sure. All these onion things are confusing me.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3329/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2304/67 .
There's a great guide to onions that covers most of these and more over on Serious Eats (all of the quotes below are from this article). But, in relation to your question:
White onions are the standard onion you'll see. They are white.
Serious eats describes them as:
The white versions are somewhat sweeter and cleaner in flavor, but don't store quite as well as yellow onions do. [. . .] Milder in flavor than yellow onions, white onions can be eaten raw.
Yellow onions are apparently the most popular type of onion in the US. They are yellow but otherwise pretty similar in appearance to white onions.
Yellow onions are undoubtedly Americans' favorite: nearly 90 percent of onions grown in the US are yellow. Their deep but not-too-strong flavor makes them endlessly versatile in cooking. Larger, slightly sweeter yellow onions labeled Spanish onions are often found right next to plain old yellow onions; they're a milder choice that works well for raw applications.
Sweet onions are specialty onions... there are a bunch of varieties. In Texas, you're probably familiar with the "Texas 1015". Similar varieties are the Vidalia of Georgia and the Walla Walla of Washington.
These onions are yellow like a yellow onion but they are more saucer-shaped than round. They're very sweet and can be eaten raw pretty comfortably.
Super-sweet and crisp, ideal for eating raw.
Your "sweet onions" are probably what the Serious Eats description classifies as "young onions" they fit your description - visually similar to green onions/scallions (they are the same thing) but with a more bulbous base.
Though spring onions resemble scallions in appearance and flavor, they're actually just very young storage onions—yellow, red and white—that are pulled out of the ground at an earlier date, when they're still thin-skinned and mild in flavor.
As to your question about chives, they resemble tiny scallions. They're sold in bunches but aren't really layered the way a scallion is.
They're generally sold in bunches and don't have white bulbs at all. They're generally just used as a topping, like on baked potatoes. They have a pretty mild onion flavor.
Here's a fun infographic from Buzzfeed about different types of onions:
to add to the chives bit -- they're treated as an herb, both in harvesting (letting the bulb continue to grow between seasons) and in cooking (sprinkled on a finished dish, not cooked or it loses much of its flavor)
You say that, in the US, yellow onions are more common than white. This is also the case in the UK, where we call them brown onions. I'm not sure that saying 'white onions are the standard onion that you will see' is accurate for many countries. Perfect answer otherwise
I'd also say that yellow onions are the US "favorite" more because they have the higher sulfur content that makes them store better (claim made by the guide, not Catija). That's more a matter of a market/convenience decision by producers, not any innate popularity based on preference. It would be like saying that standard grocery store produce tomatoes are "favorites," or those giant, bland, flavor-less strawberries you can get year-round.
@PoloHoleSet I have to admit that I find it amusing that yellow onions are the "favorite"... I've never bought one. I pretty much only use sweet onions or shallots.
When I had a large vegetable garden and grew all our own vegetables for summer and a lot for winter storage and pickling too, I'd grow some onions for winter but mainly the young scallions for eating fresh. In spring, I'd plant those little onion sets sold by the hundreds in bags so I could have fresh scallions quickly. But I also planted lots of seeds of a sweet onion variety. As the onion sets were getting bigger and not as nice tasting, I'd let the remaining ones grow large for winter storage onions. The onion seeds were getting big enough to eat when I stopped harvesting the scallions from the onion sets. I had fresh scallions till early spring to early fall this way. Sweet onion seeds I had started early (while it was still late winter) were transplanted to grow sweet onions for winter (though they didn't keep as long). There wasn't much of a bulb to them. I discovered why years later.
Sweet onions are generally found the closer one gets to the equator. Sweet onions are what's called short day onions. In summer, the daylight hours are less than the day is further north. The long day onions are hotter - the yellow onions most are familiar with. The latitude of the upper border of Texas is 36.5° N and if you a couple of degrees south of that, you're likely more familiar with sweet onions.
South of 35 degrees latitude, with its shorter summer day lengths, gardeners need to grow short day onions, ones that form bulbs when the days are 10 to 12 hours long. Short day onions are planted in the fall in the south and grown through the winter for spring harvest or sown in very early spring. Some of the well-known sweet onions are short day varieties. Because of their higher water content, most short day onions do not store well and are best for fresh eating.
from The Long and Short of Onions
Don't forget about garlic chives (aka Chinese chives) either! They're delicious though not that many people in North America, outside of the Asian community, know about them. The have flat (not hollow) leaves and are very mild. They don't have any garlic flavour that I notice but that may be because I use enough garlic often enough that I wouldn't notice. In a strange twist, I found the decorative flowers smelled like mild jasmine.
Since you're in Texas, you should try red Torpedo onions. They're a shaped like an elongated football and are a sweet mild onion originating from Italy. They're started on the late fall and form their bulbs in early spring.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.073179 | 2017-07-11T16:25:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82945",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"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
} |
86197 | Recipe calls for rolled oats, I have old fashioned oats - can I substitute them in cookies?
Can old fashioned oats be used when a cookie recipe calls for rolled oats?
Possible duplicate of Difference between old fashioned and quick oats?
@senschen This is not a dupe... "Quick Oats" are not the same thing as "rolled oats".
Yes, Old Fashioned Oats and Rolled Oats are two names for the same thing. To wit: "Rolled oats are traditionally oat groats that have been dehusked and steamed, before being rolled into flat flakes under heavy rollers and stabilized by being lightly toasted." (from Wikipedia)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.073706 | 2017-12-08T15:24:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86197",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68514 | How to keep rice in a biryani from burning and sticking together?
The bottom part of my Biryani always gets burnt, rice always gets sticky but I want each grain separated. How can I prevent burning & stickiness of rice?
The key is to have sufficient moisture. So you need to have just enough of water at the bottom and do the dumming on low heat for 20 to 30 minutes. Needing each grain to be separate is a poor practice that's only meant for presentation. Rice always needs to be well cooked, and that requires cooking/steaming it well enough with more than 2 cups water per cup of rice if necessary such that rice becomes soft and properly cooked. At that stage, rice grains sticking to each other is perfectly normal. Read up about amylose and amylopectin.
Some options:
Prepare the biryani in an oven (used when making biryani with uncooked meat) in a really thick, covered oven pan, with no foiling at 200 degrees Celsius for around 30 mins. It won't stick to the bottom or get burnt.
Keep a cast iron tawa underneath the pot the rice is in. Rice won't stick.
Add some ghee at the bottom of the rice before layering.
Keep the heat low. "Dum"ming the biryani is steaming it rather than cooking it with high heat. You'll also need to seal the container.
The sticky rice at the bottom is called "khurchan", and some people actually find it delicious. The burnt rice is because of the lack of liquid and the high heat. Happens mainly because the water evaporates while cooking.
There's a similar question asked here: How do I avoid dry meat and burned masala and rice in biryana?
Great advice. Point 2(tawa) is a must-do if one is cooking in stove and the pot is thin-bottomed.
Soak the rice for 10 - 30 minutes. Drain the water completely and in low flame fry the rice in 1 - 2 tbsp of Ghee and then add it to your briyani masala .
If you are using pressure cooker, add the rice after the meat is cooked and make sure that the water just covers the rice. and pressure cook it in low flame and turn off the heat after one whistle and let it to rest. The pressure will cook the rice and make you meat tender.
Hope this helps.
I had that same problem. Turn down the heat. I use a ceramic pot, and put it just over 2 (thats electric cooker for me).
If it really starts to shimmer i think its to much heat. I put it on the heat just over 2 and then turn it of after 25-30 mins, let it rest in the meantime. Keep the lid on and don't open it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.073783 | 2016-04-24T04:35:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68514",
"authors": [
"Nav",
"Ron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812"
],
"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
} |
68293 | Marinara Sauce recipe
I've been trying cook Marinara Sauce for a while now, I visited the states and had that sauce in their pizza hut. When I got back i tried cooking the same Pizza hut Marinara sauce but can never get the same taste or anything close aha. The only thing I have been able to do is get the texture and consistency right.
I have been looking at copycat ingredients but they haven't seemed to do the trick, or maybe it's just me? The recipe i am using is written below:
1 (15 ounce) can tomato sauce
1⁄4 cup water
1 teaspoon sugar
1⁄4 teaspoon dried oregano
1⁄4 teaspoon dried basil leaves
1⁄4 teaspoon dried thyme
1⁄4 teaspoon garlic powder
1⁄4 teaspoon salt
1⁄8 teaspoon black pepper
1 whole bay leaf
1⁄2 teaspoon lemon juice
Does this seem correct? Thanks for the help in advance. :)
Copycat ingredients or copycat recipes? Where did you get the recipe you're using?
I believe that this may be the source of the recipe: http://www.recipe4living.com/recipes/copycat_pizza_hut_marinara_sauce.htm
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074004 | 2016-04-15T16:37:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68293",
"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
} |
75766 | Can I substitute two percent milk for low fat milk and bourbon in a cake recipe?
I'm making Banana-Nut Pound Cake and the recipe calls for low-fat milk or bourbon. I don't have these two ingredients. Can I substitute 2% milk instead?
While seeing the recipe might help (feel free to edit your answer to add the recipe and method), I feel pretty safe saying that you will be fine making this substitution.
It's likely that the fat percentage in the milk is to reduce the calorie content, not because it changes the final product. A one percent fat difference isn't going to change the outcome much, if at all.
The bourbon is likely there for flavoring, so omitting it will change the flavor of the cake but won't likely do much else. If you have another liquor that you like, you could substitute that, too. Something with a nutty flavor like amaretto would be good, or something commonly used with bananas, like rum.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074101 | 2016-11-23T02:42:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75766",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76900 | What oil has a smoking temperature high enough for broiling?
Lately we have been broiling vegetables in the oven with a little bit of extra virgin olive oil on them, but we keep setting off the smoke alarm in the kitchen although the vegetables come out deliciously. What oil has a high enough smoking temperature to be appropriate?
Maybe a silly question, but how sure are you that the oil is what's smoking? That is to say, when I am broiling something, sometimes I'll get smoke - not from what I'm making, but from old oil or the occasional bits left on the baking stone or fallen through the rack to the bottom of the oven, or if there were stains on the pan (oil baked on, mostly) that might scorch and smoke even if the pan is clean enough to cook on. If you're not tasting burnt oil on your cooking, maybe the first step is to give everything a thorough cleaning and see if that will help prevent the smoke?
Tray is smoking when we pull it out.
Ah, I see. You might get some results adding a silicone mat or parchment to the bottom of the tray (bare metal will likely get hotter than your vegetables, so any oil sitting on the pan will likely smoke more) but other than that, I guess Catija's answer covers it. Or else roast with very little oil (a high smoke point neutral one), and drizzle a bit of olive oil when you pull it out just for the flavor. Happy cooking :)
If you like the taste but not the fire alarm, either turn on your hood/vent or disconnect the fire alarm while cooking. If the flavor isn't burned, changing the oil will likely change the flavor as olive oil has a distinct flavor that is missing in other oils.
If this isn't a solution for you, choose any neutral, high smoke point oil you like. Canola is popular choice for most vegetables. It has little flavor and a decently high, 400°F/205°C, smoke point, somewhat higher than olive oil's 325-375°F/165-190°C.
For a really high smoke point, try safflower (510°F/265°C), or even light olive oil (465°F/240°C), though you may have the slightly lower soybean or peanut oils (450°F/230°C) in your kitchen already. The chart lists peanut as "neutral" but I tend to feel it has a flavor and it has the added issue of being a no-go for people with peanut allergies.
If you have the time, you might also consider clarified butter (450°F/230°C), which should be delicious with vegetables.
Would a mix of canola and olive oil give the flavour without so much smoke?
People who are allergic to peanuts can typically consume peanut oil. https://www.foodallergy.org/allergens/peanut-allergy says: "The FDA exempts highly refined peanut oil from being labeled as an allergen. Studies show that most individuals with peanut allergy can safely eat peanut oil (but not cold-pressed, expelled or extruded peanut oil – sometimes represented as gourmet oils). If you are allergic to peanuts, ask your doctor whether or not you should avoid peanut oil."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074197 | 2016-12-29T01:27:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76900",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"verbose",
"wogsland"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67349 | How to prevent homemade soy milk separating in hot tea?
How to stop my homemade soy milk separating in my hot cup of tea. I'm not giving up my lovely hot sweet one cup a day black tea!
What do I need to do to make the ideal organic soy milk for hot beverages?
Please don't advise me to cool the tea. That is NOT what I want.
Your personal health choices are irrelevant to the question and are off topic on this site so I have removed them.
Related Q. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30060/why-does-salt-prevent-soy-milk-from-curdling-in-hot-coffee
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78071/what-nondairy-milk-does-not-curdle-when-heated
The problem you encounter is that soy milk curdles when coming in contact with high acidity and high temperatures. Sadly, it's a chemical reaction that will almost always happen when soy milk comes in contact with high temperatures and acidity. If you want your soy milk to incorporate nicely, try finding a way to lower the acidity, or try to lower the temperature of the tea before you pour the soy milk into it.
You can also try pouring the soy milk first or add a sprinkle of salt.
Please note that no matter what, high temperatures usually result in coagulation when in contact with acidity.
Source:
https://coffee.stackexchange.com/questions/425/how-to-avoid-soya-milk-curdling-in-coffee
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074433 | 2016-03-12T04:21:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67349",
"authors": [
"Andy Burke",
"Bella Dora",
"Catija",
"David G.",
"Paulb",
"Shell Hiller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"janice wallace",
"rumtscho",
"sam ali"
],
"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
} |
67812 | Advice on two-tier cake and height
What is the recommended height of cakes when making a two-tier chocolate mud cake? Or to get a decent height, should I make (as an example) two shallow nine-inch rounds for the bottom layer and two shallow seven-inch rounds for the top layer?
Are you planning on adding supports in the lower tier (dowels and such) or are you hoping to just be able to set the upper tier on top of the lower tier? If you're hoping to go support-less, you typically need a firmer cake, which mud cakes typically aren't.
As a note before the post I am more scientist than baker.
The stress you can put on a structure before it severely deforms depends on a lot of things including it's Young's modulus. These are very well understood for construction materials but I came across this paper which discussed it for various cake recipes (PDF). The recipe I found for mud cake has about 27% flour so I used values accordingly for my calculation.
If we assume that we do not want more than a 5% deformation (this may seem like a small number but my estimation is an attempt at being conservative, plus it would be at the very least noticeable) then the maximum height would be about 28 inches.
Or to put it another way, your two 9 in pans for the bottom layer and the 7 in for the top would make a delicious cake with some room left over for frosting. If you are really concerned about structure I also came across this recipe which kind of talked about that as well (much more so from a baking perspective).
Other info from Epicurious.
I do not have experience with mud cake. If it isn't a very sturdy cake, you may need to add supports (i.e. dowels and cake rounds). If it is sturdy like a yellow or white cake, you can stack them without adding supports.
Here is a picture of a cake I made using 9 inch pans for the base and 6 inch pans for the top. There were three layers of cake on each tier.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074580 | 2016-03-28T00:20:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67812",
"authors": [
"Catherine Scott",
"Gary Tipton",
"Jessica Herrera",
"Joan Cumming",
"Joe",
"Morris Robinson",
"Rebecca Hartree",
"Tarun Kukreja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162890",
"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
} |
67912 | How many risings for bread?
The background: I baked bread a couple of days ago, and I was out of yeast, so I borrowed a couple of packets of Fleischmann's Instant Yeast from a neighbor. I'm used to dry active yeast, which requires two risings. My neighbor told me that with the instant yeast, she kneads for only five minutes instead of ten, skips the second rise and shapes her bread right after the first. I tried it her way, and I have to admit, it was the weirdest bread I've ever encountered. Even though the dough ended up smooth and elastic, the resulting bread was noticeably sweeter than my recipe, and it had a texture closer to cake than to bread.
The question: When using instant yeast, how many rises are needed to make a non-sweet bread? Do I have to stick with just one, or is it permissible to use two rises with this yeast? Definitely it needs more kneading, as my neighbor's recipe didn't form proper gluten chains, but should it have the second rise as well? Will something bizarre happen if I use two rises instead of one with instant yeast (asked as if this wasn't bizarre bread in itself)? Or should I just refrain from baking bread until I can get some proper -- read: dry active -- yeast?
I suspect that the cake-like consistency came partially from kneading for less time, as you need to develop gluten for the bread to trap the air bubbles properly. I personally use it just like active dry yeast ... you don't have to proof it, but I often still do, and it comes out fine.
Similar question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66296/is-the-second-rise-step-neccesary-for-no-knead-bread
@Catija -- Why could I not find this yesterday when I ran a search? I kept using few and fewer search terms, and I wasn't getting anything of use back. Even when I was reduced to just a basic, "yeast, bread, rise" search, I only got one search return, and it didn't answer my question. I have to be doing something wrong, but I can't figure out what.
@Shalryn No idea what you did, but searching for "yeast bread rise" returns a ton of results.
You should still use two rises if that's what the recipe calls for. The main differences are that instant yeast does not require proofing, and you can use a bit less of it because more of the yeast is viable.
The full article is behind a paywall here (https://www.cookscountry.com/how_tos/6140-yeast-101), but here's a short excerpt summarizing the substitution (instant and rapid-rise yeast are the same thing):
Active dry yeast must be activated (or proofed) in warm liquid before
using; rapid-rise yeast can be added directly to the dough and does
not require proofing, but the test kitchen has found that doing so
does help to speed up its rise. Rapid-rise and active dry yeast may be
substituted for each other if you follow this formula: 1 teaspoon
active dry yeast equals ¾ teaspoon rapid-rise yeast.
And, though you refer to active dry yeast as "proper," I find I get better and more consistent results with rapid-rise yeast. And a pound of it is really inexpensive at my local grocery store, too. It keeps for months in the freezer.
That doesn't surprise me. Cooking is one of those things that seems especially prone to this kind of mistake, kind of like the joke about the lady who's teaching her daughter how to make a roast, and tells her to cut both ends off. The daughter asks why, but the mother isn't sure. A series of phone calls begins, ending with them asking great grandmother. She says, "well, I don't know why you do it, but I did it because my pan was too small."
Wow. Learning a lot here. Thank you, Chris Bergen and Spiff (Spaceman, perhaps?) Instant yeast may become my go-to for doughs I don't plan to freeze, if I master it correctly .
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.074756 | 2016-03-31T17:07:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67912",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"Joe",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"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
} |
60408 | Food identification in fajitas - yellow sauce
I'm looking for the name of a yellow/ochre colored sauce, used in fajitas among other things. I've been to a tiny Mexican restaurant a couple of times and in there the guy made his fajitas with such a sauce.
Now, I know that description isn't worth much, but I was hoping somebody could help me nonetheless. I can't really ask him, since I don't know his contact information, plus his shop isn't exactly close either. The shop is pretty small and it's in West Europe, so it may or may not be 'authentic' Mexican cuisine.
In general, "fajitas" don't have any sort of sauce on them at all... so I'm not really sure what to say. Can you explain what the sauce tasted like. There are probably dozens of sauces that are yellow... taste will tell us much more than color.
Welcome. If you perform a search for 'fajita sauce' you should get a ton of results for both recipes and ready-to-use products that you can purchase.
Yeah, I feared as much. It's pretty hard to tell the taste, cause he made a big mix of ingredients in the fajitas, which isn't atypical of course. Not spicy, maybe a little sweet. Not particular sour either I think.
@Cindy I don't get the same results you do... perhaps it's a regional thing. The only results I get when I search for "fajita sauce" is marinades and spice mixes and some jarred products, none of which are "yellow".
Could it be the Orange-yellow of saffron? I really don't know. Most fajitas I've eaten have no sauce or a little bit of a tomato-chili residue from the pan. Probably cooked marinade. Then tomato salsas, guacamole, and/or sour cream.
This could be anything from Hollandaise to Chili Aioli or even cheese sauce. My bet is on chili aioli.
This got auto-bumped, so I went ahead and closed it; I think the comments and answer demonstrate pretty clearly that this description unfortunately isn't quite enough to go on.
This does not sound like a traditional fajita sauce. The yellow color is likely to be from achiote (annatto), which is widely used in Mexico. It has a mild peppery taste, but is used more for color than for flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.075056 | 2015-09-01T08:56:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60408",
"authors": [
"Abzi Academy",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Dawn Asprey",
"Elizabeth Saethryth",
"GillesDV",
"Lex Podgorny",
"Preston",
"Sharon Platt",
"Tyrita Tynes",
"WendyS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44216"
],
"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
} |
68750 | How long should bread dough warm up after cold fermentation?
I'm trying to experiment with cold fermentation. I've put dough in the fridge and I see that it slowed down. However how long should it ferment afterward before final kneading - is ~10 hours out of the fridge good enough (this way I can put it out before I go to work and bake after I return)?
If it makes a difference it's sourdough whole wheat/white/rye in equal proportions fortified with nuts and seeds.
@Stephie sourdought.
Warm up before doing what?
@GdD before final kneading and baking.
I've found that when I made cold-risen rolls, I can do the final rise in the fridge, and then only need the 30 min of pre-heating the oven to let 'em get back to room temp. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/33133/67
I'd personally recommend experimenting -- I find that if you try to shape while it's too cold, it'll tear rather than form a nice skin. Wet doughs (higher ratio of water) tend to be easier to work when cold, but you often need to add a fair bit of flour to them when shaping just to get it out of the container. (see the book 'Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day', or look for other discussions of 'no-knead' bread made in the fridge).
...as long as it needs to, depending on a wide variety of factors.
You can shape it for baking, put it in the fridge, let it rise, pull it out of the fridge and put it in the oven - no warming up time at all.
If you are going to punch down/knead/form after it comes out of the fridge, you can do all that cold, and let it rise as long as it needs to before baking - which will depend on the dough and the room temperature.
Or you can let the bulk dough warm a while.
But surely ten hours is much longer than most if not all breads need to?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.075364 | 2016-05-03T06:28:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68750",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Maja Piechotka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268",
"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
} |
62679 | Looking for a substitute for onions
I love onions, but as an IBS sufferer, I find that it is one of my trigger foods and gives me diarrhea. Is there anything that I can put in recipes as a substitute?
I think people use Asofoetida to help with IBS, look at it ... or use leaks (milder than onions) or french échalottes (in smaller quantities)
There are a couple of very similar questions out there already (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44800/whats-a-good-substitute-of-onion-for-someone-with-an-onion-allergy?rq=1, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2596/substitute-for-onions-and-garlic?rq=1) and the top answers for both suggest the same spice as a solution.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.075514 | 2015-10-20T13:20:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62679",
"authors": [
"Leah Burns",
"MARISSA ROSALINA CAMBALLA",
"Max",
"Peter Chmura",
"Peter Kruszenicki",
"barbara britton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"irene lutz",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
80901 | Non dairy types of milk taste raw seeds/nuts, how to get rid of it?
I usually use sunflower seeds to make homemade non dairy milk and it has a taste of raw seeds and homemade soy milk has the same issues. Well, it's an issue for me.
I've had this problem with homemade cashew milk also
I'd guess that you want to heat it up to destroy that flavor. See this link: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25379/is-it-possible-to-make-soymilk-without-a-beany-taste.
@Batman I thought of that too but with nuts and seeds it may destroy the milk, at least this is what I think. I tried roasting them slightly before soaking and blending and it didn't become milky. I'll give it a try with a ready made milk.
With a commercial milk, you might get some different behavior due to additives and different processing than you do at home.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.075612 | 2017-04-13T20:51:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80901",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Marina Dunst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41531",
"kevins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58802 | How soon after baking can you refrigerate freshly made fruit pies?
How soon after baking a fresh fruit custard pie can I refrigerate it? Must it be at room temperature before it's put in the fridge?
EDIT: Although the question title says "fruit pies," the question specifies a "fruit custard pie." The following answer relates to custard pies and other pies containing fillings with eggs and/or milk. Actual plain "fruit pies" generally contain enough sugar to prevent rapid spoilage and therefore often do not require refrigeration. If you do plan to refrigerate a plain fruit pie, there's no significant advantage to getting it into the fridge quickly.
Pies do not have to come down to room temperature before refrigeration. In fact, most food safety organizations recommend the same general policy for egg-based and dairy-based pies as they do for other foods: don't leave leftovers out for more than 2 hours after cooking. See, for example, recommendations here:
Foods which contain eggs and milk, with high moisture content, must be
kept refrigerated, as bacteria love to grow in these foods. Failing to
put that pie back into the refrigerator before it has remained on the
counter for more than 2 hours can make a very merry celebration for
the bacteria, but not so good for friends and family.
So, 2 hours should be a maximum before refrigeration.
As for recommendations about the appropriate time to let cool at room temperature, see here, for example, which states:
Cool cream pies at room temperature for only 30 minutes after you
take them out of the oven.
After 30 minutes, put them in the refrigerator to complete the
cooling and to keep them cold.
While it says "cream pies" here, the guidelines above in that link imply that such guidelines also relate to custard and pumpkin pies. (The first link above also says the same thing about pumpkin pies.)
Basically, the only reason to keep a dairy-based or egg-based pie out of the refrigerator after removing from the oven is to allow cooking and setting to continue. Many custard pies will continue to set a bit while cooling, and putting them in the refrigerator immediately might "shock" them and disrupt this process of solidification. Changes in humidity levels and condensation might also have unpredictable effects on the pie surface while it is very hot.
(As for concerns about putting hot food in the fridge, see links to food safety organizations on the subject in my answer here. Basically, you shouldn't put a hot or warm pie near anything that's very perishable in the fridge. Otherwise, you're safer getting it in the fridge as soon as it has stablized after cooking, which shouldn't take more than 30 minutes or so.)
Basically you want to avoid heating up the contents of your refrigerator. That's pretty much the only concern, protecting your other food items.
How long it will take a given pie to cool depends on a lot of factors, but I'd say wait half an hour minimum after pulling from the oven.
It will still be warm at that point, but probably not enough to appreciably warm your fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.075707 | 2015-07-05T21:45:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58802",
"authors": [
"Aodhan Duffy",
"Bobby P.",
"Charlene Sherbe",
"Elaine DeFelice",
"Juan Flores",
"Juanita Stone",
"Julienne Hall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141806",
"jacob lewis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68496 | How to make Krave like shells?
How can I make a shell which has the same texture and taste as the shells on Krave Cereal?
I'm wanting to make my own with my own filings but have no idea where to start.
On the box it says they're made from oats, rice, and wheat.
I'm pretty certain this is an extremely mechanical process and not replicable at home.
I'm pretty sure she's right. Making a batter that could fairly closely duplicate the cereal might not be all that tough; after all, it appears to be mainly sugar and several grain flours, with some fats as emulsifiers, plus some coloring and (unidentified) flavoring. However, finding a way to shape the batter and bake it in a manner that would achieve the puffiness without giving the batter time to absorb the filling would probably involve an industrial processor and oven. It would have to bake very quickly to achieve the semi-impervious shell of the cereal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.076276 | 2016-04-23T13:47:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68496",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7912 | What is a substitute for maple extract?
I am making cinnamon rolls with a maple flavoured frosting, however, I am having trouble finding maple extract for the frosting. What can I substitute it with? I have vanilla extract - will it change the taste of the topping too much if I use this?
Is it perhaps possible to substitute the extract with maple syrup?
No, not really; maple extract is highly concentrated. You would need to add a very large amount of maple syrup to compensate and that would probably turn your frosting into a soup.
I would say bourbon. But then, I always say that.
Well, you are not going to get a maple flavour with anything other than maple extract (or maple sugar or syrup or some similar maple product).
That said, I've substituted rum for maple in some recipes and tend to think of it as a better approximation than vanilla. The caveat of course is the amount; a tablespoon is fine to substitute, an entire cup is going to impart a pretty strong alcohol flavour that you probably don't want.
If you don't have rum or don't think it would work for your recipe, then vanilla extract is probably the next-closest thing. However, it will change the flavour; whether or not that change is "too much" is really a matter of opinion.
As a slight tweak, I might go for Amaretto instead of rum - the nuttiness reminds me a bit more of maple than rum does.
Are you looking to retain the maple flavor, or simply for a flavor that will be complimentary to your cinnamon rolls? In many ways, you could use all sorts of extracts, but your cinnamon rolls will be a different flavor. Orange extract might be nice. Almond extract always provides a very delicate flavor (unless you use too much, then it's overpowering) and would also work well. Rum extract would be nice.
You can use vanilla extract. That's what I used and it might have a strange taste but it'll work.
I've been told that' butter vanilla will do the - closest - to the same thing ? not 100% yet. about to make a recipe with this instead of the maple extract I'll keep you updated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.076395 | 2010-10-07T13:22:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7912",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris",
"Erik P.",
"Ida Sjöberg",
"Mernimbler",
"Monica Tripp",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"matthew grayston",
"michael harris",
"zaen"
],
"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
} |
54968 | Is this chicken safe? silkie chicken edition
First off, I am a pastry chef, and my first thought is, when in doubt, toss it out.
I have very little experience with chicken. I am also obsessed with trying new things, in this case silkie chicken. It is a breed of chicken with black skin, meat, and bones, although the color can very from grey to black.
I bought it from a new Asian market that just opened up, it was pre-packed and frozen in a tight wrap like you would see at the store. I bought it Wednesday I think and left it to thaw in the fridge until today.
I opened the bag, removed the head and feet, and the wind pipe. The smell was very strong, and not pleasant, I would have to say musky with a touch of egg. The skin was a bit slimy, but the slime seemed to be gone by the time I was done cutting heads and feet off.
Since the color is dark, I cant tell from that, and the strong smell has persisted on my hands after scrubbing 3 times and doing the dishes.
Another note, the bird was an import from china, it wasn't USDA inspected, instead it had a Buddhist exemption tag on it and something saying it was inspected back where it came from.
Interesting question. Where are you? I've never heard an exemption to inspection. Any chance you can show us the tag?
im in Columbus ohio, I didn't save the tag, but I might be able to google it
http://www.ift.org/food-technology/daily-news/2013/november/07/usda-changes-generic-labeling-rules-on-meat-poultry.aspx
You may want to edit your question title to make it more specific to this type of chicken and inspection tag, at first glance I thought this was just another "I left this chicken on the counter for 3 days, can I eat it" questions. I've seen the black-fleshed chickens shrink-wrapped in Asian markets but the Buddhist exemption tag is new to me.
"Buddhist exemption" just means head and feet still attached. It does not say what standard it was inspected to
I renamed the article, but I went ahead and tossed the chicken. it smelled so strong and musty I just didn't trust it.
The truth is, if you're so worried about it being safe you're likely not going to enjoy eating it anyway. I think you made the right call.
Firstly let me note that I have never prepared this breed so I can't speak from personal experience, just what I've come to hear and see.
From what I've learned about silkies they're tremendously different to the regular breed of chicken we're used to. They're not well suited for roasting or frying and should rather be braised or prepared sous-vide (I imagine a silkie avgolemono would be quite exciting).
Getting back on-topic now, this blue/blackish breed being mostly raised free range does have a bit of a gamey note to it once rendered, but definitely not unpleasant or reminiscent of egg, and the skin should certainly not be slimy.
That being said I personally wouldn't take the risk on this one.
I got rid of it to be safe. I just couldn't trust it. Your other advice on preparation sounds good though.
I've had silkie chicken a bunch of times. It's going to smell more foreign, almost imparting a shitake mushroom taste, but it shouldn't have an eggy smell. However, I won't ever eat something that was not USDA inspected, so it's best to get the chicken locally. I get it freshly slaughtered at a chicken store.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.076590 | 2015-02-20T21:04:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54968",
"authors": [
"Aaron Haueisen",
"Brenda LaRose",
"Brianna Smith",
"Dan C",
"Darryl Tucker",
"David Vickers",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Himrod",
"Lois Bailey",
"Preston",
"Ratt Woods",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33685"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58285 | How to get a brown/burned texture on cornbread?
I am using the recipe here to make oven baked cornbread. The image in the recipe shows a nice brown/burned texture. I was wondering if I have to brush the top with butter or egg to get that texture?
What I ended up with is a pale yellow top layer with no browning or burned texture. Like the top layer of this one.
Most likely you just need to turn up the heat a bit. Moving the rack higher might help too.
It's a little hard to say without actually measuring your oven, but that kind of thing can happen if your oven's just a bit cooler than it claims to be. So it'll take a little longer than the recipe says to bake, but the lower temperature means it won't brown as nicely. Turning up the heat will get more browning done by the time the center's done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.076865 | 2015-06-16T02:56:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58285",
"authors": [
"Beverly Leite",
"Lees515",
"Lloyd Goodyear",
"ToastyShrek 101",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138871"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55002 | Espresso machine has to warm up halfway through pulling a shot
I've had my espresso machine for a little less than a year. It's a DeLonghi EC155. It heats up fine (I assume so - a green light that means "ready" turns on, and I've followed the instructions and let it sit for 30 minutes heating before using it), but when I pull a shot, it makes the sound of the water being pushed through the grounds, but the green light turns off halfway through the process. I stop pulling the shot, wait for the light to come on, and finish pulling the shot.
Usually when I dispose of the grounds, they're very watery. Is there a way to make the machine hold heat longer, or is it a defect with the machine?
EDIT: It should also be noted that the light turning off halfway through is a relatively new occurrence. Before about a month ago the "ready" light would stay on until after I had pulled my shot.
Have you tried just leaving it to do it's thing? You mention stopping mid pull...
I haven't, because I'm afraid the light turning off will produce a lukewarm espresso. I'll pull a shot in one go tomorrow and report how it went.
Why do you stop in the middle ? Is there a drop in pressure ? does the coffee continue dripping down in the cup?
Let it finish.
I assume, if it is working like my machine, that the water is being re-heated for a next shot.
1st thing I would do is to clean the machine with a "descaler"; it should help with the water heating system and the pressure.
If that does not help, have the machine looked at.
+1 for descale. Definitely sounds like limescale build-up to me.
If you haven't descaled yet - better hurry before the machine is damaged.
I would also suggest cleaning the metal coffee filter.
+1. I have a similar DeLonghi (EC702) and the fact of the matter is that cheaper espresso machines like these just have tiny boilers. Just the act of pulling one shot can cause the boiler temp to drop, the thermostat to trigger, and the "ready" light to turn off. But Max is right...scaling will exacerbate this even further.
Home espresso machines in that price range are hopeless. Especially if you want to steam milk. They are not powerful enough. You've been sold a $200 lie. La Marzocco is making two home machines but are for the high end market at 20-40 times the price of your machine. Really high end. You're likely better off going the Italian home coffee way and buying a Moka Pot. Or better yet, try your local cafe.
Not everyone can or want to spend money on an expensive coffee machine; either they are not into coffee like some others are or find that it works well enough for them (my case); I've been using a Breville espresso machine for a couple of years now and it works nicely and steam milk the way I like.
I think this is an answer to the question, in that it's claiming that yes, the OP's machine is defective and further so are all machines in that price range. Not sure it's a useful or correct answer, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.076976 | 2015-02-21T21:07:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55002",
"authors": [
"Angela Cuttell",
"Cascabel",
"Chuckleluck",
"Doug",
"Erika Storbraten",
"Gautam Jadhav",
"Itamar",
"Jessica M",
"Matt Peterson",
"Max",
"Veronica Kamau",
"ZHIXIN ZHENG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56716 | How to dry a fish for grill
Whenever I grill a fish (red snapper), even after grilling for a recommended grill time (about 10 to 15 mins), it comes out no less juicy compared to when it was put to grill. And when put in a plate, its skin is like floating on its flesh due to moisture.
I need a complete dry fish after the grilling is done with crispy skin, How to achieve that?
Note: I dont know how to dry a fish before grilling, I am assuming that all the drying can be done during grill with heating (which currently doesnt happen), any tip that works is welcome.
Are you wrapping the fish in aluminium foil when you put it in the grill? if so, stop doing that. You could try to fry it too.
Sounds like you're deliberately trying to achieve a drier texture, which is nearly the exact opposite of what most grilled-fish recipes will aim to deliver. We may be able to help more if you edit your question to include the exact recipe or method that you're using so that we can recommend specific improvements.
no, no aluminium foil, currently i take out of the freezer, wait for it to become a little soft and flexible (melt ice), apply some spices and put on grill
any recipe that would work :) currently what i do is stated above, and what i want is crispy dry skin after the grill
The fish must be fresh. not frozen; when thawing, there will be a lot more moisture in the fish that will leak out.
You could pack it in dry salt for a while to suck some fluid out via osmotic pressure. Should end up with damp salt and a drier fish. I'd guess if you only packed the outside and brushed it off before grilling it might not have too much salt transfer inwards to oversalt the fish, but I have NOT tried it, just speculating on a method that should work.
This is what I do with fish that's been frozen and it works well. I brush it off with a paper towel and have never found it too salty.
Paper towels are your best friend!
Before or after grilling?
it wont make the skin crispy
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.077256 | 2015-04-16T13:57:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56716",
"authors": [
"BigBen3216",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Doreen Desira",
"Firdous",
"John Fay",
"Max",
"Nora Birch",
"Peggy Rickelman",
"PeterJ",
"Shirley Dines",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34950",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57003 | Which meat tastes different by gender?
I know of "boar taint," which describes an unpleasant taste in the meat of non-castrated pigs. Which left me wondering more broadly: Are there other animals whose meat (from an animal of the same age on the same diet) tastes different depending on whether it came from a male or a female of the species?
And if that depends on conditions, as it does with pork, please note such.
Most non domesticated animals taste different between sexes, the male may also mark it's females which is another type of taint. The problem is there are not many truly wild animal left that you should be eating, so this may be a pointless question!
I'm not a hunter, but the range of wild game (non-domesticated) mammals alone is enormous, so this is hardly a pointless question. Also your answer, if I understand your comment, begs for an explanation: Most domesticated animals do not have gender taste difference (pigs being the exception?) while most non-domesticated animals do? If true, why might that be? Humans have somehow bred out gender taste difference in domesticated species?
@feetwet industrial farming has bred and fed out most tastes of meat, until we have ended up with bland slabs of uniform chewy protein. Also, these animals are slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity, so potential differences don't get expressed anyway.
Deer and it's relatives (goats and sheep) are famous for their musky males.
At a mere three months old my male goat had already developed a significant "bucky" aroma. He would not have become sexually active for another month or two.
The best way I found to cook him to deal with that flavor was smoking.
@jbcreix- I've never heard that. They are all under the order Artiodactyla. Cattle and goats are together in the family Bovidae. Thus, cattle are no closer to deer than goats are. Goats, while not closer to deer taxonomically, are much more similar in behavior than other ruminants as goats are also agile browsers and not heavy grazers.
You do make a good point though. I don't have any experience with bulls. Do they also get musky? If so then it might be common to the order- which includes a great deal of our mammalian livestock and hunted meat.
I know rooster meat tastes different from hen. Even the color is much different (darker and leaner for rooster). Though there is little demand for roosters in the market.
I disagree. My roosters and hens, when the same age, have very similar flavor. Historically roosters were different because they were much older with all the changes that come with age.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.077455 | 2015-04-27T19:04:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57003",
"authors": [
"Donna Wilson",
"Joleen Crespin",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Steve Kuwahara",
"TFD",
"Terri Klimek",
"Valerie Wolf",
"feetwet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35182",
"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
} |
57628 | Whisk eggs without an electric whisker
I am planning on baking Macarons. The recipe requires whisking egg whites in an electric whisker but I don't have one. It is bit expensive to buy a good one for me right now and I do not have space in my kitchen to actually keep a machine like that.
I was wondering if there was any other way of doing it.
I don't know if beating eggs by hand would get the same result as it is supposed to be very fluffy.
Also I have an electric mixer in which I usually whisk eggs for a cake. My mixer is the one where I can press the button to create short pulses so it does not overdo the process. Does anyone know if I can use the same mixer to beat egg whites to the same consistency as an electric egg beater?
Any advice is appreciated.
I am sure it can be done because macarons predate stand mixers. Good luck.
Not sure what's wrong with your electric mixer... there's nothing special about an electric egg beater.
Thanks guys, that's the kind of boost i needed. @Jolenealaska and Catija
You can do it by hand, it takes awhile, all you need is a bowl and a whisk. If cost is a problem you can probably pick up a used electric beater for peanuts and it would make things much faster.
Don't use a plastic bowl or you'll never get the eggs beaten to a froth, not even with an electric egg beater.
@Catija I know it's simple, but that's basically an answer. Stephie focused on the by hand part, but there's no need to do it by hand if you have a tool that works!
Yes, you can whip egg whites (or whipped cream, or....) by hand. There are a few things you need:
a reasonably large bowl
a good, sturdy whisk, again not too small
proper technique
a good amount of ellbow grease
patience
It will typically take longer than when using a mixer (for beginners, I've seen pros that could keep up with any measly old mixer, especially taking cleanup time into account) but lets you control the outcome better: less chance of overmixing or uneven results.
I myself have done it several times, either because I had no mixer at hand or because I was working in the middle of the night and didn't want to wake everyone and the neighbours.
For motivation, see this video and this video for technique and this video for fun or any other tutorial on the web.
I see what you guys mean.It totally makes sense. I was bit concerned as this is my first attempt at Macs but now i think fancy kitchenware is over-rated. I will give it a go maybe manually or the mixer I already have. By the way the Video is very motivating. I also liked the cake Jamie baked. It's on my list now.
I don't know if it's overrated... your arm will likely get extremely tired and I'd honestly recommend having a friend/slave (child) around to help because it will be strenuous... and you'll probably be sore the next day if you don't hand-whisk things much.
I agree that it can be tough, but good technique helps, just don't try to be super-quick, be patient. Having a partner that can take over for a while is an excellent idea. Just try it at least once to see that it can be done, if only for fun or lack of other tools. I have an old (pre-electric appliances) cook book that states for a pound cake: "cream butter and yolks for 1/2 hour, .... , whisk egg whites until stiff, ..., whisk cream for filling". That makes clear why cakes were for special occasions!
While I agree it's possible, I don't know if I'd use it for macarons. The proper technique has to be learned - despite having done it every now and then, my hand whipped egg whites (French meringue) always end up somewhat stiffer and weepier than the machine whipped ones, which is problematic for very sensitive applications. And if you are using Swiss meringue, you are going to have to whip for a long time even with an electric mixer, your hand will really be very, very tired with a hand whisk. Macarons are frustrating enough as it is, no need to make them more so.
It is not that difficult. I made hand-whisked meringues several times as a young child, before we had a mixer. You do need to monitor the stiffness and stop at the right consistency, but that is at least as easy to do when hand whisking as with a mixer. It helps to be able to whisk with either hand, so that you can switch hands if one gets tired. I was a bit pre-trained because I was used to creaming butter and sugar with a wooden spoon to make a cake.
You say:
Also I have an electric mixer in which I usually whisk eggs for a cake.
Why not use it? There's nothing special about an electric egg beater, really.
You'll find it much less strenuous than hand-whisking, even if it's a hand mixer rather than a stand mixer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.077794 | 2015-05-20T03:31:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57628",
"authors": [
"Aishwarya C",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Gissing",
"Catija",
"Dave Caughey",
"Escoce",
"GdD",
"HUMA ASIF",
"Jannine Sass",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luke Staschik",
"Mariano Kasio",
"Michelle Sedivy",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Stephie",
"User56756",
"divya cheekatla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35653",
"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
} |
59502 | Malai Chicken Curry is curdling in the Pan
I am trying to prepare a rich, creamy malai chicken curry but it's turning out to be a disaster as the marinade curdles when I put in into the pan.
Here are the steps:
I marinated the bite-sized cut chicken breast pieces with 1/2 cup yoghurt, 1/2 cup fresh cream along with salt and ginger-garlic paste. The marination time is about 24 hours inside the refrigerator.
When I am ready to cook, I take out the marinated chicken from the refrigerator and add it to heated oil in a pan and simmer for 10 minutes with the lid on. When I lift the lid after 10 minutes, its an unappetizing sight of curdled cream and whey floating on top instead of a creamy texture.
Where am I going wrong?
Thanks in advance,
Suddha Ray
The cream and yoghurt will separate and curdle if you bring it up to a boil. If you cook the dish longer at a lower heat, you should be able to avoid this. Slow cooking will tend to make the chicken more tender as well.
You need to keep the temperature of the yogurt below 190F (88C) to avoid having the milk proteins (mostly casein) react with acidic ingredients in the recipe and curdle. The acid comes from the yogurt itself and the ginger-garlic paste (most commercial, prepared ginger-garlic pastes have citric acid or similar as a stabilizer). You need to cook the chicken (and marinade because of its contact with the chicken) thoroughly, until it gets to up to at least 165F for food safety, but you do not want the sauce to get to 190F or boil.
If you've made kadhi before (a curry from yoghurt thickened with chickpea flour), it is the same concept -- it will separate and curdle if you let it boil.
Likewise, if you're making paneer from milk you want to get it close to boiling so that it WILL form the protein bonds when you add acid in the form of lemon juice or vinegar.
Thanks for the insights. I will try to keep the temps low or let the oil cool down a bit before pouring in the marinated chicken along with the marinade. I was also reading (in another post of SA) that adding a little cornstarch in the marinade may help prevent curdling. Can't wait to try out the new improvisations.
Oh, one more thing -- you can add the chicken to the pan first (stripping as much marinade off as possible) and cook the chicken a little bit first. Thin the marinade with water (and add some cornstarch if you want) which will cool the pan when it is added. This way it won't be as hot when it hits the pan, but you could still cook the chicken faster.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.078187 | 2015-08-01T08:30:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59502",
"authors": [
"Cathy Kaltsas",
"James Andrews",
"Kamal Gupta",
"NadjaCS",
"Suddha",
"Thomas Hemmings",
"Tink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35239",
"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
} |
61812 | How long can batter sit before chemical leaveners lose their power?
Background: I can not fit 2 - 12 muffin tins in my oven in a manner that will result in 24 nicely baked muffins or cupcakes. I am using everyday muffin or cupcake recipes that use baking powder and or baking soda. Can I leave half the batter on the counter or in the refrigerator for the 20-30 minutes it takes to bake one batch without losing a significant amount of leavening power?
Yep! I make double-batches of mini cupcakes that often take 3-4 rounds in the oven and they all come out pretty much the same. Granted, the minis only bake for about 15 minutes or so and muffins can take longer but I've never had an issue.
As a note, the recipes I use call for either baking powder only or baking powder and baking soda.
Also, I usually make my cupcakes using full-cake batters, not cupcake-specific recipes.
As some other sources go, here's a similar question on The Kitchn and most of the answers seem to agree, there's generally little negative results from leaving the batter out for a short period of time:
Q: If I make 24 cupcakes from a layer cake recipe and I only have one 12 cupcake pan, can I let the batter sit for 30 minutes while the first 12 bake? Or should I put it in the fridge so the leavener is still active? Or divide the recipe and make it twice? Thanks!
Some selected answers:
rmrez
It depends on the recipe. Most boxed mixes don't seem to differ, but I've noticed that my scratch-baked cupcakes tend to dome if I let them sit out before baking. Sometimes I do this on purpose if it fits my decorating idea better.
adamwa
i have two 6 cupcake pans so im in the same boat, i always just leave it out and they seem to cook up fine
TuttiDolci
I let the batter sit out and I've never had a problem with the rise of the 2nd batch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.078420 | 2015-09-17T23:19:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61812",
"authors": [
"Akila R",
"JOE YOUNG",
"Jane Burrows",
"John lyons",
"Sandra Sandy Agas",
"Ted Eschuk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146745"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75280 | Why would a recipe call for bone-in, skin-on chicken and then never use the bone/skin?
This America's Test Kitchen recipe for Slow Cooker Chicken with "Roasted" Garlic Sauce
has the ingredient:
bone-in split chicken breasts, skin and ribs removed, trimmed of all visible fat
The skin and ribs are never used in the recipe.
ATK generally does a great job of simplifying recipes but needing to de-bone the chicken rather than simply buying boneless, skinless chicken breasts seems silly. Plus, I generally find bone-in, skin-on chicken breasts to be harder to find than boneless, skinless chicken.
I asked my butcher if there's a difference between them doing it and doing it myself and he said that there wasn't (assuming they're never used).
Is there something my butcher didn't think of?
Yes, I know that there's a cost difference but let's ignore that, as that's not generally a consideration in ATK recipes.
To me in the US it seems that boneless, skinless chicken breasts are becoming much more popular. In some stores it is all you find. Not sure where all the bones and skin goes, but there must be some value in in it. To me (visual opinion only) I think they add water to the boneless ones, and to me they don't cook quite the same as the bone-in ones. Maybe its a traditionalist recipe from before skinless chickens were popular, but I don't think boneless chicken you buy in the store is exactly the same as bone-in after removing the skin and bones.
However it is possible that a butcher might not follow such mass production methods.
I can only come up with two possible reasons: (1) I'll occassionally find a sliver of bone, from what I assume is a butcher rushing through things. (2) Less processing may reduce the risk of contamination. (I've heard that there's a nearly 100% chance for cut-up chicken ... I have no idea if keeping the skin & ribs would reduce this .... or at least only contaminate the outer bits that you're removing)
And thinking about it -- the second one might be a bigger deal for slow-cooker foods, as you don't get them up to the same temperature. I've also noticed that sometimes the reasoning is mentioned on their TV show that isn't mentioned in the online recipe.
The meat isn't absolutely boneless. The breast bone would remain.
I wonder if it wasn't an oversight/editing error - The first sentence in description refers to "bone-in chicken". To me it looks like they were lightening up an existing recipe and did a poor job of editing.
They are usually pretty strongly against meats that are treated with "a solution" where they are injected with some sort of chemical/saline mixture to give them more moisture (I avoid buying any pork from one of my otherwise favorite stores because the brand of pork they carry all have "added solution.").
Those kinds of things are more common in the boneless, skinless cuts. Buying the whole breasts with skin on may be a way of insuring you're dealing with the real, unadulterated deal.
@AndrewMattson I'd consider that if there weren't hundreds of recipes on their site that use boneless, skinless chicken breasts.
Each recipe is the work of that particular trial and error system by the author/cook for that article/dish. I haven't seen any kind of rigid standards imposed that all cooks use the same methods or preferences for ingredients. Just my opinion and observation as a long-time subscriber. Look how many different "best beef stew" or "best ground beef chili" version they have, using different tricks and techniques. Also, I was suggesting a possibility or consideration, only, which is why it was a comment, not an answer.
Bone in = the breast plate is still there. The ribs would typically be removed because in slow cooking the rib bones often have a habit of coming loose and being an annoyance or even a choking hazard while adding little or nothing to the taste. Leaving the breast plate however is referred to by many as cooking on the crown. Cooking on the crown is considered by many to give a better flavor, be it poultry, beef, pork, or whatever. Additional, with slow cooking, the cartilage and bone may add some thickening effect to your broth.
The recipe writer probably only had bone in chicken, and wrote up exactly what he did, avoiding having to buy a boneless chicken and retest the recipe.
While this sounds facetious, it probably is often the reason for "awkward" ingredients in recipes - and preferrable to writing a substitute into a recipe and still calling it a tested recipe.
We aren't talking about a recipe blogger or something like that... It's a group that is well regarded for testing and retesting recipes to get one "best", easily reproducible recipe.
A recipe blogger would often go for the worse choice and fudge. But somebody testing his recipes conscientously well will be under even more pressure to limit variables in order not to have to test 2 to the power of variations :)
Are you aware of what America's Test Kitchen is? It's not somebody... It's a team of many food specialists working together... They have a tv show on PBS, a magazine, probably over 100 books. This isn't some cut-rate person in their home kitchen.
My diction was unashamedly facetious, but my point was that there still needs to be a limit to variation for clean testing...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.078604 | 2016-11-05T01:27:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75280",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"Joe",
"MaxW",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64889 | Can I peel a mandarin orange like the commercial canners do?
I can't stand the pith on citrus fruit. Canned mandarin oranges seem to have their segments magically removed from the outer membrane that surrounds it. I know how to supreme a citrus fruit, and that is what I do when I want to eat one, but the canned ones don't seem to have been cut.
Does anyone know if there is a process that accomplishes this, that can be done in a home kitchen?
peel them with rubber-gloves on?
Suggestion: Try clementines, a loose-skinned citrus fruit of roughly the same size that peels very easily. (I can usually peel grapefruit well enough for my tastes, but it takes a while.)
This is fairly easy, and completely safe, to do with pectinex enzyme. ...and yes, you want to! It is how modernist chefs remove the pith from citrus. You can order Pectinex Ultra-SPL from Modernist Pantry (modernistpantry.com). See this link for the science and technique.
That link uses both Pectinex Ultra-SPL and Pectinex Smash XXL; the former is available as you say but the latter is not. Do you actually need both, or will it work with just the one?
@Jefromi I have a copy of Dave Arnold's book (http://www.amazon.com/Liquid-Intelligence-Science-Perfect-Cocktail/dp/0393089037/) and in it he describes using only Pectinex Ultra-SPL. Way at the end of the linked article, he also notes that "Peelzym and Pectinex SP-L are probably slightly different mixes of the same components." Peelzym is referred to as the original enzyme which is no longer available. Seems likely that Ultra-SPL on its own should work fine.
Pectinex Ultra-SPL alone works just fine. I have used it many times. In fact, you don't need the heat step (it speeds the process, but is not necessary). Just place in fridge overnight. Carefully rinse the next day.
In theory, yes you can. Whether you want to is a completely different question.
The segments are "peeled" by soaking them in hydrochlorid acid. Which sounds worse than it is, because the concentration is somewhere between 1% and 0.3% (sources vary). (1)
Once the outer skin is dissolved, the acid is neutralized by dumping them in a lye bath (sodium hydroxide).
Finally a good long soak in plain water to get rid of whatever might still cling to the fruit and then it's off to the canner.
Other sources claim that the segments are simply peeled by soaking in a lye bath and then rinsed. (2)
A third source quotes a Dutch magazine and claims it's lye first and hydrochloric acid later. (3)
Note that hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide form NaCl and H2O or, plainly put, salt water if the ratios are correct. So apparently the whole process is quite harmless for us consumers.
Sources:
(1) German Wikipedia; Die Zeit (both in German)
(2) English Wikipedia
(3) nyceyenne (also in German)
Note to self: never eat canned fruit again.
@ToddWilcox Then you may never want to eat the cherry on top of your cake. They are washed with bleach until they become white and then colored again with artificial food coloring. In between, they do all the processing to crystalize them. Quite disgusting. Still, I eat them first!
@IsmaelMiguel I don't think there's ever been a cherry on a cake I've been served - but I don't like fruit flavored confections anyway. Just don't tell me how chocolate is processed!
@ToddWilcox I won't, I won't. I don't even remember how it was done.
I bet that "good long soak in plain water" explains where the flavor of canned mandarins goes.
@WayfaringStranger The juice vesicle cells are still intact so soaking in water should mostly only cause a little more water to move into the fruit by osmosis.
@DavidRicherby Plasmodesmata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodesma , to say nothing of how the skin is attached to the individual segments. You beat up a fruit and it gets leaky.
I can provide a direct link to that Dutch source: http://keuringsdienstvanwaarde.kro.nl/seizoenen/2009/30-39031-08-01-2009/290-90947-hoe-worden-mandarijnen-in-de-fabriek-gepeld "How are mandarins peeled"?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.079049 | 2015-12-29T02:02:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64889",
"authors": [
"Barbara Forget",
"Cascabel",
"David Kalet",
"David Richerby",
"Geraldine Broderick",
"Glenna Miller",
"Ian Pritchard",
"Ismael Miguel",
"Karen McCann",
"Kim",
"Lorraine Michasiw",
"MSalters",
"Thorst",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Viola Fernandes",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"keshlam",
"logophobe",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
128004 | Would adding baking soda/powder help these crackers?
This is a sourdough discard recipe for crackers that I love the flavor of. When spread over a 9x13 inch baking sheet the crackers are thick and hard, when spread over a 10x15 inch sheet they are too delicate and break easily. Would adding 1/8 to 1/4 tsp baking soda (or baking powder) make a thicker cracker that was not so hard when spread over the 9x13 pan?
Crackers
1 cup (227g to 241g) sourdough starter, unfed/discard
4 tablespoons (57g) unsalted butter, melted
1/2 teaspoon to 3 teaspoons of your favorite seasoning(s) and/or seed(s)*
1/2 teaspoon table salt
Preheat the oven to 325°F with a rack in the middle. Line a baking sheet with a piece of parchment and set aside.
In a medium bowl, combine all the ingredients, stirring vigorously with a spatula until evenly combined.
Transfer the batter to the prepared pan and use a small offset spatula to spread it into a thin rectangle, about 11" x 15" in size. Sprinkle the top of the crackers with the toppings of your choice.
Bake the crackers for 15 minutes, then remove them from the oven, and use a pizza wheel or bench knife to cut the crackers into 1" to 1 1/2" squares (don't separate them, just cut them
Return the baking sheet to the oven and bake for an additional 35 to 45 minutes, rotating the pan halfway through, until the crackers in the middle are golden brown and firm to the touch.
Remove the crackers from the oven and allow them to cool completely on the baking sheet before serving.
not sure, but if the sourdough starter is still active, you might get the same effect by letting it rise before baking
It would be difficult to get baking powder/soda well-distributed in the wet mix. I let mine sit for 20-30 minutes after spreading it out, and I bake for about 20 minutes at 425°F.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.079422 | 2024-04-02T00:45:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128004",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"LightBender",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63009 | Baking with oven without bottom heating element
My mom wants to do baking but her oven doesn't have bottom heating element. It only has an element on top, with a fan at the back.
She told me that she can't make me a good pizza or cake without it.
Is there any way around?
Are you sure she doesn't have a hidden baking element? Many newer ovens have a bottom element that's hidden out of site, but it's still there. Makes it a lot easier to clean. It does have a drawback, though, in that it can take longer to heat up.
Lol, I bought her a new oven with a bottom heating element :P
Many modern ovens seem to have unusual element configurations, but with a fan it makes no difference, just use as the oven manual indicates
Cooking a pizza in any domestic electric oven is tricky, as it requires more heat than an electric oven can generate. Using a metal or stone slab helps
For things that can be baked for a short period of time, you can partially compensate by adding a baking stone in the bottom of the oven, then sufficiently preheating the oven.
The stone will release its heat, resulting in there being some additional heat coming from the bottom of the oven.
For pizzas, you can move the stone closer to the top element, so that you can get it very hot, and then lay the pizza onto the stone, so that the bottom will cook from conduction, not just radiant heat.
If this still isn't enough for cooking a pizza, you can put the naked crust on the stone, let it cook until it's developed a bit of a crust on the top, flip it until you've browned the bottom, then remove it, top the pizza, and slide it back in (right side up).
You can also just brown it and then flip and top it, but your pizza will seem strange, as the top is now the flat side of the crust ... and the toppings will be more likely to slide.
I have a similar type of oven. For basic baking (cake/brownies), I started turning the temp on the oven down about 20 degrees and baking the items for the max time. That seems to be helping.
HOWEVER, I am still struggling with pizza and pies (thus searching the internet, and stumbling onto this thread).
I might try the pizza stone method...
I know using a cast iron skillet starting off your pizzas on the bottom rack depending on the thickness of the crust for 15 to 25 minutes and raising it to the second to the top for the last 7 to 12 minutes and the cast iron skillet will continue cooking once you shut the oven off to make it nice and crispy... I will absolutely not make a pizza any other way
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.079601 | 2015-10-31T16:50:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63009",
"authors": [
"Ali Yousuf",
"Allan Kipkoech",
"Chelsea Morton",
"Gautam ",
"Jeff",
"Jp Connaghan",
"Neil Price",
"Paul Richardson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63859",
"nasuko9"
],
"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
} |
62277 | Is it ok to include garlic when I can hot peppers?
I followed the Ball Blue Book recipe for canning hot vinegared peppers. I left the peppers whole, and forgot to discard the garlic from the vinegar recipe before I filled the quart size jars & gave them the bath. I made them 10 days ago and I just moved them to the refrigerator because I was scared the garlic would ruin them and possible set them up for the spread of botulism. Are they ruined?
Vinegar makes it acidic - Acid makes botulism unhappy. You're good.
You should be fine. I couldn't find your particular recipe, but many canning recipes for peppers (and salsas, pickles & relishes) contain garlic. As long as there is sufficient vinegar, which the name of your recipe suggests, and you processed correctly there shouldn't be a problem. This recipe for Pickled Peppers may be similar to yours and contains garlic in the finished product.
Agree. I've canned asparagus with whole garlic, and as mentioned above, vinegar is the key. You should be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.079954 | 2015-10-04T18:00:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62277",
"authors": [
"BRYANM",
"Bill Sutton",
"Dan Garrity",
"Donna Kuo",
"Ecnerwal",
"Eleanor Martin-Nash",
"MaryAnn Rafac",
"William Johnston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39811",
"michael",
"tombmapster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64758 | What to do when I accidentally put too much salt on the meat?
I'm still learning to cook, and yesterday I put too much salt on the meat when I was cooking it. What I can I do to not waste the meat?
I still have some raw meat but I'm afraid to make it too salty if I mix both together. I heard I can put the meat in boiling water to try to get rid of salt, but I'm not sure if that Would work. Or should I make soup/stew with the meat and not use salt on it?
What else I can do to make it edible?
What kind of meat and what did you do with it so far? And how much "too much"?
@Stephie it's pork meat, i tried to fry with it's own fat, about the quantity of salt, i don't know, i just used salt shaker a few times.
Honestly I would just rinse it and dry it then do whatever you planned to it.
There's no single answer, as there's a few considerations here:
Was it ground meat, or a larger chunk?
How far cooked was it already?
How far over-salted is it?
Is it being cooked in some sort of sauce or other liquid?
Depending on the answer to those:
If it's not over-salted by much ... serve it with a sauce that hasn't been salted, serve it on top of a bland starch (rice, pasta, baked potato) or mix it in as the flavoring to something else that's unsalted. (eg, a casserole, soup, stew, etc.)
If it's uncooked larger chunks, you can rinse it off (in cold water), pat dry, and then cook it.
If it's uncooked ground meat ... the salt will cause the proteins to start tightening, and make things start to stick together if it sits before you cook it. If you haven't stirred in the salt yet (for those times when the lid came off a salt shaker), you might be able to get the worst of it off with a spoon, or even pick up the block of ground meat and shake it off. Rinsing is still an option, but it's more difficult to dry back off before cooking ... you might have to resort to other options.
If it's while cooking ... you might still be able to rescue it.
If it's not in a liquid or sauce, for the 'lid came off the salt shaker' situation, for large hunks of meat, just pick it up and shake and/or brush off the salt. For ground meat or smaller chunks ... you might need to add some water, and then pour the water off (a strainer helps with this).
If it's larger hunks in a sauce, you can pull it out and remake the sauce. Depending on the type of sauce, you might want to save it to use it as flavoring in some other dish (casserole, soup, etc.)
Your most difficult case is ground beef in a sauce. If it's wet enough, you can rinse if off in a colander ... for thicker sauces, if it's not so salty to be inedible, you can try serving it over rice, pasta, a baked potato ... or turn it into a casserole.
Note that all of these assume that you've caught the problem quickly ... if the meat's been cooking in the salt for an extended period, you might have to go with the casserole route, as it'll have absorbed the salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.080092 | 2015-12-24T15:33:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64758",
"authors": [
"Betsy Dimarco",
"Claire Streeton",
"Cynthia Eriksen",
"Escoce",
"Jan Clash",
"Kenneth F Hochsprung",
"Mark Pask",
"Progs",
"Stephie",
"gary france",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74818 | Is this broccoli crown safe to eat?
Was cutting up broccoli crowns and this bug appeared (I'm pretty sure it was from the crown). Is the broccoli still safe to eat? I checked every single piece I chopped up to make sure.
If you knew how many insects and parts of insects were legally permitted to be in your food you may not worry too much about one bug that you actually removed. See here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/SanitationTransportation/ucm056174.htm
just a note, concernig broccoli and all vegetables, before you deal with them soak them for 15 minutes with water and vinegar, all insects and bugs will be out of it, and it germinates it.
@Zeina - "Germinates it?" What do you mean? I associate that word with a seed sprouting from its formerly dormant state.
@PoloHoleSet excuse me i ment sterilizes it...
Soaking in water and vinegar in the proper ratio will kill bacteria and clean vegetables and fruit, Sterilize might be a strong word. i found this concerning sterilization http://www.cooksinfo.com/peroxide-vinegar-sterilization The bug is safe to eat, people eat bugs all over the world.
@Zeina - Okay. No worries, just wondering if there was a use of the other term I wasn't familiar with.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.080347 | 2016-10-18T04:58:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74818",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"ElendilTheTall",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Zeina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74333 | Process of water-bath food to pressure cooker?
My daughter water bathed carrots and beets and then found out that they should be pressure cooked. Can she just put them in as they are and pressure cook them, or should she start over the whole process of cleaning jars and new lids? Will the food be too overcooked to process them again?
Ok. I've canned for 30 years. If the beets are pickled they are fine as long as they "popped". The vinegar acidity makes it fine for water bath. I've canned carrots using a pressure canner to "recommended" times. They were a disgusting mush. The only thing I pressure can now are meats and fish. Veggies I just sterilize the jars, cold pack the veggies, add boiling pickle juice or water, seal and then water bath process for 10 mins. When you open a jar it is pretty obvious if the food is spoiled. But this is not the "safe" way to can! As of yet, I've not had a spoiled hat and no one has gotten sick. So just be aware that what I do is not recommended.
Water-bath processed non-acidic food has the potential to contain botulism. As such it requires extra precautions when opening.
Check the seals. Botulism produces gas which will weaken the seal. If you can press hard enough on the lid to make it flex a visible amount, it might be tainted, throw it out.
Smell it (be careful not to touch the contents yet, botulism can be toxic enough that just dabbing a bit on your lip to taste it can be fatal!) Botulism produces a distinctive odor. If it smells bad, throw it out. Then wash your hands clear up to the elbows!
Boil the food in a pot on the stove. The toxins produced by the botulism varieties that can survive water-bath canning will break down. You need to get it boiling hot all the way through, not just warmed up. My grandmother always said at least ten minutes, longer for things that are bigger than an inch across. Be aware that boiling might not be hot enough at high altitudes, in which case you'll need a pressure cooker.
Feed a spoonful to the family dog and wait 20 minutes to see if it dies or vomits. If it does either then throw the food away and, optionally, bury the dog.
Be aware that even at this point there's still a chance of food poisoning (though it should be only slightly higher than pressure canning if you've done everything right up until now)
If you've done everything properly, your vegetables will be mushy. Live with it. It's better than the alternative.
Or reprocess everything as though you were starting fresh (throw out the water, re-cook everything, and hot-pack the jars) and then use a pressure canner. That will improve your odds of not poisoning yourself by at least a little bit, but this time around your vegetables will still be mush. So you're going to have mush regardless, but if you pressure can them you won't have to re-cook them when you open them.
Theoretically you could just run the sealed jars through the pressure canner, but getting them hot all the way through is tricky. It will definitely require longer than the recommended processing times. Consider the recommended time for "cold-pack" as a minimum (if your canner/recipe directions even give such a thing) and again your vegetables will be mush.
Are you noticing a theme here?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.080487 | 2016-09-28T14:49:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74333",
"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
} |
74106 | How much chilli puree should I add to get 43 ppm pungency?
I know about the pungency Scoville heat unit. Different chillis have different SHU.
I saw one chilli sauce specification where a 43 ppm pungency units were 'required'. How much chilli puree should I add to get a result of 43 ppm pungency in the final product (chilli sauce)?
this is getting too complex, no ? just add some chilies and if not hot enough, add some more ?
Unless the chili puree you are using is an industrial product that comes with a narrow and clear specification (in SHU or ppm capsaicin), OR unless you are capable of measuring the SHU or capsaicin content yourself, this is not possible to do with any degree of accuracy - if you are processing fresh or dried chili yourself, the actual content is very dependent on natural variation and your process.
Also, these scales (ASTA ppm vs SHU) only roughly translate because of weight vs volume vs dry mass vs ... issues, and because SHU itself is not considered a truly accurate measurement.
Naively calculated (this means: if you need a plausible and demonstrably calculated BS result because somebody needs some number on some piece of paper, here is how you get your BS result), 16.000.000 SHU would be a (non*)food consisting of 100% capsaicin, so 1000ppm would be equivalent to 16000 SHU, 1ppm to 16 SHU, 43ppm to 688 SHU. If your capsaicin-bearing ingredient has eg 6880 SHU (not unrealistic!), you would use 10%.
*nonfood indeed. Pure capsaicin, while perfectly safe when incorporated into food in sufficient dilution, would be very harmful to ingest on its own!
While I agree with your first and second paragraph, -1 for your naive calculation. SHU is a subjective perception scale, and does not scale linearly with the amount of capsaicin. This kind of calculation is extremely misleading and should not be attempted.
That's why I clearly labelled it as such, rather than giving a non-answer. Do what you want.
"There is no way to calculate it" is an answer. Suggesting a wrong calculation when a right one does not exist is much worse.
Clarified it a bit.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.080755 | 2016-09-21T12:31:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74106",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81440 | Is it safe to warm bread in the oven with plastic wrap?
I bought a loaf of Italian bread that came with plastic wrapping. Not sure if it was made intentional for toasting in the oven. Should I just get rid of plastic and put bread in the oven (I ran out of foil)?
Are we talking about the kind of pre-baked breads that are supposed to be finished in the oven? Or just wrapped in foil for sale? Could you add a picture?
Generally speaking, plastic should not go in the oven. If you want your bread toasted, that would work best without foil. I would probably just put a slice or two on a cookie sheet and throw it under the broiler for a minute or two on each side.
Unless the plastic specifically states that it's ovenproof, do not heat it in the oven.
You can just heat the unwrapped loaf in the oven (I usually do), but it will make the crust crustier. Placing the loaf in a paper bag will reduce this (crusting) effect. The paper bag can be dampened to reduce the effect even further.
I wouldn't put any sort of plastic in the oven. I put bread right on the oven racks all the time. If you have something on the bread that might drip, plop it on an oven-safe pan.
For toasting bread, any plastics (except special plastics like roasting foil) or wax papers (except baking paper and related items) are out.
For warming, short answer: No. Long answer: Do not heat plastic items over the temperature they are labelled as safe at - if they are not labelled, assume they will not take more than 70 degrees celsius (compare the chart on https://www.grainger.com/content/qt-types-of-plastics-213 - summary: this is a chart of common plastics; the stated maximum use temperatures of plastics which are marked as food and beverage suitable is 70 or above). Mind that ovens can be inaccurate and that radiated heat transfer from the elements can heat something in an oven slightly above the oven temperature, so an oven could heat the contents well above 70 degrees when dialled to 70 degrees. Mind that warming anything at a temperature below 65 degrees creates a food safety hazard with perishable food.
When I was young, my mother would wrap the bread in wax paper and warm it on low in the oven. You could probably loosely set some tin foil over the top of the bread to keep the moisture in it.
are you implying a "no, it is not safe" and offering an alternative?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.080920 | 2017-05-05T13:52:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81440",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"senschen",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76780 | What adjustments when doubling a cheesecake recipe?
My cheesecake recipe calls for a 9 in pie dish. I want to double the recipe and bake in a single, glass 9.5 in pie dish. I make it about every year for Christmas, but last year I made a pumpkin cheesecake in a 9 in pan, and it called for 32oz of cream cheese. It was awesomely thick! I was just wanting a thicker cheesecake. The recipe states to bake at 325 F for 35 minutes. How should I adjust?
The original recipe is as follows:
1 c crushed ginger snaps
3 Tbsp melted butter
1/2 c sugar
2 Tbsp sugar
16 oz cream cheese
2 tsp vanilla
1/2 c sour cream
2 eggs
1 c apple pie filling
1/2 c chopped walnuts
1/2 c toffee pieces
Bake at 325 F for 35 minutes
Can you post the cheesecake recipe? It doesn't seem like a 9.5inch pie dish will be large enough to accommodate your doubled recipe, if the base recipe requires a 9inch dish. Also, are you concerned about preventing cracking on the top? This will be harder to prevent for larger cheesecakes.
Geometry suggests that you'd need a 12 to 13 inch pie plate for double a 9-inch recipe, unless your 9.5 inch pie plate is nearly twice as deep as your 9 inch pie plate, or the recipe only fills the 9 inch plate halfway.
I make it about every year for Christmas, but last year I made a pumpkin cheesecake in a 9 in pan, and it called for 32oz of cream cheese. It was awesomely thick! Lol. Was just wanting a thicker cheesecake. The original recipe is as follows:
1 c crushed ginger snaps
3 Tbsp melted butter
1/2 c sugar
2 Tbsp sugar
16 oz cream cheese
2 tsp vanilla
1/2 c sour cream
2 eggs
1 c apple pie filling
1/2 c chopped walnuts
1/2 c toffee pieces
Bake at 325 F for 35 minutes
NMJD did you get my recipe? :)
It's rather hard to read recipes posted as comments (since you can't format them), and also details tend to get lost in long comment threads. So, instead, please [edit] your question to include the clarifications.
At first, I was mislead by your "doubling" subject line ... which lead me to think of doubling an entire recipe.
Here's what I would do:
1 c crushed ginger snaps -- *no change*
3 Tbsp melted butter -- *no change*
Sugar 3/4 c.
16 oz cream cheese -- *double*
2 tsp vanilla -- *double*
1/2 c sour cream -- *2/3 cup* (almost double but not quite)
2 eggs -- *3 eggs* (almost double but not quite)
1 c apple pie filling -- *no change*
1/2 c chopped walnuts -- *no change*
1/2 c toffee piece -- *no change*
Then... pay special attention while baking. Bake to vicinity of original time, but monitor and change as needed because minor adjustment + or - time will be needed.
Also... keep good notes. That way you can repeat again, or come back here with Q's.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081123 | 2016-12-23T22:16:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76780",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jenn Giles",
"NMJD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76852 | cheese cake cooking times
I usually bake a 10" New York style cheese cake. cheese cakes. On my 10", I bake it for 45 minutes at 350 degrees, shut off the oven but leave the cake in for another hour before removing. I now want to use the same recipe and make a few 4.5" cheese cakes. How do I convert the baking time for these smaller ones?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. I'm guessing "try and adjust" is going to be your best answer.
Here's a recipe for four 4.5" cheesecakes that should be exactly what you need. I haven't used the recipe myself but it certainly seems reasonable:
http://www.food.com/recipe/four-4-5-inch-cheesecakes-with-nine-stir-in-variations-506199
The crust is cooked for 7 minutes at 300F and the while cheesecake is cooked for 40-45 minutes at 300F.
I suggest testing it after half the time for the full size. A good way to check is to inset a thin skewer into the cake, if it comes out gooey, it is not finished, so try again after ~ 10 minutes.
this is a good general answer for cakes, but we are talking about a cheesecake here, its filling stays gooey even after it is done
I've had good success with this method for cheesecakes; make them a lot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081311 | 2016-12-27T00:55:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76852",
"authors": [
"AfterWorkGuinness",
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39701",
"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
} |
69052 | Why are eggs not stored in the fridge better in baking?
I have always wondered why baking with refrigerated eggs VS room temperature eggs comes out much better. Can anyone explain why please?
Do you really mean "not stored in the fridge"? I store all of my eggs in the fridge but if a recipe calls for eggs at room temp, I take them out and leave them on the counter for an hour... as far as I know, there's no difference between an egg never refrigerated and one left to come to room temp... Also, this depends extremely on what you're baking... some recipes aren't affected and some specifically call for cold eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081431 | 2016-05-17T01:40:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69052",
"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
} |
69263 | How can I prove ganache is safe at room temperature?
Ganache I make is a ratio of 2:1, cream is boiled 3 times to reduce water content, chocolate is a mixture of dark and milk. Upto 50g of glucose syrup is added as a preservative.
I know the ganache is perfectly fine to eat for upto 10 days at room temperature. (Very experienced in this test lol).
How can I prove (without paying for scientific analysis) that it's good for a suggested shelf life of 5 days at room temperature in uk. Or that there is enough sugar to preserve the emulsion?
To whom do you need to prove this? A government agency? A skeptical friend?
A line of approach:
You could prove it by finding the actual water content of the Ganache vs. the sugar content.
The cream is cooked down somewhat similar to what happens when you do Dulce de Leche; and is turned to syrup.
High sugar products (candies, candied fruits) are relatively stable at room temperature (between 15c and 22c, according to wikipedia) because their water content is low which prevent microbial spoilage.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081500 | 2016-05-26T07:05:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69263",
"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
} |
67295 | Substitute for fresh lemons - I need to make 70 liters of homemade lemonade
I can not afford so many fresh lemons to make lemonade. What would be the equivalent for 6 fresh lemons if using citric acid instead?
Can Tartaric replace fresh lemons which are very hard to find where I live?
Lemonade from citric acid, "home made"?
Might as well buy powdered lemonade.
Can't you buy bags of lemons instead of individual lemons? Much cheaper. You need about 4 lemon per liter to make decent lemonade.
At those quantities, you might want to check around to see if there's a restaurant supply store that sells produce (vs. the ones that only sell equipment). Near me there's Restaurant Depot ... it's a US chain, but you need to show you're affiliated w/ a business, non-profit (eg, church) or government to get access. Second best would be 'warehouse clubs', which sell in large-ish quantities. You can also try asking at restaurants if they can get you some ... they might mark it up some, but they'd likely have the connections. (this is easier to do if it's for a school or church event)
What about bottled lemon juice. If you can find it by the litre in a catering supplies place it should be quite cheap. Not as good real lemons but so much better than citric acid.
Do you have other citrus fruits more readily available (limes, etc.)?
You can very likely buy frozen lemon juice or juice concentrate, even if you can't buy fresh lemons. (This is different from frozen lemonade concentrate.)
This is what we do often when we're making large batch lemonade; while it's not quite as good as fresh lemon juice, it's usually close enough that it's not noticeable.
For example:
It's kept in the freezer section. That jar is roughly seven lemons' worth of juice; each one makes something like 2-3 liters of lemonade, depending on your strength requirements. I usually put a few sliced fresh lemons in with the pitcher after that.
Lemon juice contains somewhere between 4-6% citric acid by weight; let's call that an average of 5%. It does contain tartaric acid, but in trace amounts only, so this would not be an effective substitution. Lemon juice also contains about 2% sugar by weight. So to produce 1 liter of a rough lemon juice equivalent, you would need to combine:
50 g citric acid
20 g glucose (you'll probably have to use table sugar instead)
930 mL water (equivalent to 930 g)
This is a possibly effective, but honestly pretty poor substitute. Though citric acid is the major flavoring element, lemon juice contains many other vitamins/minerals, and lemons have a huge range of volatile flavor compounds that contribute to their aroma. If you squeeze fresh lemons, many of these compounds ultimately make their way into your lemonade and give it a distinctive "fresh lemon" quality. (You may be able to compensate for some of these by adding in a highly flavorful lemon extract.)
By the time we've approximated lemon juice with this fairly basic substitute, we've lost those distinctively "lemon" flavors, and may as well use a powdered, concentrated, or commercially produced lemonade instead.
Thank you All.Your advise is much appreciated. Seems to me fresh lemons can not be replaced without losing the quality I wish my Lemonade to be.
And that's even before you add zest as some recipes do.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081614 | 2016-03-10T12:59:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67295",
"authors": [
"Barbara C",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Karen Kaminski",
"Nathian Hunter",
"Robert Johnson",
"Rosemary Chiariello",
"SF.",
"Tilla",
"Tracey McKerrow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lettee76",
"nestar",
"user303061"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73469 | Can I substitute amaretto syrup for amaretto liqueur?
I have a recipe that calls for 1/2 cup amaretto liqueur. Can I substitute Torani amaretto syrup and should I use the same amount - 1/2 cup?
no not at all. alcohol in recipes is generally there because certain flavor compounds are only soluble in alcohol. adding a half cup of syrup will make your recipe come out much much sweeter than it should. A better substitution would be probably around a teaspoon of almond extract and some neutral liquor like vodka. It would also be helpful if you include what recipe you are using or what you are attempting to make.
It is a cake loaf recipe. I would prefer not to use any liqueur in it...could I do some combination of the syrup and water?
I would hesitate about using syrup unless you remove some of the sugar in the recipe. If you're concerned about using alcohol you can use some almond extract and water
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.081895 | 2016-08-26T17:04:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73469",
"authors": [
"Sdarb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50079",
"user50079"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71752 | How long does it take to cool 5 lb of deep fried chicken from 350 degree to 75 degree
I need help: we had a problem with health dept. We put 5-10 lbs deep fried chicken in the walk-in cooler directly removed from oil. Around 350 to 400 degree then. After 1 and 1/2 hours in the cooler (cooler temperature was about 40 degree), it stated 77 degree. We got violation notice. To me it is the violation one way of the other. You left outside cooling is violation, inside cooling is violation. Is there any one please help me to give me the answer that how long it will take to cool down?
Don't you need a blast chiller to do this ? Check your local restaurant supplier.
I'm pretty sure that your chicken isn't actually 350 degrees when you pull it out of the oil. Just because the oil is, the chicken itself should only be in the 160 F range... otherwise it will be extremely overcooked.
For why this kind of thing is a violation, see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat, which gives the basis for this kind of judgment, especially in a commercial context: if it's 40-140F for at least a couple hours, it should be discarded. If you don't have a method to cool food that fast, you need to either find another method or not plan on keeping food around that long.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/food/food-safety/food-service-industry/prep-storage/what-is-the-risk-cooling-hot-food/
How was the chicken arranged in the cooler? Was it all in a sealed plastic bucket? Was it arranged out on trays for maximum surface area?
What size pieces of chicken? How are they arranged?
In order to cool quickly, you need to spread the food out in as thin a layer as possible, preferable with space between pieces. You may also require a more active cooler for the chilling process with a larger cooling unit and a more powerful fan - chilling hot food is a far more difficult task than holding cold food.
But the most fundamental step is spreading the food out on trays so it is only one piece deep - that will cool much faster than a basket or tub of the same meat at the same starting temperature. If the tray is metal and is stored in the freezer before use, it would add just a bit more cooling.
Another approach would be to place the meat in a sealed bag (still in one layer), and plunge it into ice-water for rapid cooling.
If you really, literally want to know "how long does it take", you have to measure it yourself. Experiment a few times with the same chicken, and average the times measured. There is no way to calculate it for any practical purpose, and if anybody else measures it with their chicken and their cooler, they will arrive at an answer which will not apply to your chicken and your cooler.
If you are asking something else, such as "how can I chill my chicken so that I am never in violation", the time needed by your current process is irrelevant. You already know that it is in violation of health codes. What you need to do is to change your process. For example, you could cut the chicken into smaller pieces and place them far apart from each other into the cooler. Or use a colder cooler. When you have made the changes, measure your chicken's temperature yourself. If it falls widely below the limit on multiple occasions, it will be OK when the health inspector comes too.
Might be worth letting them steam out on a rack at room temp before packing them up for the cooler, too.
Depends on many variables:
mass
surface area
air flow
cooler temperature
Most health inspectors are reasonable. You obviously cannot go from 140° F to 40° F instantly.
Was the chicken in a sealed plastic container? Plastic is a fairly good insulator. There is no air flow to the chicken. The surface area is limited to the that of the container. If is was only down to 77° in 1 and 1/2 hours I suspect you had it in a sealed plastic container.
Open on a tray is going to be the fastest cooling but then you have odor contamination to and from the chicken. And you use up a lot of cooler space.
Metal is poor heat insulator. Metal is a heat conductor. Your best bet is to spread out the chicken in covered metal tray. Chicken pieces can touch but not two or more layer deep.
And let it chill in the basket for like 10 minutes where you are getting lots of direct air flow.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.082102 | 2016-07-29T14:56:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71752",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"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
} |
67559 | Is it safe to eat expired hollandaise sauce mix
I have a really old packet of McCormick Hollandaise sauce mix - it's 5 years expired. Is it safe to use and eat? Main ingredients are Wheat starch, maltodextrin, egg solids, soy lecithin, etc..
Isn't that what the word "expired" means in this context? "Not safe to use and eat"?
@WillemvanRumpt. Not necessarily. Here in the UK we have "use by" dates which are safety based, and "best before" dates which are based on a barely detectable change in taste/texture (not necessarily for the worse). It appears that both are equivalent to "expiry" days in some places.
Same in the US (the OP is in New York and McCormick stuff is widely sold here) - expiration dates are generally "best by" except on obviously perishable things.
@ChrisH: Ah, didn't know. We might (or probably) have something similar here (NL), I just interpret every date as a "do not touch after this" date.
If it's a powdered mix, it's still powder (not clumped) and the pack is sealed, I'd go for it. Dried foods here are most likely to have a best before date, rather than a use by (real expiry) date. If it's clumped or the packet is damaged it may have absorbed water which wouldn't be good. It's possible that the flavour will have deteriorated a little. For example, powdered egg keeps for 5-10 years, most foods don't have longer than a nominal year on the label.
A wet sauce mix may also keep that long if it's packed in a way equivalent to canning (i.e. sealed then cooked in the packet).
If anything seems wrong about it, avoid it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.082676 | 2016-03-19T14:34:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67559",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Chris Staples",
"Kathryn Welch",
"Shannon Fry",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Yolanda G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450"
],
"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
} |
67618 | Caramel with sugar granules
I made caramel with condensed milk one month ago. Now I want to use it again, but it has sugar granules on it. So what should I do to make it smooth again?
Do you mean that you made it purely out of sweetened condensed milk, i.e. simmered/boiled the condensed milk (possibly in the can) until it caramelized? That's commonly called dulce de leche.
Are you sure you made actual caramel, and not Scottish tablet?
If the crystals have formed in the same way the crystals form in Honey, then you could try warming the caramel. Honey forms crystals over time, and these are removed by placing the honey in hot water for an hour (you will need to keep the water hot, above body temperature but not boiling).
Depending on the caramel, you can also dump it back in a pot with some hot water and cook it again til smooth. I have definitely done that with crystallized caramel before. If the jar was almost empty, I've also just heated it up like you said.... but usually the lazy way by nuking it in small bursts.
Once crystals appear in dulce de leche you can't remove them (a far as I know).
But there are several methods to help not getting the crystals. Industry adds β-D-galactosidase. Adding lactose micro crystals, as they do in ice cream manufacturing, isn't practical due to technical limitations.
Effect of cooling temperature and formulation in Dulce de Leche manufacturing, SPANISH
For home manufacturing some options are using a thick iron pot that cools down slowly. If you open the can, you can add marbles to avoid it getting stuck to the bottom, never introduce spoons to stir it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.082831 | 2016-03-20T15:11:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67618",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Corey Price",
"Debbie Worms",
"Jeanette Gavin",
"Keijo Mielo",
"Philip Dawson",
"Stuart Folland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"kitukwfyer",
"nick012000"
],
"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
} |
63696 | Why is the handle of sauce pans tilted and not horizontal?
Why is the handle of a saucepan tilted upwards now-a-days rather than the old fashioned horizontal handles?
Probably because it's more comfortable to grab.
At first I thought talon8 was referring to the issues of moment & sheer when lifting ... but an upwards sweeping handle would also move the handle further out of the fire, which could keep it cooler. (but I have no idea if this was the intent or not)
I also think it must be something to do with that tilted handle would require less force to pick up the same mass as compared to the horizontal one..just speculating here.
That's a very interesting question. I've asked two of Germans most famous kitchenware producers, I suspect they should know why they do it, especially if they have both kind of handles in their portfolio. I guess it is really more a design issue than anything else.
Just as a related observation, I've seen copper saucepans made in the 2000s, the 1900s, the 1800s, and the 1700s. They basically tend to follow the same design with riveted handles, 90+% of the time angled up. The angle tends to vary, but it's been pretty standard to angle it for a long time. High-end pans today made of other materials tend to imitate that classic design. This doesn't answer the question, but I wonder whether "old-fashioned horizontal handles" were ever standard.
Also to mention that i just noticed that the pressure cooker i am using has a horizontal handle and not the tilted one as in a sauce pan.Am i using an out dated pressure cooker or is this the standard one.
@metasj - In my experience most pressure cookers have horizontal handles, often "2-piece" handles interlocking a lid handle and a pot handle. It's probably much easier to design a durable "2-piece" handle that goes horizontally.
@Athanasius,thats what i thought.so i have the right one.phew!
interestingly, tilted handles prevent some pots from lying flat while upsidedown. good or bad?
The answer from the 'Product Manager - Cookware' of Zwilling, translated to English:
[Snipped introduction]
Different factors influence the design of the handle during the product creation process. At the first step there are optical reasons. This is the phase of the first design drawings.
As soon as we decide internally on a draft, we craft plastic prototypes that are attached to the corresponding pan body to see the size ratio "live" and verify the look and feel. If we feel that one of the two factors is not optimal, we do another design round.
Stability does essentially not play any role for the tilt angle, more decisive are the handle connection and material thickness.
[The last paragraph was likely in reference to my question about having a certain tilt angle for better hanging on a handle. "Better" was interpreted as 'more long lasting'.]
The answer from the 'Consumer Service WMF', translated to English:
[Snipped introduction]
The pan body shapes and the handles are only attributable to the design. As every human has a different taste, we have an assortment of different designs. There is no other technical reason for the handles and shapes of sauce pans.
Summary:
An aesthetically pleasing hanging on a handle is at least not such a concern during the design process at Zwilling that it was mentioned. WMF flat out says it's just design.
If the premise of the question is actually true, that there was indeed a change over time, which is questionable, then at least these days such issues play no longer any role for large companies.
Did some looking and while I haven't found an authoritative answer, in the introduction to this design paper, he describes a theory that I think makes a lot of sense.
Traditionally, pots and pans have always had a long straight handle, since they were designed to
be used in an open fire. With the advent of modern stovetops, pots and pans were lifted off the hearth,
and the handles simply shortened, with the incidental benefit of saving space in a smaller environment.
I suspect that makes the most sense. With a fire, you want to keep your hand as low and out of the fire as much as possible. In a stove as there is a lot less radiant heat than a fire, it is much more beneficial to just simply move your hand a few extra inches away from the burner. Up and out makes a little more sense then.
In essence, I suspect the pot/cookware design more closely matches to the available heat sources available. As I'm typing this, another theory, is that the change of material used for the handle also makes a difference. With a wooden or plastic handle, you need to move it up and away from the heat source more so than a handle made of pure metal.
I would agree with the general idea here. As far as I can tell from a few searches, the angled handle and "high handle" (where the riveted section curves up and then out roughly horizontally, but at or above the top of the pot) seem to date from the 1700s (approximately), when better kitchens started to have "stovetops." As hearth cooking died out and was replaced by things like cast iron stoves in the 1800s, these designs made more sense, since they kept the handles above the heat (and also made it easier to arrange more pots on a stove without the handles getting in the way).
So that the handle hangs straight down if it's used to hang the saucepan from a rack, which is more aesthetically pleasing than having it hang at an angle, which a straight handle would do. For example:
If you're saying it's a balance type thing -- the one on the far right doesn't look straight. It might be that the pot on the left (which isn't balanced the same way) is pushing it, but I can't be sure from the picture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.083006 | 2015-11-20T23:02:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63696",
"authors": [
"Aida Gavrilova",
"Athanasius",
"Cathy Herman",
"Daniel Logan",
"Jay Scott",
"Joe",
"John Hammond",
"Julie Gneiser",
"Justin Fewster",
"Nan Pow",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter Morrissey",
"Pug Halliday",
"Robert Bolt",
"Valeria Macchia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"metasj",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65376 | Can I safely pressure can potato soup with milk in it?
Can I safely pressure can potato soup with milk in it? I made potato soup and would like to can it for later use. Problem is I already put milk in it. Do I have any alternative ways to preserve it? I had 20 lbs.of potatoes I had to do something with before they went bad!
Freezing the soup will certainly preserve it in a safe manner... question is whether it will freeze well. You can try with a small amount, keeping the rest chilled ....
According to USDA National Center for Home Food Preservation, no:
Caution: Do not add noodles or other pasta, rice, flour, cream, milk or other thickening agents to home canned soups. If dried beans or peas are used, they must be fully rehydrated first.
From Penn State Extension:
...there are some commercially prepared foods that just cannot be reproduced safely by the home canner. Creamed soups are not suitable for home canning because their ingredients interfere with the proper transfer of heat during the processing step and can result in food borne illness.
From BUTTER AND MILK…WHY CAN’T THEY BE CANNED?
By Ruth Woods
UCCE El Dorado County Master Food Preservers
Look no further than a post by Dr. Elizabeth L. Andress, National Director of Home
Food Preservation, University of Georgia Department of Foods and Nutrition. Dr.
Andress, a Professor and Extension Food Safety Specialist, commented on several
questions posed regarding the safety of home canning soups that contained butters and
milks. According to Dr. Andress, there are no established safe procedures for canning
dairy products. She echoed the stance that many personal internet sites that share
canning recipes and information pose safety concerns: For a recipe to be safe, it needs to
be thoroughly challenged in microbiology studies to confirm a safe product is achieved
every time it is processed. Dr. Andress further explained that the “amount of heat that
would have to be applied to kill harmful bacteria” that grows in dairy products in a
processed jar held at room temperature would be “extremely detrimental to its quality.”
She went on to say that, “Milk is a finely balanced emulsion of proteins in water. If the
proteins are over-heated, they drop out of suspension and the milk separates.
There are commercially canned foods that contain dairy, but they use processes that are not available to home canners. To be safe, do not use dairy in recipes that will be canned at home.
I was going to ask if this applied to pressure canning, too ... but looking at the first link makes it pretty obvious that they considered that (as it's only talking about pressure canning).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.083486 | 2016-01-13T15:26:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65376",
"authors": [
"Hadleigh Duce",
"Joe",
"Michele Oconnor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rnjai"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83951 | Why are the corks of some of my Muscat wines popping out?
We have bottled Muscat wine and with a few bottles (three out of 30) the cork seems to be pushing out.
The storage area is 12 Celsius. The wine was bottled in mid June of this year, by a small winery. This is a very recent event. All the other bottle tops are still that tiny bit concave.
What can be going on ?
This would do better on homebrewing.se
I am the op .......I don't understand what Debbie M. means by her comment , I have never used this site before and have no clue as to what I have done wrong ??
Thank you , Mennyg, I will check for that site. - just looked that up and it is in a language foreign to me - I only have English , French ,German a smidgen of Spanish ..
Sloppy shorthand - homebrewing.stackexchange.com
... Seriously... Magic links are magic! [homebrewing.se].
Welcome Gabeck, you did nothing wrong. It is common practice here to edit posts for spelling, formatting etc. it's not a big deal.
Dear community, this is a very nice illustration of a pattern which I have seen happen frequently before - new users being unnecessarily confused by "this could also fit on X.se" type of comments. I made a meta question for this, please share your opinion: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3402
Gabeck, welcome! You indeed didn't do anything wrong, and you can ignore the comment about the homebrewing site for now.
This is generally an indication that the wine is not stable - that is, it is still fermenting, which is a defect in wines not intended to be sparkling (carbonated) wines.
If you made the wine, and the winery bottled it, this is your problem. If the winery made and bottled the wine, I would bring it up with them, as it's their problem, and hopefully they will replace the bulging bottles.
In making wines one either has to aim for a dry wine where all the sugars have been consumed and there is nothing more for the yeast to eat, or one "stabilizes" the wine by either filtering out all the yeast or chemically "stunning" them to prevent further fermentation when bottled. Whatever method was supposed to be applied to your wine was evidently not done properly or completely, and now fermentation is continuing in the bottles and causing gas pressure, which is pushing the corks out.
If you can't get the winery to replace the bulging bottles of wine, your best bet is to refrigerate it as cold as possible without freezing it, and drink as soon as possible.
You don't need a winery to bottle wine. They sell corkers at most homebrewing stores.
No kidding. The OP stated that a winery bottled the wine - it's just not clear from the question as written if they bottled their own wine, or if they provided a service to home winemakers who choose not to invest in a corker (which seem to cost a lot more than a capper.)
If you did not bottle yourself, and I don't think you did, Homebrewing may not be able to help a lot other than to give multiple ideas of what is happening. In truth, either @Encerwal is correct and it is still fermenting, or worse, it is simply going bad from contamination and not high enough alcohol content to stop the pathogens are the two things that quickly come to mind for me.
In either case, I would try to contact the winery. If the bottles have not been exposed to high temperatures, this should not be happening. If the wine was intended to be sparkling, it should be bottled with correct higher strength bottles and the correct, wired in corks to handle the added pressure. Even it the wine is still good, not a pathogen issue, you are in danger of pressure bursts, and a major mess on your hands.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.083719 | 2017-08-28T15:28:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83951",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gabeck",
"Mennyg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61143",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97022 | Will a crockpot brown ground meat?
For chili con carne, can you brown the ground beef, onions, peppers, etc in a crockpot (without the lid on) and then add the other ingredients to finish by slow cooking?
I can in my crock pot because it has a 'saute' setting. Does yours?
It is possible, but only if you have the right type of crock-pot. Most crock-pots are not designed for searing and as such do not get hot enough, quickly enough to sear the meat properly. You also run the risk of cracking the ceramic pot due to uneven heating/cooling as you add the meat.
There are specific models of crock pot with a sear function. If you were to try, I would recommend that you get one of these.
You seem to be stressing the 'yes', but I'd argue it's 'no'. The ones that sear are typically sold as a 'multi-cooker' with a 'slow cook' function. Any that are primarily marketed as a 'crock pot' will not have this functionality. (as if they have a stone crock, they can't brown meat).
I agree, I have edited my post.
Another option I've owned in the past is a slow cooker in which the inner removable pan is non stick metal. This was specifically designed to be used on the stove for browning before slow cooking.
Overall I prefer the traditional ceramic pot as the heat is much more even in normal use; the lack of a handle on the metal pot was also annoying for browning.
I have one with a metal insert - it's irritating to have to do the browning wearing oven gloves, but I'll take that for the result & for not having to use two pans to get it started ;)
I have several crockpots and none will brown ground beef, onions, or peppers. I recommend using a frying pan instead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084030 | 2019-03-21T17:48:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97022",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100740 | Sprouted Legumes? How long do they keep?
I purchased sprouted lentils over four weeks ago. They are fresh, not dehydrated. I've kept them refrigerated. They look and smell fine. Are they still good to use after all this time, or must I discard?
Possible duplicate of How should I store beansprouts?
@bob1 I beg to differ, sprouted lentils are very different from bean sprouts...
@JulianaKarasawaSouza - we must agree to disagree then. The safety considerations are the same for both types.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084203 | 2019-08-14T18:38:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100740",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100840 | What ingredient should I add to my cookies to increase shelf life?
What ingredient should I add to my cookies to increase shelf life. I need my cookies, 6 months later to still be fresh (expiry date in 6 months).
No ingredient will make a cookie last 6 months. Some types of cookies last longer than others: for example, this recipe for biscotti can keep up to 3 months if kept in an airtight container in a cool place.
But again, there is no way to take a generic recipe for cookies and amend it to last this long. Something like American-style chocolate chip cookies simply has too much fat and moisture to keep. A possible alternative is to freeze cookie dough, possibly in pre-portioned scoops, and bake a fresh batch when you need them.
If that answer is what you consider acceptable, you might want to click on it to accept it as the answer.
You can also freeze baked cookies pretty well.
I know this is three years later, but if you haven't found a solution (I'm on the journey myself, currently, lol) look into BHT/BHA, sodium benzoate, or citric acid. I just started adding potassium sorbate into my items. We will see what happens. Lol.
Welcome to the site – when it comes to food safety, we defer to official guidance and this suggestion would not yield safe food that lasts a long time by that standard. Bear in mind that no commercial cookie would claim to be safe to eat six months after opening, even with the benefit of commercial preservatives, production methods and a lab to test their product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084285 | 2019-08-20T04:43:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100840",
"authors": [
"Steve Chambers",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120796 | Convert dill pickle chips to bread and butter pickles?
Bread and Butter Pickles (sweet and tangy pickled cucumber slices) are not available locally (Mexico) but Costco carries dill pickle chips(slices).
Can I convert these believably?
It might be easier for people to answer this question if you explained what the two items are; I have no idea what 'bread and butter pickles' or 'dill chips' are from the names.
Basically asking if replacing some brine with sugar water overnight will be reasonably close. Maybe adding onion flakes...
I don’t believe you’ll get a decent Bread & Butter pickle using your plan.
Dill slices are pickled in a water/vinegar/salt solution.
Bread & Butter pickles are made with a vinegar/sugar syrup. Spices are also different between the two.
If you really want to start with the Costco dills, I would drain and rinse them well, then add the sweet syrup with appropriate spices. It will take a few days for the flavors to develop.
To make good refrigerator Bread & Butter pickles from scratch is not much more work than your plan, if you have cucumbers available (small pickling are best, and may be available at your Costco). Look for recipes online, there are plenty.
Will give small batch a go with above method for a special customer. Persian cukes available later in summer sometimes. Just not worth my bother to do scratch. Have failed before with soggy results. Thanks.
One of the places near me used to have bread and butter pickles which where thinly sliced, almost shaved. I suspect they could be made quickly (cure time) if you had a mandoline or similar
If you use the hot marinade method for bread & butter pickles, they're ready in 1 day.
Small batch turned out very acceptable! Replaced brine with hot sugar water turmeric, onion flakes. Overnight and voilà! Since pickle is generally a small component of a burger/sandwich, will do.
I have converted kosher dill pickles into a reasonable version of bread and butter by adding Splenda to them and refrigerating several days. I wanted a zero calorie bread and butter pickles which I was having a difficult job finding. The ones I usually buy have mustard seeds, celery seeds, and onion flakes. I am going to add those next time along with the Splenda.
Good to know, but I would recommend keeping them in the fridge, as I don’t know if Splenda acts as a preservative the same way as regular sugar. (It might, as it’s derived from sugar, but I just don’t know)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084430 | 2022-06-10T14:29:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120796",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Pat Sommer",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99766 | Canning for couple of days to one week of low acidic cooked food without pressure canning?
I would like can low acidic cooked food like vegetables or meat (chicken) to use with in couple of days to one week during summer vacations.
I dont have pressure canner so, can I do it using Hot bath canning procedure?
NO! Using your method you have created the perfect environment to grow Clostridium botulinum, so within a couple of days you very well could have a thriving colony of botulism rich food.
From USDA Complete Guide to Home Canning
Ensuring safe canned foods
Growth of the bacterium Clostridium botulinum in canned food may cause botulism—a deadly
form of food poisoning. These bacteria exist either as spores or as vegetative cells. The spores,
which are comparable to plant seeds, can survive harmlessly in soil and water for many years.
When ideal conditions exist for growth, the spores produce vegetative cells which multiply
rapidly and may produce a deadly toxin within 3 to 4 days of growth in an environment
consisting of:
• a moist, low-acid food
• a temperature between 40° and 120°F
• less than 2 percent oxygen.
Botulinum spores are on most fresh food surfaces. Because they grow only in the absence of air,
they are harmless on fresh foods.
Most bacteria, yeasts, and molds are difficult to remove from food surfaces. Washing fresh food
reduces their numbers only slightly. Peeling root crops, underground stem crops, and tomatoes
reduces their numbers greatly. Blanching also helps, but the vital controls are the method of
canning and making sure the recommended research-based process times, found in these
guides, are used.
The processing times in these guides ensure destruction of the largest expected number of heatresistant microorganisms in home-canned foods. Properly sterilized canned food will be free of
spoilage if lids seal and jars are stored below 95°F. Storing jars at 50° to 70°F
enhances retention of quality.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084724 | 2019-06-26T19:35:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99766",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78496 | How Long is the Shelf Life of Refrigerated Eggless Mayonnaise?
I have learned to make mayonnaise using only oil, milk, and lemon juice. If I store this in the refrigerator, how long will it remain safe to eat?
According to the recipe here, Milk Mayonnaise will last about a week in the fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084898 | 2017-02-17T10:10:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78496",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71422 | Can I make Chocolate Chip Cookies last for months by adding preservatives?
I have a small cookie business and I would like to start selling packaged (soft baked) cookies, that last longer than a week, hopefully a few months.
However, cookies prepared with fresh ingredients only last for 5 days. (After 3 days they don't taste that good anyway.)
I have heard of special ovens making them last for months, as well as special packaging and preservatives, but I don't have any information on any of these.
Do any of these work? Or do I have to change my recipe completely and use powdered eggs, whey powder, etc.?
I don't know enough about this to give you a good answer, and since no one else has chimed in, I think your best bet may be to try to contact some commercial packaging operation and see if they have suggestions. Your quantities probably won't be big enough to interest them, but maybe they can point you in the right direction.
I think packaging is going to be your biggest hurdle. A complete air seal does amazing things for cookie shelf life -- a traditional tin often seems to double or triple the shelf-life of my cookies compared to other less sturdy or air-tight containers. Even things like the plastic trays that packaged cookies come in are no accident: they often keep the cookies well-spaced (no mass of them sticking together) and won't absorb or give off moisture.
As for the recipe, I don't think you'll need to go as drastic as dried eggs, etc. if you have proper packaging. The recipe may require some tweaks or preservatives, particularly for soft-baked cookies. The earliest packaged cookies were generally dry and hard -- think "animal crackers." At home, I can make cookies like that which last for a couple months stored in a tin. But I think "soft-baked" cookies only became common in commercial packages in the 1980s or so. (However, the texture of those "chewy" cookies was generally horrid.) I imagine one reason for that may have been the increased use of hydrogenated oils at that time, which would have allowed higher fat content without the fats going rancid at room temperature during storage. Rancidity is probably your next problem to solve after achieving a good air-tight seal and packaging. (Lecithin in very small quantities might be a little helpful too, but it can impart a strong flavor.)
You might need to tweak the recipe a bit if it's too moist, and that should help to avoid microbial problems or mold. (Yes, cookies -- particularly moist ones like soft-baked -- can grow mold, but we generally never see it because the oxidation causes staleness and rancidity long before we generally see mold growth.) Aside from lowering moisture, increasing sugar and/or salt content might also help.
Those should be the main concerns. Other preservatives may add a bit longer, but the biggest hurdles are packaging (including a real air-tight seal), rancidity, and mold. Conquer those, and you may already looking at a shelf-life of at least a month, maybe a few months. Beyond that, and you'll probably need to start experimenting with recipe tweaks like the big cookie companies do. Unfortunately there aren't that many "magic" preservatives that will push staleness off forever: a lot of it just has to do with getting the recipe with the right fat content, moisture content, etc. and packaging them well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.084952 | 2016-07-14T21:59:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71422",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25698 | Make Jello as firm as agar-agar
I have made jelly using both Jello and agar-agar seaweed.
Jelly made with agar-agar is firm. Using concrete-pouring terminology, the agar-agar jellies that I made would have a slump of more than a foot. Whereas, my jellies made from jello would have a slump height of only about 4 inches.
That is, I estimate that I could make a 1 cubic foot block of jelly from agar-agar and it would still hold, whereas the the max size of a jello block is only 4 cubic inch before it starts crumbling. Just an estimate, have never tried making a cubic foot block of agar-agar.
Is there a way to firm up the jellies made from jello? Would adding tapioca flour help? But adding tapioca flour would destroy the pretty translucence of jello.
Also, agar-agar has a nice firm chewiness whereas eating jello is like eating yogurt.
gelatin can make a very firm but unpalatable product; think gummi bears
Just for fun, kind of related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45943/how-to-make-xxl-watermelon-jell-o-shots-without-falling-apart/45968#45968
There is a modified form of tapioca that gives a clear solution, but it is not easily available and I do not think it would help in this case.
The obvious way to firm up Jello is to use less water than recommended - use somewhere between a half and three quarters of the amount specified on the packet. But you are comparing agar with gelatin here, it is like comparing chalk and cheese. Gelatin is extracted from bones, agar-agar is extracted from seaweed. They are chemically very different, the big common factor being that they form an edible jelly.
I'm not going to discourse on those differences, beyond saying that mixing chalk and cheese is not a good idea. I am just going to point out that, since much of the gelatin comes from pig bones, Muslims object to gelatin. OTOH Muslims like jelly, so in every Halal shop you will find a range of commercially produced fruit jellies which are mostly based on seaweed. Since vegetarians also object to gelatin, you get those jellies in health food shops and other vegetarian outlets as well.
Get some Halal jelly and start from that, you should be able to adjust the texture as desired with agar-agar ...
Jello is flavoring and gelatin. Just take a look at the ingredients list for a few flavors on the Kraft website.
You're likely right about agar-agar adding the texture properties you desire. An alternative would be to just use a jello mix plus one or more packets of unflavored gelatin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.085209 | 2012-08-17T05:08:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25698",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Turtle",
"David Hawkins",
"G.Willie",
"Gretchen",
"John Rhoads",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lea",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sokol baca",
"hintss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58948",
"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
} |
19435 | When to use convection/fan bake vs bake
Are there any general rules to follow when choosing between bake and fan bake to cook something in the oven? What effect does each have and what are the advantages and disadvantages of both?
To clarify: forced-air (a/k/a "convection", a/k/a "fan bake") ovens rely on a fan to circulate the air in the oven. The fast-moving air substantially enhances the rate at which heat is transferred to the food. It is particularly good where you want the surface to brown, such as roasts and breads; it is not as good for more delicate items, such as custards and cakes, which can set too quickly or get dried out. For cookies, it depends on what effect you want, but many standard types do well in forced-air ovens because the fan helps ensure that the whole oven stays at a uniform temperature despite the presence of several trays. (Of course, the tray closest to the heating element will still cook faster than the one farthest away, so you will still have to swap them partway through.)
The general rule for using the fan is to set the oven temperature 25 degrees F (15 C) lower than what the recipe calls for using in a regular oven. Even then, don't go strictly by cooking time, as ovens vary; rather, be sure to check on your food regularly to see how fast it is cooking. You may need to cover your food to prevent over-browning, or perhaps adjust the oven temperature.
Some ovens have a mode (Viking calls this “TruConvec”) where there isn’t even any need to swap trays: the only heating element used is behind the back wall by the fan, and the oven is heated entirely by air forced past it, so the whole oven cooks uniformly.
To add to the excellent answer already provided, I will just point out that the only times I have ever needed to turn the fan off on the connection oven was when baking something fragile. For example phillo dough.
I use my oven so often and I like baking, I use fan when I bake biscuit, but not for cake baking. When I bake pies I feel is more dry if I use the fan, so I still wonder what is the best way!!!
We have a new JGB700 and we have used the convection mode for cooking everything since we bought it, with wonderful results! The oven automatically adjusts the temp to accommodate for the convection cooking difference, so we don't even think about it. Very convenient, and we haven't had anything dry out. Chocolate chip cookies, cupcakes, and a bundt cake all came out great. The french fries and pizza are amazingly good in this mode!
To the flaggers, I wonder what made you think that this is not an answer. The poster suggests that convection baking should always be used for everything. One may disagree that this gives good results, but it still addresses the question.
I am not a fan of convection bake, Everything I have baked turns out overdone and dried out.
The last two pies I baked, the crust was way too dark. This is a brand new LG oven.
Did you adjust your baking time/temperature to account for the convection?
I would keep this and Mandy's answer. One seems to say that everything is better in convection, the other seems to say that nothing is good in convection. Even if they are incorrect, it is a valid opinion to have on the matter of how to choose which foods should be baked with convection.
@rumtscho I disagree; "X is better" / "I don't like Y" are not good answers to "when to use X or Y". There are better ways to figure out how to use kitchen equipments, as what was pointed in the accepted answer.
@Luciano exactly, they are bad answers. It is the moderators' job to delete posts which are not an answer at all, such as people saying "my oven is broken and I can't get the convection to work" or similar. Answers, good or bad, are left alone by moderators. The community should downvote them if they give bad advice.
@rumtscho fair enough
Fan bake is better. It bakes things evenly and makes sure there is no raw spots.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.085436 | 2011-12-06T08:32:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19435",
"authors": [
"C. R",
"Erica",
"Greg Price",
"Luciano",
"Shan",
"Wendi Leah Waldner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89368",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67038 | Can I use apple cider vinegar instead of white wine vinegar for cooking?
Can I substitute apple cider vinegar for white wine vinegar in a pasta and chicken dish?
Dorothy ... those two are generally similar in acid, so are reasonable compatible for most dishes. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/56960/67 .
It may slightly alter the flavor (maybe in a positive way!). It shouldn't cause any negative chemical problems in the recipe. I sub different vinegars regularly and I haven't had any troubles.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.085785 | 2016-03-02T18:32:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67038",
"authors": [
"Ak3.14",
"David Allen",
"Esther Koh",
"Joe",
"Raji Arasu",
"Sharon",
"dubmeisterdeluxe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nur amni",
"user2713438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63585 | Why does my Victoria sandwich have a hole in the base?
I've made the same cake recipe for years, no changes but suddenly my cakes look fine on top but when I turn them out there's a big hollow underneath! Help!
Are you sure there have been no changes? You're using the same tin lined the same way in the same oven?
A picture of the hole would help understand your problem
maybe its so tasty someone had to take a bite :)
Can you share your recipe and method? It might help to identify the potential problems.
Guessing there was an accumulation of trapped air, either during the preparation of the batter/sponge cake mix, or when pouring into the pan/tin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.085880 | 2015-11-18T13:11:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63585",
"authors": [
"Addilyn Wozniak",
"Dorothy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Mark Milne",
"Michelle French",
"NadjaCS",
"Sean Botha",
"hownowbrowncow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63710 | What pot size for 150 servings of sauce?
I am cooking spaghetti meat sauce for approximately 150 people. I can cook the sauce, but I have never cooked for such a large group before, what size pot is recommended?
I would make up a small test batch and measure the amount of sauce you think is sufficient per person. It will vary significantly on the type of sauce, how "hearty" or rich it is, and whether you'll have a lot of side dishes or whether spaghetti is the only main dish.
Anyhow, once you decide on a typical portion, then just multiply the amount by 150 to see the total volume. For a typical example:
If you assume 1/2 cup (4 ounces) per person (probably the absolute minimum you'd need), that would be 4*150 = 600 ounces. Since there's 32 ounces per quart, that comes to 18.75 quarts
.
If you assume 2/3 cup per person, that's 5.33 ounces*150 = 800 ounces/32 = 25 quarts. That might be a reasonable assumption for many sauces if there's just a single measured serving given to everyone.
If it's self-serve or "all-you-can-eat" or whatever, you might need a LOT more.
Always remember with a large pot that you'll need to allow space for headroom. If you want to cook 25 quarts of sauce, I'd use at least a 30-quart pot.
All of that said, unless you have experience cooking with large pots and have access to a stove with sufficient power and room (large pots are very wide and often quite tall), I'd recommend using multiple smaller pots. Sauce often needs frequent stirring, and that can be difficult with a very tall stockpot or something. Also, with a very large pot, it can often take a long time for the food to get to an appropriate hot temperature, so be sure your meat sauce is "safe" and heats fast enough.
(EDIT: I would clarify that the above is assuming an "American-style" spaghetti dinner. Traditional pasta in Italy served with red sauce usually has much less sauce, probably half of the above amounts. Again, I'd recommend making a test batch and measuring the amount you think is "correct" for your style of dish.)
bain marie rental might be useful
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.085993 | 2015-11-21T15:49:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63710",
"authors": [
"Ash Arora",
"Chris Duckworth",
"Christopher Mahan",
"David Bice",
"Fran Beazley",
"Mary Perkins",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sandralee Antle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151667",
"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
} |
64155 | Can I substitute mascarpone for ricotta?
I have left over mascarpone that I don't want to waste
Gail, do you have any specific use in mind? I'd say for some recipes, yes, for some not really. Please give us more details to work with.
@Stephie If you can describe what situations it will and won't work in, that would probably be pretty useful not just to the OP but to future readers who might not be making the exact same thing.
Although my own instinct would be to try using the mascarpone, there are undoubtedly some recipes that might not work.
Consider whether the moisture content, texture, or flavor of ricotta is essential for what your recipe is trying to achieve. For many dishes, such as lasagna or other baked pasta, mascarpone should be no less delicious than ricotta.
However, if your recipe truly needs the specific texture and more subtle flavor of ricotta, then it might be worth waiting until you have some, and make something else with the mascarpone instead of wasting it.
Part of the fun of cooking is experimenting with the ingredients you have on hand, and imagining in your mind how they might taste together. If you can imagine the taste of mascarpone in the dish you're making, then absolutely, you should go for it — it might turn out to be your own special creation!
If you use the mascarpone, I would love to hear what you made and how it turned out!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.086185 | 2015-12-06T17:24:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64155",
"authors": [
"Amanda Weidner",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Litchfield",
"Dawn Cardinal",
"Honey",
"Kenneth Marcotte",
"Lauren Thomson",
"Maurice Gait",
"Queenie Waa",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
} |
64171 | Is it true cooked food cannot be left in room temperature for longer than 4 hours?
I have only recently discovered that cooked food shouldn't be left in room temperature for longer than 2/4 hours.
I lived in a tropical country which is warm and humid and I have been growing up eating left over cooked food(meat, rice, bread, dairy products and left in 30C for longer than 6 hours) with no issues. In fact it's very normal to the people in my country.
So my question is the 2/4 hours only a strict guide for commercial food seller? How come people in my country do not have issues with leftover food? Is this habit a silence killer which only breaks out when we grow old?
The rule is less used to say "that and that is unsafe", but "that and that is safe, without having to further look into what the cooked food consists of" for cases (as you said, commercial is an example) where you can't risk being unsafe, or make certain you are safe. At 30°C even shorter times could apply. Bread is usually not considered a perishable food, for meat and rice 6 hours at 30C sounds patently unsafe, same for dairy unless it is intentionally being fermented in a controlled manner.
I don't know where you're from, but I suspect the premise in your question is wrong: people probably do get sick from food there. They might just not realize that it's the cause.
The recommendations are based on health guidelines for restaurants -- where they have a much higher risk of problems (more people == more likely to have a person w/ a weakened immune system ... and they risk getting hundreds of people sick, rather than just one family). There are people out there who specifically recommend eating spoiled foods (even meat) as a form of probiotic, but very few people have the stomach for going it with anything other than dairy products (ie, yogurt & cheese). The real risk is botulism -- it doesn't take much, and the effects are nasty.
If you want to eat food that's been out for longer than 4 hours, that's a risk that you can decide (although, it helps to know what's in the food, to know what the risks are) ... but I'd avoid serving food that's been left out for long periods to other people, as they might have a compromised immune system or other issues that increase their risk. Of course 'long' is likely as local determination, as it's possible that people in your region are better able to handle the bugs in your area, and that Americans have weak immune systems from over-hygiene.
@Joe Botulism is not an issue here because the food is not kept under an airtight seal. Clostridium botulinum is strictly anaerobic which is why it is a preserved-food issue.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica : you realize that water or oil can make an airtight seal?
The food safety guidelines are based on scientific & mathematical calculations along the lines of:
Given an initial bacteria count of X they will under the given conditions mulitply to a number of Y amd have produced Z [unit] of toxins.
Now what to do with these values?
We use them like seat belts or helmets. Not wearing a seat belt will not automatically kill you, only if you are involved in an accident you are much more likely to suffer severe injury or death without it. Still, nobody could responsibly recommend ignoring a seatbelt, knowing that accidents do happen. But with food safety, many are willing to skip their seat belt, so to speak.
One very common misconception is that contaminated food can be detected by smell, looks or taste. Yes, some kind of spoilage is obvious, but many, especially the more dangerous ones, are not "visible". One very prominent example is Salmonella. Note that many toxins are not destroyed by cooking, more details in our canonical post.
I can guarantee that people in your country have issues with cases of foodborne illnesses - all countries do. You need to keep in mind that
Foodborne illnesses need not become apparent immediately or shortly after a meal. The symptoms of Salmonellae, for example, might start as late as 72 hours after infection. It is likely that the connection between a sudden bout of sickness and a meal eaten three days prior is simply overlooked.
In healthy adults infections may pass unnoticed or cause only mild sympotms like indigestion. The human body can handle a certain amount of bacteria or toxins, the individual levels of tolerance vary, though. So children, elderly people or those with a compromised imune system are more likely to suffer and have a higher chance of severe complications or death. The given safety guidelines are calculated to protect these groups as well. Also note that often the side-effects are as dangerous as the pathogens themselves, diarrhea being a classic example.
There is no way of determining the amount of bacteria present in a specific dish, piece of meat or other food prone to spoiling - unless you get a lab involved. The values used to calculate safe thesholds contain a certain safety margin. Your dish could contain fewer bacteria to start with or if any were present, they might not have multiplied that much. (But they might as well have, we can't safely know.) The two/four hours rule simply means that the food will remain in the safe range, not that it will be spoiled afterwards.
So what now?
It is entirely up to you to whether you choose to drive with or without seatbelt or helmet. Make an informed devision and consider the welfare of those weaker than you. What you as a healthy adult can stomach (pun intended), might be fatal to a young child or weak elderly person.
Only a few days ago the WHO published a news release on foodborne diseases:
First ever estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases show almost 1 in 10 people fall ill every year from eating contaminated food and 420 000 die as a result
Children under 5 years of age are at particularly high risk, with 125 000 children dying from foodborne diseases every year
WHO African and South-East Asia Regions have the highest burden of foodborne diseases
(Source)
In fact, driving without a seatbelt/helmet is pretty common in tropical countries :D
Yes, that's generally thought to be true — as determined through the science of modern food safety. You can read about specific guidelines on the Food-Safety tag wiki. Those practices were developed as broad recommendations, usually erring on the side of caution.
That being said, you might be able to get away with it sometimes, without dying of food poisoning, but it could be risky. Much depends on the food itself — bread left at room temperature may last for days, but you could have problems with meat or dairy products after just a couple of hours.
Bacteria and other harmful pathogens can exist everywhere. At room temperature, those organisms can multiply very rapidly, producing toxins that can make you sick. You can NOT rely on smell to detect them — food can be highly infected, but smell and taste just fine. That's why, for safety, it's important to refrigerate or freeze cooked food to slow down the growth of any pathogens.
It's best to do this as soon as possible after the food cools down to room temperature. You also want to avoid putting hot food directly into the refrigerator because it may heat up the 'fridge, affecting other food inside, and actually delay your food cooling down to a safe temperature.
Food poisoning isn't something that only breaks out when we grow old, though elderly people, young children, and those with weak immune systems can be more susceptible.
As leaving cooked food at room temperature was "normal" in your country, I wonder if there wasn't also a prevalence of food poisoning that was also just considered "normal'. How often did people have upset stomachs or diarrhea, and just accept it as part of everyday life?
This is a good answer. The only point I'd note is that if you're following recommendations from most food safety organizations, you shouldn't wait until the food "cools down to room temperature." Once it gets under about 130-135F, bacteria can start to grow. Most modern fridges won't warm up appreciably if you put hot or warm food in them, and most food safety organizations recommend refrigerating earlier rather than cooling to room temperature first. You obviously just want to keep any hot food away from highly perishable foods (e.g., raw meat) in the fridge.
Your first and second paragraphs are actually saying the same thing. What's true is that it's dangerous to eat food that's been out that long, where "dangerous" doesn't mean "you will get sick" (a common misconception) but rather "there is significant risk of getting sick." Presenting them as a contrast like that might encourage the misconception.
Here is a general consideration which seems too long for a comment.
Almost all regulations (electrical code, aviation checklists, FDA approval for drugs and devices etc.) are "written in blood", i.e. have been enacted in response to preventable damage to property or people.
The safer our lives become in general, the less tolerant we become towards preventable risks, and the stricter regulations become.
Before the advent of antibiotics, vaccines and generally sufficient nutrition, there was a low but constant mortality even among young people. You could die from a tetanus infected wound or any number of other severe infectious diseases. Children died from fevers. And some young adults would die from work accidents, and a few from botulism, and a few more old ones from salmonella infections.
But during the second half of the 20th century, medical progress achieved the incredible: Almost no healthy, young people die from illnesses any longer.
This leads to an effect known from cleaning a kitchen, or from optimizing computer programs: What counts as an issue is relative. After I clean the really dirty parts there are still parts which prevent the kitchen from looking clean, parts I didn't even notice before. In my computer program, after I optimize away the really slow parts, there is now something else responsible for keeping the program running as fast as it could.
The same effect exists in public health: Policies are always aiming to eliminate the largest risks. With ongoing success, even these largest risks become smaller and smaller in absolute terms. For example, every jar of honey sold in the U.S. or EU carries a warning that it shouldn't be fed to infants even though fewer than 10 infants die from a Botulinum infection each decade. The condition was not even known before 1976. The campaign may have saved about three infants in the U.S. per decade. I'm recounting this to illustrate the efforts we as a society are willing to make to save lives whose loss is entirely preventable.
This trend over time leads to especially older people shaking their heads at perceived overregulation because they have a lot of first-hand experience that things work as well, and much easier, without it. This argument suffers, obviously, from survivor bias; perhaps more importantly, the personal anecdotal evidence is not applicable to the entire populace and all circumstances. As with airplane accidents which only happen due to a confluence of several things going wrong, food that's been out for four hours will only make susceptible people sick when the ingredients were carrying an unusual bacterial load, it was a cooked a bit shorter, the room was a bit warmer, there was a little less vinegar in it and your grandmother felt a little weak that day to begin with.
As long as your immune is strong you don't need to bother about temperature of the food storage and time. Because I saw the poor young and old people and dogs sharing their food from the wastebin but not get sick. God gives them special immunity to sustain this. But the more hygienic people get sick easily with foods.
Immunity (which certainly is stronger among people regularly exposed to a pathogen) is usually acquired through infections. Only some of those may have been subclinical. The other ones made the people sick, sometimes seriously or even fatally. The lack of immunity is the result of avoided illness and death.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.086362 | 2015-12-07T02:36:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64171",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"David Hutchison",
"David Summerfield",
"Joe",
"Juan Felipe Martinez",
"Kate Brophy",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Sherry M Quarnstrom",
"Tom Langton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user280593"
],
"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
} |
67651 | Do frozen Lima Beans contain Cyanide?
I often buy frozen vegetables, defrost and eat them.
Recently, I came across an article that says Lima Beans contain Cyanide, should be thoroughly cooked and then eaten.
Do frozen Lima Beans come precooked or are they supposed to be cooked before consuming them?
Location: CanadaIf you need product information, please do let me know.
Apples contain cyanide, too. Of course, it's in the seeds. (but lots of apple juice has it, because of how they extract the juice)
Raw lima beans do contain a compound, a cyanogenic glycoside, which would release cyanide if ingested raw.
(1) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp8-c1.pdf
(2) http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/Cyanogenic_Glycosides-Toxin_Which.pdf
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24863488
(4) http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jfns.20140204.21.pdf
Frozen lima beans are typically uncooked. The usual stories about cooking many varieties of lima beans quote boiling for at least 15 minutes and discarding the cooking water.
Now trying to unwind the folklore....
(A) What is the toxicity of cyanide?
Cyanide in the body is an anion, which has a negative charge. In order to balance the charge a cation, a positive charged ion must be present too. Since beans would be eaten let's look at the toxicity of sodium cyanide.
The dose of sodium cyanide which would kill 50% of the subjects (LD-50) is about 15 mg/kg of body weight for mammals. But by weight sodium cyanide is 47% sodium and 53% cyanide. So the lethal dose for cyanide itself would be about 7mg/kg.
So a 154 pound person weighs 70 kg (2.2 lbs per kg). 70*7 is approximately 500 mg or 0.5 grams.
(B) Does the cyanide content of lima beans vary?
Yes. Supposedly the varieties of lima beans consumed in the US (and presumably Canada) are specifically chosen to be low in cyanide.
Cyanide in "lima beans [varies] between 15 and 500 mg HCN/kg fresh weight (Bickerstaff, 2003)" quoted from:
(5) http://members.ecetoc.org/Documents/Document/JACC%20053%20Vol%20I.pdf
But I can find the original source by Bickerstaff in the article.
(C) How much does cooking reduce the cyanide?
There is a paper which notes that in other foods the cyanogenic glycosides are 100% destroyed by cooking.
(6) http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JBFSR/pdf/2013/jan/Onyeike%20et%20al..pdf
(D) How does the bean produce cyanide?
The cyanide in lima beans is present as "pure" cyanide, but a cyanide compound called a cyanogenic glycoside. Lima beans contain two such compounds, linamarin and lotaustralin
Linamarin
Lotaustralin
I'll quote Dr. G. Speijers of the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Laboratory for Toxicology, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
(7) http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je18.htm
The first aspect is the processing of plant products containing
cyanogenic glycosides. When the edible parts of the plants are
macerated, the catabolic intracellular enzyme ß-glucosidase can be
released, coming into contact with the glycosides. This enzyme
hydrolyzes the cyanogenic glycosides to produce hydrogen cyanide and
glucose and ketones or benzaldehyde.
It seems that the human gut also has bacteria which are capable of hydrolyzing the cyanogenic glycosides to produce hydrogen cyanide.
For reference, the bag in my freezer says to boil 12-15 minutes ("until tender") but says you can steam them just 6-8 minutes, so even the manufacturers seem to be a bit fuzzy about exactly how much cooking is necessary.
I like southern cooking. I cook them until soft, drain off water and mash a few to make sort of a sauce with a bit of water. Add butter, some salt and black pepper.
@Jefromi Yes, you're right. The bag in my freezer says the same.
Lima beans contains Cyanide in small quantity [1].
I am not certain, nor do I want to make an uneducated guess as what quantity per/day/year one needs to eat in order to be sick (fatally or not)
They need to be cooked to let the cyanide evaporate as a gas; so cook'em up.
[...]Cooking the beans uncovered allows the poison to escape as a gas. To be perfectly safe, drain the cooking water.[...]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11861532
[1] http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp8-c1.pdf
Many frozen vegetables are precooked. Are you saying that's not the case with lima beans?
Thanks for your answer. However, I need to know whether frozen lima beans needs to be cooked or not?
Check what brand you have, most of the frozen beans I've used were raw. (YMMV)
Frozen lima beans I have are in a state where you can slip the skin off and split in half. I think it is likely precooked
Have you ever tried it with fresh (not cooked, not dried, not frozen) lima beans? Same thing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.087302 | 2016-03-21T17:45:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67651",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dumbledore",
"Jill Penna",
"Joe",
"John Lean",
"Mary Swindling",
"Max",
"MaxW",
"Sneftel",
"TIAR",
"Terry Kaufman",
"amquin 2016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
} |
67831 | My applesauce has fermented, is it safe to bake with?
I don't have access to refrigeration, so I use applesauce as an egg substitute. I have a plastic can (it's got a metal & rubber lid like a Mason jar but the container is plastic) of store bought store-generic applesauce that's been sitting on a cool windowsill for... a couple months, I guess? I've used it for baking up to a couple weeks ago with no issues.
Thing is, it's been bubbling, and there was a HUGE release of gas when I opened the can this time. It smells exactly like beer. There's absolutely no trace of "rotten" smell, nor is there mold anywhere on the can - it just smells like Bud Light.
I'm extremely poor and I generally try to avoid throwing away food unless it's actually smells rotten or is molding. Considering I'll be baking a few tablespoons of it as an egg substitute... is it still even remotely safe?
I'm surprised it took that long. I've seen unpasteurized apple cider ferment after being stored in the fridge for a couple of weeks. If it's only fermented it should be safe, but it's not going to get any better. You're probably going to end up throwing it away, either because it explodes or it gets so disgusting you wouldn't contemplate eating it.
For a while in my life, I would eat things that I wasn't 100% sure were safe because I felt it was wasteful not to. Then I ate something that I think had mold in it that I just couldn't see or didn't notice. I can't describe how scary, unpleasant, and debilitating food poisoning can be, not to mention expensive, just rest assured that you never, ever want it. Now, "when in doubt, throw it out". I avoid waste by buying smaller amounts of food and eating everything possible before shopping again, and I plan how I'm going to eat everything I buy.
Just a note regarding the 'cool' windowsill -- odds are, there's still sunlight (even if north-facing), so the glass jar can act as a small greenhouse. You might be better off keeping stuff in a dark place, even if it doesn't seem quite as cool. If you have access to water, and a breeze, you might want to look into making a 'zeer pot'.
"I don't have access to refrigeration, so I use applesauce as an egg substitute" - What gave you that idea? Applesauce needs refrigeration just as eggs do. It even says so on the jar...
@SnakeDoc I am not a smart man.
To add to what @ToddWilcox said, if you eat food that does cause food poisoning, those calories are not going to be going into your body anyway. In serious cases, your body is going to evacuate your entire GI tract ASAP, and that means not getting any calories/nutrients absorbed not only from what you ate, but also what you had in you previously ("throwing away" your previous meal too!). So you're going to be horribly sick, and not get nutrients in, and probably need electrolytes to supplement what you lost. Overall, the calories are not going into you either way. So don't take the chance.
Also, eggs are shelf-stable in other parts of the world (outside of the USA), so in this case eggs may also be a 'better' option than applesauce if you can get shelf-stable eggs.
It sounds like it's fermented, and more harmful bacteria or mold could definitely have grown without being visible.
So it's not safe, in that there's definitely some risk. It's hard to evaluate exactly how risky it is. It sounds like you're already routinely taking risks by eating iffy food that's not obviously rotten or moldy, so you certainly could choose to take that risk here. I'd really advise against it, though.
Remember, food poisoning isn't just about stomachaches. If you end up in the hospital, it's going to cost you a lot more than a replacement jar of applesauce.
As a side note, applesauce generally requires refrigeration. The jar you have almost certainly says "refrigerate after opening." So it may not be a good choice for an egg substitute. You might want to look into actually shelf-stable substitutes. If applesauce is working for you, flax (or chia) or mashed banana might be good options. Flax and chia are totally shelf-stable, and while bananas don't last forever you can at least buy them as you need them.
Applesauce cups may be another possibility - each cup should be shelf-stable, and there would be much less needing to be used up quickly once it is opened as compared to a larger jar. Or else actual egg substitute or even dehydrated egg (ie, camping supply), as both are shelf-stable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.087671 | 2016-03-28T21:26:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67831",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kathy Wydra",
"Lonnie Metoxen",
"Mary Alice Prill",
"Megha",
"Michael Dudley",
"Pamela Carliell",
"Philip Taylor",
"Roseann Roger",
"Ross Ridge",
"Schilcote",
"Simon Jones",
"SnakeDoc",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"stanri"
],
"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
} |
71519 | Making Fudge - temperature/humidity calculation?
About 15 years ago as a student I used to work at a fudge making store.
I remember it was not quite as straight forward as boil, cool, sell.
There was a certain calculation to determine the correct temperature to stop boiling the fudge mixture. I know the general idea is 234°F or 112°C, but I can remember we had a humidity sensor reading, and that had to be used in a calculation to get to the correct or precise temperature to pour out the fudge mixture onto the huge marble table to start cooling and shaping the logs of fudge.
Is there someone out there who knows how this calculation works?
Here is a link with some good advice
I think you have it backwards. They weren't measuring humidity to calculate temperature. Rather, for home cooks, temperature is used to determine humidity.
In fudge making, the goal of cooking is simply to reduce the water in the sugar syrup to a specific concentration. Sugar syrups produce different hardness of candy at different concentrations.
When cooking other things- such as meat- the temperature is important because bad bugs are killed or meat proteins denatured at specific temperatures. Sugar, on the other hand, isn't changed at the temperatures used in candy making. Water is just boiling away. It's usually a bad thing when the temps get hot enough to start changing the sugar, ie caramelization.
Sugar syrups happen to boil at higher temperatures as they become more concentrated. Therefore the temperature can be used to determine the concentration. Temperature is much easier to measure than water concentration. Unfortunately, the boiling temperature of water changes dramatically depending on elevation. I moved from sea level to the mountains and the boiling point of water changed by 9 degrees F. That is a significant difference in candy concentration and I have to reduce the cooking time for my recipes.
In a commercial setting, it is worth the cost and effort to measure the syrup humidity directly. It's more foolproof. However, for home cooks, thermometers are cheap and easy to use. Therefore, most recipes are written in terms of temperature and not sugar concentration.
okay, taken. but just one other thing. say if the elevation between the Navada desert and Amazon rain forest where the same, surely the consistency of the fudge will be quite different because of the dramatic atmospheric humidity differences?
As I understand it, the temperature of the syrup at a given concentration, and the thickness of the candy at that concentration would not change with atmospheric humidity. The fudge would soften quickly as it absorbed water from the air.
When making any old fashion candies the humidity controls if the candy sets up. No MATTER how long you cook. Humidity has to be fairly low when making old fashion candy. I just don't know exactly how low. I wait until it's down to 45% . And I have no problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.088006 | 2016-07-19T10:35:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71519",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48145",
"morne"
],
"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
} |
68964 | Is sticky pepperoni a sign of spoilage?
My child ate some pepperoni that was sticky, but didn't smell or taste bad, and was before the expiration date. Is that a sign that it might've spoiled early, or was it likely still safe?
It seems like pepperoni is always a bit sticky; it certainly sticks to itself in the package anyway. I take it you mean more sticky than that?
A little bit. They were all stuck together a bit stickier than usual.
Did you just open the package? If not, was the pepperoni refrigerated and in a sealed bag to keep air away?
It was refrigerated but not sealed for 2 weeks. Air could get to it. It came in a non resealable bag.
The stickiness was, regrettably, probably sodium nitrite or a similar preservative. When applied in amounts that don't result in liquid "run-off," it tends to be sticky. I always rinse it off with cold water for aesthetic purposes, but no real precautions are needed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.088235 | 2016-05-12T20:26:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68964",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jennifer Watson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45737",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66932 | At what temperature to bake waffles in a Lékuké silicon mold?
We bought a Lékué silicon mold for waffles to be used in the oven, but the box in which we bought it does not mention the temperature at which to use it.
Can anyone having experience with baking waffles in an oven give us advice?
According to reviewers on Amazon and this video by Lékué, you should bake the waffles in an oven preheated to 220C (430F) for about 9 minutes. If the outside gets done before the inside, drop the temperature so you can bake longer. Other, more obscure sites and blogs say the same thing.
Did your box not include a recipe book?
Thanks. It came with a recipe, but even that does not mention a temperature. The package mentions 220C as the maximum temperature, which makes your answer even more probable..
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.088338 | 2016-02-28T15:29:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66932",
"authors": [
"Amanda Kotlyar",
"Dirk Horsten",
"James Bennett",
"Karen Pero",
"Philip Maletta",
"Stella Kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37381",
"jeanie boudreaux"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62915 | Help me rescue my bland soup
Help I threw in carrot, potato, parsnip, turnip, leek and two ham stock cubes but I've ruined it by using to much water and I've already blended it. I would really hate to have to chuck it in the bin. Any suggestions on how to rescue the flavour and thickness? Added a little paprika and coriander earlier still very bland.
If too much water is the culprit, then its a simple matter of reducing the soup on the stove top. Just put it in a pot and boil it with the lid off(so the water escapes) until you reached a desired thickness and flavor.
Thanks jay I'll try that just now been awhile since I cooled from memory usually uae recipes
Thickness is actually easy to deal with (assuming you're trying to thicken it) :
Take a potato, peel it, then grate it. Add the grated potato to the soup, and let it cook 'til it breaks down fully.
... or you could use instant potato flakes.
For the blandness, if you have time, see an earlier question on the topic. If you need an immediate
fix and don't want to wait for things to cook down, I find acid works best (a shot of vinegar or sherry, a squeeze of lime or lemon juice, or a dab of sour cream; exact type depends on the cuisine you're going for; add just before serving).
Also consider adding extra salt (possibly in the form of bullion) and pepper (any type -- crushed red, black, paprika).
Add miso paste to boost the savory (umami) flavor. I have had success with "white" miso in carrot and lighter, brothy vegetable and pork soups; red miso in beef soups. Asian fish sauce is another high octane umami booster, but you have to cook off it's funkiness and it's salty, so use sparingly at first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.088447 | 2015-10-28T18:02:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62915",
"authors": [
"Carl SULLIVAN",
"Carol Jackson",
"James Rajer",
"James W",
"Kirstie",
"Lorraine O'Mahoney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40374",
"teach0624"
],
"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
} |
24522 | Should I BBQ chicken on foil?
My wife tells me I should be putting aluminum foil on the grill and BBQing the chicken kebob on that and not the naked flame. She cites that it won't get burnt, easy to clean the grill and the marinade won't drip off. I tell her that the whole point of putting it on the BBQ is for the naked flame otherwise we might as well do it in a pan on the stove.
Should chicken be BBQ'd on foil?
Not really sure I'd call that BBQ at all, since it's not getting exposed to any smoke. That's pretty much the definition of BBQ. No smoke, and it's just grilling.
"Should I" is a difficult question for this forum as there is not a true yes or no answer to this. Both you and your wife have valid points and it comes down to a matter of taste. What do you want? There really isn't a right or wrong here. (Except, perhaps, @Aaronut's point that this is really more about 'grilling' than 'BBQ', but those terms are often used interchangeably. That distinction isn't really important to the underlying question.)
@Aaronut There's actually a whole page on Wikipedia dedicated to the regional differences of BBQ, including "the type of meat used, the sauce, rub, or other flavorings used, when they are added, the role smoke plays, the equipment and fuel used, cooking temperature, and cooking time."
Grilling vs BBQ semantics aside.
A gas grill doesn't add any flavor of it's own. Some of the food will sear, char, or even drip and catch on fire. These will produce a variety of new flavors that range from delicious, maillard goodness to sooty, bitter, death. These new flavors are not a function of the open flame but of the very high, direct heat.
In this regard, the only advantage of a gas grill over the broiler in your oven is that it is:
more accessible to work with and
located outside of your house so you don't have to deal with smoke or excess heat.
Maillard reactions require the food to be dry. You don't want your marinade to pool around your meat because that isn't grilling- that's braising. Delicious for ribs but not so great for chicken.
Her other argument for the foil was ease of cleaning. Just leave your grill on high for 10 minutes after you finish cooking and any food particles will disintegrate easily under your brush.
In my opinion, unless you do intend to actually braise your meat, the foil is completely unnecessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.088869 | 2012-06-17T20:23:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24522",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"C.G Wallén",
"Cheryl Smith",
"Cos Callis",
"Javadreamer",
"Laura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63763 | Can you use bread flour that is 2 months past the best use by date?
I've got some bread flour that has been in the refrigerator that has a best use date of Sept. 2015, and it's now Nov. 2015, is it okay to still bake with it?
I would be way more worried on possible effects of humidity from the fridge than a best-by date, which means only that it will be in prime condition until then, not that it suddenly spoils after that. My recommendation: Happy baking!
Your nose knows. The smell of rancidity is distinctive and your body is biologically primed to spot it and avoid it. If it smells bad, don't use it. But if it's been in the fridge and is only 2 months past the best-use date, I can almost guarantee that it's fine. The "Best by" date is almost meaningless, especially for something like refined flour.
The purpose of "best used by" date, on most products, is an indicator of freshness, as opposed to safety. Of course, things like temperature, light...storage conditions in general, also impact product quality. So there are several variables to consider. As pointed out above, give it a look, give it a smell...if it passes those tests give it a try.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.089195 | 2015-11-23T13:51:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63763",
"authors": [
"Allen King",
"Dan C",
"Koel Chatterjee",
"Laura Hansen",
"Lisa",
"Lisa Bastian",
"Ricky Rosales",
"Sally Lee",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151844",
"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
} |
63576 | How do I reduce the lime flavor in my Slow Cooker roast?
I placed limes in with my roast and now it tastes like Limes. How do I get rid of this over the top Lime Flavor. Any suggestions?
I could start by making a joke about when life gives you limes then... but I think your only option would be to combine the meat with some other elements. So, you could do something like add a little bit of shredded cabbage, and some bread rolls and shred the mead into sandwiches maybe?
I know this isn't very helpful, but remember this rule, it's always cheaper to add more ingredients than it is to take them back out.
You cannot get rid of the lime flavor, it's there to stay. Your best course of action is to try and balance the strong lime flavor with sweet and savory flavors, for instance shredding the roast onto a bed of chicory/endive leaves with a soy-honey dressing.
You could easily spice the roast well and go for a lemon and herb flavour. The lightness of the citrus could work well with the heavy flavour of the spices.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.089329 | 2015-11-18T04:24:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63576",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Denise Hashim",
"Escoce",
"Jenn Snyder",
"Lavina Laughlin",
"Moses Gumbo",
"Rachid Saki",
"Sharon O'Brien",
"Stuart Pullan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78303 | Are paper kitchen towels food-safe?
When I fry pierogi or potatoes, and even though the oil I use is minimal, I try to maximize the oil I discard by letting the fried food sit on a paper kitchen towel to cool down. (Specifically, "Bounty Plus" towels, if it matters.)
I'm concerned that the flow of liquids is not just oil from the food into the paper towel, but also chemicals from the towel into the food.
Is it safe to leave fried food on a kitchen towel? How do I confirm what kind of bleach they use to manufacture the kitchen towels (which are always a bit too white to not have been bleached at some point during manufacturing), and are there governmental (USDA, etc) guidelines forcing manufacturers of kitchen towels make them food-safe?
Is this product meant just to wipe your counter-tops, or would you also deposit fries on it? (It didn't come with a user manual, but FWIW the ads only present the first kind of usage.)
If they used chemicals not food safe then they could not even be used to wipe counters which is the primary use.
By kitchen towel i assume you mean paper towels which are intended for food handling and should be by their nature food grade and safe. If you are talking about cleaning towels, well, most should not make you sick, but they are for cleaning, not use directly on food. Items should be used for their intended design and then they should be chemically safe.
@dlb : it's a sign that he's likely not American. I'll go add it to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 . (may also be called 'kitchen roll')
@dlb edited the question to clarify
In addition you are worried the bags sold as sandwich bags and freezer bags may not be food safe?
Please trust, I am not trying to minimize your concerns, just ease your mind a bit. I will say though that for your specific question, I think quality will be effected more than safety. A method commonly promoted which would eliminate your stated concern, and likely improve quality, would be to use something like a wire rack with the paper towels under, not in contact with the food. This allows even better draining without the food sitting on the then oily towel and getting soggy or re-collecting the oil.
I've removed a bit of discussion here about related questions and so on - one of the people involved had already self-deleted their comments anyway, so it didn't make much sense. If you've got another food safety question, you can just ask it, no need to try to hammer it out in comments. (And looking for health information beyond food safety is a bit out of scope for our site.)
I will put this as an answer as I might be too long winded for a comment.
The US, and most places have agencies that set food and food handling standards. I will not get into if those standards are the best, right, too high or low, ect., only state that those standards are when the agencies have deemed qualify as safe. I will also not comment on how well those standards are followed and enforced, only that they are in place, and should in general be followed. There purpose is to assure the public that what they eat and what they use to prepare food meets a reasonable health standard. If, in my opinion, one does not assume that items made within that country and imported by reputable sources into that country do not adhere to those standards, then you will simply worry yourself needlessly over everything.
On this specific question, kitchen towels/paper towels/paper rolls, etc. are specifically manufactured for kitchen and general household use. They should therefore be manufactured to food grade standards. Should you simply eat one? Well no, but it is not going to hurt you if you do. It is paper and a bit of dye. As intended for kitchen use, the dye is food grade, not fabric dye or such. Is bleach used to make it, yes, more than likely since bleach is a common item used to make such paper, but there is not deemed to be enough residual to be a health risk, and certainly not enough to be a contact risk from draining of blotting food. That does not mean it is recommended to start shredding them up and use them as a food supplement. It means that board review says causal contact with food is OK.
That does not mean that any paper or cleaning towel is OK to use. If it has been treated with cleaning or polishing solutions, like disinfection wet towels, those are not for direct contact with food. It is not their purpose, and yes, they might very well make you sick.
Is plastic safe? Well, it depends on the plastic. If it is food grade, then yes, as long as it is used reasonably and as intended. Take a thin zip lock bag and super heat it, well, that is not how it was intended to be used, and you may well have broken its integrity. Use it to store a piece of fruit in the refrigerator for a day and it is fine. Go to the hardware store and get a plastic bucket to mix something in? NO. That is not food grade plastic.
Let me be clear, "Popper Use". A paper towel is food grade for casual contact with food. It is not food grade for heavy contact, like using it as a substitute for a coffee filter. It is also a one-time use item. Attempts to use the same paper towel for more than one use is a major source of cross contamination.
"like using it as a substitute for a coffee filter" ... good to know, since I would have indeed assumed so with non-dyed ones (what is the point of dyed ones anyway?).
Convincing answer, but still. The fast-food "restaurants" approach of letting fried food drip from a (stainless steel?) sieve is likely the right solution, provided one is careful to pick up the oil and not let any get into sewage.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.089466 | 2017-02-10T16:54:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78303",
"authors": [
"Calaf",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"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
} |
90556 | Coconut cream pie needs more coconut flavour
I have just made one of my favourite pies (coconut cream) and it was delicious, but it didn't pack a ton of coconut flavour as I was striving for. I made a shortbread crust with coconut that I toasted, nice and brown. The filling contained coconut, a full can of full fat coconut milk, and pure coconut extract. (Added after the cooking so it didn't lose its flavour). I topped it with 35% whipped cream which I also added pure coconut extract. The top was sprinkled with more toasted coconut. What more could I have done to really emphasize the coconut flavour? I know coconut is a mild flavour, but I thought that with all the different layers of coconut flavour I added, it would be much more pronounced.
Have you previously made or experienced coconut cream pied which did pack the coconut punch you hoped for from this pie?
Not really. That's why I am aiming for mine to have the punch all the others are missing!
Are your sugar, salt and acid already optimal? Natural coconut flavor without these is just rather bitter ... :)
Maybe your tastebuds are getting saturated by all that coconut, and your receptors failing to register the coconut sensation since they have become acclimated. I wonder if it is time to work on contrast. I.e. make the filling very coconutty (and it seems you are doing that already), but keep the crust & whipped cream topping "plain" (i.e. don't bother coconutizing them at all). Would the extra coconutty filling then stand out more in contrast to the "background" parts of the pie? The crust and topping might give your sensory receptors a chance to re-calibrate in between bursts of coconut overload.
Just an idle thought, but I can't see how there is room for any more coconut intensity than you have already put into this pie. Your answer to Spagirl's question also supports the idea that you may have reached coconut maximum. [as to whether you have ever had a sufficiently intense coconut pie?..."Not really."]
I think @rackandboneman is on to something in the comments too. The various components might need to have their acid, sugar, or salt levels tweaked to get the coconut to stand out in each medium. Those will all help emphasize or support other flavors, and if you vary them appropriately they'll switch things up for your taste buds as suggested here.
Food for thought. All great tips! Thanks everyone!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.089875 | 2018-06-25T00:16:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90556",
"authors": [
"Hutchette",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71854 | Storing Deep Fryer Oil
How long may I store used deep fryer oil. I always strain my oil, store it in it's original container and place it in a cool, dark place.
Thanks,
Floyd
Even if you strain it dissolved food particles will remain. So it will vary.
If you strain the oil using a coffee filter inside a funnel, it will catch even the tiny bits that would slip through a wire strainer, making your oil super-clean. Store in the refrigerator, ideally in a glass bottle or jar, and it will keep for at least six months. I haven't stored it undisturbed for longer than that, so I can't speak to how well it keeps past that point. If you use and then re-filter the oil, you can start the six-month count over. I have only repeated this twice, so again, I can't speak to how the oil keeps when you do this many times.
One more item: I don't know if it matters, but I use grapeseed oil. I would assume that this also works for other frying/deep-frying oils, but I can't say for sure.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090087 | 2016-08-03T16:31:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71854",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
72909 | Jelly or flavored Gelatin
I have found some American recipes that call for a pkt of flavored gelatin. Is this the same thing aswhat we call in Australia as jelly.
Yes, what you know as jelly in Australia is called flavored gelatin in the US. Jell-O is the most predominant US brand. According to Wikipedia the equivalent in Australia would be Aeroplane Jelly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090188 | 2016-08-06T03:14:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72909",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
72974 | What can I substitute for butter in a custard-based pie?
This weekend I made a great buttermilk pie. Creamed butter/sugar add eggs / flour flavoring buttermilk and bake.
I want to reduce the calories. Is there a substitute that I can use with this custard like pie?
The recipe uses 1 stick of butter to 1 3/4 cups sugar
This is the complete recipe
Buttermilk Pie
1 3/4 C. sugar
1 stick unsalted butter (1/2 C.) room temp.
3 large eggs
1/4 tsp. vanilla extract
pinch of salt
3 T. all purpose flour
1 C. buttermilk
1 9" pie shell, unbaked
Cream together the sugar and butter till well blended. Beat in the eggs, 1 at a time, until the mixture is nice and smooth. Add in the vanilla, salt and flour. Beat in the buttermilk until well combined. Fill the pie shell with the buttermilk mixture, just to the top of the shell. Bake at 300 degrees for 1 hour 10 minutes – Let rest before serving
Butter in this type pie is there to add "richness". It is possible to leave it out entirely and save about 800 calories, but it may not satisfy your definition of a good dessert. If you reduced the amount to 1/2 a stick (1/4 cup), you would reduce the total calories by about 400 and still have a very nice pie.
I would not recommend replacing the butter with a reduced calorie margarine or spread, as they contain water and other stuff that will not improve the pie.
Olive oil usually works the same way as what butter is supposed to do during baking. It definitely has lower calories.
This isn't a cake. It's a pie with a custard-based filling. Even if it will work in the custard, I'm not sure how you can say it's lower in calories... it is actually higher in fat by volume as it's 100% fat while butter is only 80%. Also, olive oil has an extremely strong flavor, which would greatly affect the final taste of the pie.
I've ever researched between this 2. On average, the calories of olive oil is slightly lesser than butter which may not be very significant.
We do not discuss "health" here as it is largely subjective, so that part of your answer really isn't appropriate here anyway. All we can talk about is the factual numbers. Olive Oil is 14 grams of fat and 119 calories per tablespoon and butter is 12 grams of fat and 102 calories per tablespoon. I don't see how you can say that olive oil has fewer calories when the web clearly disagrees with you.
Fat is basically always 9 calories per gram, so substituting another kind of fat (olive oil or otherwise) will never lower the calories much. Butter is already a bit lower since it's partially water, as Catija pointed out. So if you want a substantial reduction, you'll have to go a bit farther afield.
@Jefromi : ... or you have to use chemically engineered fats like olestra and risk severe gastrointestinal problems.
Have you made a custard with olive oil (or any oil), and if so what was the consistency like?
@Erica I actually thought about that when I first commented and found that there are actually several recipes out there for olive oil custards... which, I admit, surprised me greatly. I don't know what they taste like or what their consistency is like but apparently, it is possible :D
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090250 | 2016-08-08T20:36:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72974",
"authors": [
"Bryan",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71780 | Fruit color change
Just recently I have made 6 batches of Mango Jam. All turned very dark brown while cooking and are almost black when jarred but they taste great. What is the reason for the color change?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Has this happened before?
I have a whole lot of cut mango in my freezer which I was planning to turn into jam once the weather cooled off. Now I am not so sure I want to have 10 or 12 jars of black jam to try to give away. Does anyone know if this mango behavior is common? Or just a freaky anomaly?
I reckon it could be due to oxidation of fruits.
It's very common once you leave fruits that are cooked/uncooked in the open air. It probably helps if you could add a little salt in there ( even though it may seems weird, but it definitely works).
The reason why factory made jam does not turn dark at all is because of all the additional food addictive and preservative that is inside the food. I honestly, do not recommend keeping fresh mango jam for too long because it does go bad very quickly.
It happens to a lot of other food stuffs like potato etc.
One of the common additives used to prevent browning is vitamin C, and it's often sold with canning supplies for that purpose.
"additional food addictive" - I hope not!! :P
It's the fact. It's called addictive or preservative. They are all the same. I guess everyone do realize why certain food can be kept so long for ages, like literally years but doesn't spoil? When you look behind like (E254), blah blah, all these is the one that kept your food for ages and they also all food addictive.
@TeoChuenWeiBryan Additive, my friend, as in something that's added. Addictive means you'd get addicted to it, like alcohol, or cocaine. I was just making a joke, it's a simple mistake :) (Of course, people may add addictive substances to their products, but we would hope that this is not common practice!)
of course we hope it's not, unfortunately it is :( i miss those days where food addictive ain't a common thing you know.
It could be oxidation as Teo Chuen Wei Bryan has already said in their answer. It might also matter what sort of pot you cooked the jam in - metal pots other than stainless steel sometimes react chemically with the food and that could lead to darkening.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090501 | 2016-07-30T13:02:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71780",
"authors": [
"Au101",
"Bryan",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48428"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
72904 | How do I convert a grilling recipe to an oven/ broiling recipe?
I found a recipe in a magazine that was for grilled pork butt. I live in New York City with no access to a grill. I Googled how to convert from grilling to oven/ broiling. I wound up with a very tasty burned butt.
What did you try? How did you change the recipe?
To tell you the truth it was so long ago I don't remember, it was the cooking time only I believe
I'd hate to be the person who tasted your burned butt.
Lol I am a member of Cooks Illustrated and I asked them how to convert the Rx. I was told to listen to their Radio show. I don't own a radio I have every other electrical "do-dad"but no radio so they said they would write it in the next edition of the magazine. I have been waiting and waiting , it fan ally came and I snatched it from my husbands hand .......... No conversion. BIG SURPRISE☹️
Since you mentioned a butt in your question, I'll start there. The way to get close to the crispy sear and smokey flavor you get from grilling is, surprisingly, to cook the butt at a very low temp (~200-225 F) until the internal temp. gets to about 135 F.
Before putting the roast in the oven, you want to massage a generous amount of olive oil all over the meat and season it to suit your tastes.
When the internal temp gets to ~135 F (count on 3-6 hours depending on the weight), remove the roast from the oven and tent foil over it. Heat your oven to its hottest temp (~500 F). When the oven is fully heated, uncover the butt and put it back in the oven until the internal temp reaches between 145 F (about medium) to 165 F (well done).
This method will give your meat a nice crunchy sear on the outside, while leaving it juicy and flavorful inside. The high temp at the end will also create some smoke and add to that grilled flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090704 | 2016-08-05T22:41:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72904",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Irene Hirschman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48448"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68864 | Cheese making, acidic whey, denatured protein
I wish to know. Does protein in acidic whey gets denatured and is it unfit for consumption. By acidic whey I mean whey which was made through citric acid as splitting agent for making panner(cottage cheese). How can I preserve it for a week so as to get it tested in lab.
"Denaturing" is when something makes a protein unwind from it's normally stable, coiled state. The unzipped proteins are then able to tangle up with each other. In milk this action makes them precipitate out as the curd.
http://www.thekitchn.com/the-science-behind-why-acid-curdles-milk-222962
There are a few things that make milk proteins denature: Heat, enzymes, and acid. Often a combination of these is used.
There are two types of protein that are involved when making cheese: The casein and the water soluble proteins in the albumin. When milk is only gently heated and exposed to acid or rennet only the casein curdles. The albumin proteins are left. Heating the milk to 190F, in the presence of acid, will allow the albumin proteins to also denature. The curd that is formed through this process is called "ricotta" cheese ("recooked" in Italian).
Paneer is made by heating the milk before introducing the acid. Thus, the albumin is already denatured and locked up in the curd. The whey left from that cheese process is mostly sugar and vitamin B compounds. There isn't much protein left. You can prove this by trying to make ricotta. Bring the whey to almost a boil and see if any more protein precipitates out.
As for food safety.
Denatured milk protein is not only safe but one of the most heavenly foods on earth: cheese.
The shelf-life of whey varies depending on how the cheese was made. Most cheese methods produce a whey that is very acidic. It can be low in protein as mentioned above. If the cheese was fermented with bacteria then the whey is also low in sugars. This all conspires to make whey very stable. It will last for a long time in the fridge and basically forever in the freezer.
Protein doesn't get denatured by adding citric acid during cheese making, however it makes them "clump" together, hence forming what is known generaly as lactic curd (or in this case it would be "citric" curd I guess). For example in a Crottin style cheese (lactic goat cheese), that's what makes the texture all crumbly by letting the bacteria produce a good amount of lactic acid during the maturation of the milk.
What denatures protein during cheese making is chymosin, an enzyme present in rennet, that denatures casein, making it lose its solubility.
And even then denatured milk protein is 100% safe for human consumption.
If your milk was pasteurised before making curd and you made it with good manufacturing practice, you can keep it for 8-10 days in a refrigerator at 4°C before it starts to go off. Or you can freeze it and keep it for 2-3 months.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.090873 | 2016-05-07T16:53:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68864",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83616 | Homemade plain yogurt
I want to make an homemade plain yogurt,I heard you have to use your leftover yogurt to make some at home.Can I use sweetened yogurt to make my homemade yogurt or is it compulsory to use the plain yogurt that is normally recommended?
The leftover yogurt must contain live and active cultures. It does not matter whether the leftover yogurt is sweetened or not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091087 | 2017-08-09T17:21:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83616",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65693 | Creating ideal temperature for dough to rise
Are there machines that maintain optimal temperature for dough to rise?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2276/how-do-you-raise-your-dough-in-cold-seasons?rq=1 (almost a dup - it might solve your actual problem - but not actually about machines)
The machine: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55906/bread-and-using-a-proofer
Unless this is for professional/very large scale use, or expected to safely run unattended: What precludes the use of a well calibrated oven (protecting dough surface from direct element heat, obviously!)?
The correct temperature to proof your bread depends on the result you want. A quick rise in a proofing box makes bread faster, but will less flavor. A long, slow rise give a more flavorful loaf, so IMO the best place to proof bread is the refrigerator.
@rackandboneman - I don't know about all countries, but in the U.S. it's pretty uncommon to find a new oven that can be set to a temperature below around 170F, which is to prevent food poisoning from people holding food at temperatures below 140F. Since the optimal temperature for yeast growth is somewhere around 90-95F (higher temps slow it down and 170F will obviously kill yeast), it isn't a practical solution for standard ovens.
Heh, we need to make a catalog of un-features to avoid when getting new appliances :) I actually thought all ovens still "officially" had their scale starting at 50°C, with there being a lot of 25-50°C to be had between "just oven light" and 50 with millimeter-twiddling the dial ;)
I don't know if I'd qualify is as a machine, but they're called either a 'proofer' or a 'proofing box'.
You'll need to check the description, as some boxes are just plastic and are intended to go into a larger proofing room.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091146 | 2016-01-21T19:02:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65693",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brandy",
"CJ Redard",
"Cascabel",
"Dina Gamboa",
"GdD",
"Joan Smickersgill",
"Scholastica Zulaiha Issah Abub",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
} |
66446 | How can I make my almond buns rise evenly?
I make small almond flour buns using silicone molds shaped like half a ball, my problem is that I need them to rise evenly so that I can get a perfect mini-bun shape.
What should I do?
We need a lot more information before we can attempt to answer this. What is the recipe? How are you cooking it?
mixi 6 eggs in a bowl, add 100 g melted butter and mix, add 150 g almond flour and 2 ts of baking powder and mix into a mostly lumpless mixture.
Pour about 1/3 cup into molds and bake for 20 min on 175 C.
Ok - and in what way do they rise unevenly? Do they dome?
they have a dome on the side, I want them to either have a dome on the center or better yet - not dome at all but rise evenly on all sides.
A picture of them in the mold would be helpful. Are they all domed toward the outside of the of the mold pan, are the domes all on the same side (like all on the left side of each bun when in the mold) or totally random with no pattern at all?
Now that I look at it it seems that they dome towards the sides of the mold pan, I guess it's because I didn't use the frame.
But even if do they dome perfectly - I would like to find a way to make them rise evenly so that in the end they'll look like mini burger buns.
My mold looks like this: http://goo.gl/iUPgp0
I would like the buns to look like this: http://goo.gl/2dStu8
Does the mold actually sit flat in your oven? Do you put it on a sheet pan or something? It's possible that the buns are rising straight up but your pan isn't flat, so when you pull them out of the oven, they're lopsided.
It sounds like your mold may not be sitting totally flat in the oven. Try putting it in the oven on a baking sheet.
One way to minimize doming, is to lower your baking temperature. There is a lot of good information in this answer to a similar question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091423 | 2016-02-12T15:40:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66446",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hazel Sim",
"Patricia McGinty",
"Peter Mungridis",
"Villu Vaino",
"canan şahin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43334",
"user124009"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63489 | How long can you keep tuna in jar with olive oil
Someone sent me tuna in olive oil from a delicatessen shop via post in a box. When I received the package the safety button of the jar was off (you could squeeze it). Due to this I was hesitant to eat it but when I opened it there was no bad smell and put it in the fridge immediately.
My question is, assuming that it was kept in room temperature during transit for about 3-4 days with the safety button in the jar released is it safe to eat it ?
Does fish stay fresh in olive oil even in room temperature ?
It is a really expensive and tasty product and I just don't feel like throwing it away.
It's possible that the jar was hit on the edge during transit, which can break the seal. I don't know the details of the preservation, but I'm guessing for most people who have internet access, it's not worth getting sick over.
No, it is not safe anymore.
The scombridae family of fish (mackerels, tunas, bonitos) decay in a way that does not necessarily cause a bad smell, as the bacteria just convert amino acids of the fish into a harmful version. The bacteria that does this is unfortunately facultative anaerobic, which means it prefers oxygen, but will do without, too.
So, the safety of the tuna can relies on the initial heating and keeping bacteria out with the airtight can, not so much on the oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091613 | 2015-11-15T13:27:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63489",
"authors": [
"Aaron Jeffries",
"Amanda Hale",
"Ana Schultz",
"Andrew Baird",
"Joe",
"Maureen Talbot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151097",
"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
} |
76343 | Can I reprocess vinegar hot pepper jelly?
I made a batch of jelly last night that just isn't sweet enough. Can I now unseal the jars, reheat, add sugar and re sterilize and seal them?
Yes, though to be clear, you unseal, empty the jars into a pot, heat & add sugar, (while re-cleaning/sterilizing the jars) then fill the hot jars and process. You don't just add sugar to the jars.
To suit the food safety fanatics, use new lids.
I, personally, figure that if I use old lids and they seal, it's fine, because it sealed, and I know that because the lid is designed to indicate that. Sealed is Sealed.
If I use old lids and they don't seal, I know they didn't seal, and treat appropriately, just as I would new lids that didn't seal. But the official recommendation is to toss the lids and use new ones every time, even if they were new until last night and have only been on the jars for a day (unless you are using "specifically made to be reusable lids.") I note that the official doom and gloom warns of failure to seal (which is obvious) not some dire subtle thing, so I choose to ignore them on this one point so long as a lid is in good physical shape. But it's not the official recommendation.
I think with old lids there's also some risk of the seal not holding quite as well long-term, not just the next day. Either way, it's true that if you get a good seal it's okay, as you say, it's just a question of whether you want that added chance that they may not end up sealed.
I have been "off the reservation" on this issue for long enough now that I can report no cases of re-used lid seal failure for times up to several years, in some small number of hundreds (or large-ish number of dozens) of jars. Plenty of lids I've thrown out without using again due to scratch/rust, bend/dent, already used 3 times, etc, but zero cases of seal failure soon or late, so far.
Strictly speaking, this would NOT be absolutely safe advice if there was a lack of sugar compared to what the canning recipe suggests. Safe if "not sweet enough", not safe if "forgot to add half the sugar in the recipe by mistake".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091766 | 2016-12-11T16:37:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76343",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
} |
61909 | Refreeze Sherbet
Can you eat Sherbet once it has completely thawed and then frozen again? Mine was left out over night in about 65 degree room. Is it okay to freeze it again and eat it. I put it back in the freezer in the morning.
Ice cream is not the same stuff it was 50 years ago when they first started experimenting with emulsifiers. The same may be true for sherbet. Freeze it and give it a taste. It may be rife with nasty ice crystals, or it may taste just fine.
While nobody can say with 100% certainty that your refrozen sherbet is safe, I certainly would not expect any danger. The ingredients in sherbet are just not that conducive to quick or dangerous spoilage.
The problem I would anticipate would have much more to do with quality. Sherbet is frozen while being churned, giving it a consistency like ice cream. Since your sherbet was completely thawed and refrozen, it very likely froze in a big chunk. That being the case, you might want to serve it after breaking it up by shaving it with a fork or by using a food processor. Breaking up the ice chunk like that will give you a product that bears very little resemblance to sherbet, but would be more like an Italian ice. Just as good, but different.
I know this is unlikely helpful for the OP, but if you do happen to have an ice cream maker, you can probably also refreeze it in that and get back closer to the right texture.
You can also refreeze it as if you were preparing a granita -- pour it into a shallow layer in a pan (eg, a 9x13 casserole dish), and once it starts to freeze, stir it up with a fork. As it freezes further, every so often scrape the top frozen layer with a fork to break it into smaller crystals. If you have a blender that can crush ice, you can also freeze it in an ice cube tray and then crush it up in the blender.
I suggest that the only way to maintain the texture of sherbet melted would be if the sherbet is just slightly thawed. As to restoring completely thawed sherbet, I don't think you can unless you gradually freeze the output from a blender. The Italian ice idea above sounds practical!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.091962 | 2015-09-21T21:46:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61909",
"authors": [
"Atilla Lourens",
"Cascabel",
"Ezz Mac",
"Gareth Williams",
"Janet Coleman",
"Joe",
"Thain Thomson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
} |
63015 | Fast way to cook steel-cut oats when no microwave is available
I am looking for a way to prepare fast steel-cut oats.
I do not have a microwave, and I would like to have them for breakfast but I can not cook for ~40 mins to prepare them in the morning.
I have tried to cook them by simmering them ~10 mins till the water is gone but they did not taste good (were actually uncooked).
I have also tried leaving them overnight in a bowl of milk but they were not easy to eat either (was like chewing gum)
Note1: yes I know about instant oats etc but these are less nutritious than steel-cut oats so I am looking for a way to prepare them fast.
Note2: I don't care if the fast method suggested is for a warm or cold recipe. Either warm or cold are fine by me.
This is like asking if there's a way to make rice in under 20 minutes... Do you have a rice cooker with a timer?
Are you open to going the opposite direction and doing some prep the night before? Recipes for slow-cooker steel cut oats aren't too unusual...
I cook a large batch on Sunday night and then simply put servings of it in the microwave every morning. Steel cut oats are sturdy enough that they can be eaten days later and still taste pretty much the same.
I think you missed the word "cook" from the title. I was wondering how you cut oats with a microwave. 2. Exactly how much flexibility do you have in terms of acceptable end products? Must it be something porridge-like, or can it be e.g. flapjack?
@logophobe:Yes I don't mind doing something the night before
@Erica:I don't have a microwave
@PeterTaylor:Sure I am flexible
@Jim I know, that's what I do. They can also be eaten cold, or stirred for a couple minutes in a pot to reheat. The microwave step does not (substantially) further cook the oats.
@Erica: 1) What is the ratio of water/oats for the large batch on Sunday night? 2) What is the proper temperature/water addition ration for reheat in a pot?
@Jim 1) Standard (4:1) and 2) no water, temperature depends on how warm you want them. Frankly, I find them tastiest cold.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47097/whats-the-fastest-way-to-cook-oatmeal-porridge
My low-effort steel cut is to set the bowl of steel-cut and water in a steamer and let it go about 20 minutes (or longer) - unlike (my experience of) cooking them in a pot, there's no stirring, boilovers, or other drama. IME the drama fully applies in the microwave and no time is saved by it. But you are not going to cook them in 10 minutes time (2 minutes active work, yes, 10 minutes time, no.) On the other hand, I don't see why you'd be cooking for 40 minutes in any case.
Edit: I begin to suspect from the comments that @Jim is not familiar with the concept of steaming. So, steaming, the short explanation: A small amount of water in a large enough pot. A rack set on the bottom of the pot to elevate the bowl. A bowl contianing food (in this case, steel cut oats and water in a ratio of 1:2) is set on the rack above the water. The lid is put on the pot, the water is boiled, the steam in the pot cooks the food.
Other method I haven't used in years but which worked then and should work now, is to put the oats and boiling water into a wide-mouthed thermos flask the night before. Given that the main reason I haven't done it in years was that I dropped and broke the glass on my wide mouth thermos flask, I would suggest a stainless-steel version rather than a glass version (my stainless steel narrow-mouthed flask is old and dented and still going strong, more than 3 decades after it was new. But I wouldn't want to put anything other than a liquid in it due to the size of the mouth.)
There's actually a style of cooking in vacuum flasks ... you can find rather large ones sold as 'thermal cookers'
@Ecnerwal: In your answer you already mention 20 mins (or longer). I have never been able to cook it for under 30 because usually the water was not gone.
@Ecnerwal: The suggestion with the termos flask is interesting. Just boil the water and let it overnight and it does the job? Closed Iid I assume
@Jim what do you mean"because the water was usually not gone"? You cook oats until they're through, and if the water isn't gone by then, you can throw it out or start with less water next time.
@rumtscho:But I was under the impression that the oats are done when the water is evaporated. I use 1 cup oats 4 cups water
"Or longer" mostly means I don't watch the pot closely, nor set a timer, and can get caught up in other things before I recall that the oats should be done and turn them off. They are not ruined by cooking longer (in the steamer), but 20 minutes is enough time. You're using about twice as much water as needed. Lid on the thermos flask, yes. Hmm. I shall have to investigate "thermal cookers."
@Ecnerwal:How much water then? Do you put the pot lid?I have noticed that if I am not constantly around to stir they water gets "inflated" and can get off the pot
@Jim 2x water to oats. Or, half what you have been using, which goes along with the fact that I said you were using twice as much as you need to...and you seem to have missed the point about steaming .vs. boiling, which is what gets you away from stirring and boil-overs.
@Ecnerwal:I have an electric kitchen with heat from 0-9. I place them at 4 with lid covered
I usually leave mine overnight. Bring the water to a boil, throw the oats in, stir, cover, and remove from heat. In the morning they just need a quick reheat.
One way to prepare oats which allows them to be stored and eaten cold and which avoids excessive chewiness is to make flapjack. I sometimes do this at the weekend to eat it as breakfast over the course of the week. In the absolute minimal form you just need butter and oats (I've tried roasting oats by themselves, but it's too easy to burn them). Without any sugar to bind them the result is very crumbly but perfectly edible. You can add sugar, fruit, etc. before baking or search for more elaborate recipes as desired. If you care about the calcium from the dairy then you can eat them with yoghurt.
Interesting approach. But is there a way to avoid butter? E.g. non-stick pan? In what temperature do you cook them?
I've tried without butter once - essentially just roasting the oats in a tin - and they burnt. It might work if you're willing to babysit the oven, but I'm not planning to repeat the experiment. I cook them at 180C, but there's going to be some flexibility there.
Try soaking the oats in cold water overnight- they will absorb some of the water, but faster, according to "The Joy of Cooking"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.092183 | 2015-10-31T22:26:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63015",
"authors": [
"Bryan Chase",
"Catija",
"Charlotte Sarsby",
"Dean Satterfield",
"Ecnerwal",
"Elizabeth Gage",
"Erica",
"Janice Morton",
"Jim",
"Joe",
"Michelle Schneider",
"Peter Taylor",
"Remi Parent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kylene criss",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"user1812005"
],
"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
} |
63730 | Can silicone moulds be used for making cupcakes in electric tandoor
I am preparing cupcakes as I have bought new electric tandoor. Now I am confused, can silicone moulds be used in electric tandoor or not?
An electric tandoor seems to be a juxtaposition since a tandoor cooks by putting food within the fire itself. I am guessing an electric tandoor is meant to be too hot for a silicon baking mold.
What is the temperature of the tandoor? Silicone molds tend to list a max temp between 425°F and 500°F (215°C to 260°C)
What is the brand/model of the electric tandoor? If you have adjustable heat settings you should be able to use the molds and bake cupcakes. If you don't have adjustable heat settings it might be difficult to bake cupcakes anyway, they need a milder heat (around 180C) than a classic tandoor would give.
I'm using smart life mini tandoor can I use Silicon mould for baking cupcakes?
SilPat, a brand of silicone baking pads, is certified to 480°F. I don’t know about “electric” tandoors, but traditional tandoors, even the DIY kind, generally are much hotter than this.
So, If your tandoor can’t cook at considerably reduced temperatures, your silicone cupcake molds will not be effective. I don’t think your cupcakes would stand that kind of heat either, as a commenter already pointed out!y
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.092749 | 2015-11-22T07:46:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63730",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Stocker",
"Curt Engel",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Lisa Hippe",
"NadjaCS",
"Richard Kalbaugh",
"Ryan C",
"Surbhi Chanda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57496",
"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
} |
63937 | Can chicken be partially deep fried to fully fry later?
I own a small food truck serving fried chicken wings, fries and fish and tenders. Serving food fast is the key. I want to give customers a hot meal but, made to order is time consuming. Can I partially deep fry the meat and then finish as the orders come in?
Related / further reading: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat
Stephie's answer covers the main issues. I would add that you should probably check with any government regulations about food handling. I don't know where you are located, but many states have guidelines about how commercial cooking operations must handle "partially cooked" foods, often requiring documentation of your process, temperature and time monitoring records, labeling of all partially cooked containers (and separation from other raw or cooked food), etc. In the U.S., these are often closely related to the FDA Food Code. (Partial cooking regulations are generally a little more complex than any "2-hour" or "4-hour" rule which is often brought up here.)
Particularly if you plan to try Stephie's 3rd method of partial cooking followed by cooling to refrigerate or freeze, there are generally very specific practices about the amount of time spent during partial cooking and the amount of time spent cooling (sometimes in specific temperature ranges). Usually this method is best for bulk batches prepared in advance, so you have time and attention to monitor the process. That's why most fast-food restaurants that use this method tend to do this as a large-scale industrial process in advance, then ship out the partially cooked frozen or refrigerated food to be simply heated and served.
And if you are going to try to implement Stephie's 2nd method (holding for short times without temperature control), you'll want to have logbooks to keep track of holding time and label every container of partially cooked food. You'll also need to be absolutely certain to keep various batches separate to avoid cross-contamination between partially cooked food, particularly if some of the food may not have reached 140F before holding.
In general, the safest and easiest thing to do is generally to bring food to at least 135F and hold it there. (I should note that the 2013 revisions of the Food Code say 135F minimum for holding, instead of 140F; this change has not yet been implement in most FDA consumer guidelines, but it's now the standard for commercial cooking.) Trying anything else requires a lot more attention to detail to prevent potentially dangerous bacterial growth. That's the reason behind the complex Food Code regulations covering partially cooked foods; there's a much greater likelihood of making people sick if you're not careful.
Thanks - I had forgotten the all-important "check with your local authorities" note.
Partially fried food is a common staple in the fast-food industry and likewise in convenience food at home - you can buy frozen, pre-fried meat or other food.
But you need to keep in mind that all meat falls in the "risky food" category which should not be kept in the "danger zone" 40-140 °F (4-60 °C), for more than 2 hours. If you pre-fry, you will bring the meat right into that zone because heating it above that threshold would mean it's fully cooked.
Taking that into account you have three options:
Fully cooking the meat, keeping it warm above 140 °F (60 °C) then just reheating it for the customer.
Partially cooking the meat, storing it for no more that two hours and finishing it for your individual customer.
Cooling the (fully or partially fried) meat as quickly as possible below 40 °F (4 °C) and reheating or finishing it for your individual order.
As for the feasibility of each option:
1. might cause your meat to dry out and breading go limp, especially if stored too hot or too long and you need to monitor the temperature of your storage device,
2. needs good management of which batch was started at what time and can possibly mean you have to discard a lot of food.
3. has very little advantage as far as saved time is concerned - if at all.
For a very extensive discusdion on food safety and temperatures, see our canonical Q/A on storing food.
Yes you can pre-cook your chicken weather it is seasoned chicken chunks for stir fry or battered or un-battered fried strips or wings. You just cook then in the oven or deep fry them at a much lower temperature for a longer slow cook untill they just get fully cooked them cool off before bagging them up so they won't stick together or steam up in the zip lock bag for freezing untill your ready to double fry them to heat them up along with given them a golden color and a crispy outside but tender on the outside. They only take about 3 minutes at 350 degrees to get them hot and golden crispy brown. Or stir fry them in a wok for the same time with a little oil due to the wok gets very hot quickly flash frying your chicken. Upon the first initial pr-cooking your chicken will look whites and not crispy at all but the double fry will do the trick. This is a quick way to cook for your customers and not getting and slack from food inspector on and raw food cooking or under cooked food. Much cheaper than buying already pre cooked when you can do it yourself for a lot less. I am a food vendor and have done this for years and my customers love how crispy my chicken is and moist and tender on then inside. I have a great trick for burgers as well using a microwave first but not just sticking them in and cooking them. That will not do it. I do not add any juice or flavoring to the Burger either and I cook them from frozen to ready to eat in 3 minutes as well nice and juicy not dry or hard. I have everything pre cooked but not even a trained chief would guess that my food it not freshly cooked to order. I have final mastered what many have tried and failed at. Good luck and always cook good guilty food and always take care of your customer like it was your family. Take Care from MDE
hi there, walls of text are really difficult to read. Please [edit] your answer to add some paragraphs. If you want to know more about the site check the [tour] and the [help].
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.092898 | 2015-11-29T01:35:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63937",
"authors": [
"Annette Doyle",
"Gary Eikleberry",
"Infinity Marie",
"Jeff Hall",
"Kevin Elder",
"Laurie Schugel",
"Luciano",
"Michelle O'Neill",
"Rob Jacobs",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"kaleigh seale"
],
"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
} |
63953 | Aged cheese allergy, what would be a good substitution?
I am allergic to parmesean cheese - any aged cheese really (due to the mold created from the aging process). However, I can eat blue cheese. I'm making a ricotta gnocchi that calls for parmesan. What can I use as a substitute?
Possible duplicate of Substitutes for cheese due to allergy.
@DebbieM., the other question deals with histamine and other allergens, OP explicitly states mold, which is not covered. Bordering health advice, but no duplicate.
Some cheeses, especially here in the Netherlands, are covered in a plastic layer to prevent moulds from gaining access to the product. If the molds are indeed all you are allergic to, you might want to try an aged Gouda cheese as a substitute for Parmesan.
It will provide you with a very similar taste, provided you go for the really aged kinds, like This brand that is sold internationally
To get the effect that you would normally get from Parmesan you need to get a cheese that was aged at least 10 months, otherwise it will be too creamy and might ruin the texture of your dish.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't sub in bleu cheese for parmagian. I'm Sicilian and this sounds good. I have made various types of gnocchi over the years but never thought of bleu!
What is the proportion of the cheeses, bread crumbs/flour, egg and/or spinach? The only problem you might have is that the bleu may have more moisture than it should have and could melt out in boiling. If it's only a tablespoon or two, it should be okay. Make sure the bleu is very finely crumbled so that the bread crumbs and/or flour can contain and absorb it better.
If you're making the recipe I think you are and have made it before, all you have to do, if too moist, is to add just a little more bread crumbs. That's all.
Would you be able to make 1/4 of the recipe to test?
If you're not allergic to Romano, you can sub that in without any adjustments. It's just a teeny bit saltier.
Cooking is a journey for all of us. We each have our different ovens, altitudes, ingredients and recipes we like to 'fix' to make it unique and ours.
bleu still uses mold, it's just a different mold. So although this might be a good subtitution in general, it might not be so great for this particular person.
Fermented Tofu products (Sufu/Furu), Miso, or even nutritional yeast might work in that recipe. However, while these products do not involve mold, they are still cultured/fermented products that you might want to approach with care.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.093506 | 2015-11-29T15:12:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63953",
"authors": [
"Ashi Gupta",
"Carol Zappelli",
"Debbie M.",
"Diane Honegger",
"Gopu Rajendran",
"Joe",
"Kenneth Tan",
"Melissa Cattat",
"Natalie Sant",
"Paul McGrath",
"RL Lance",
"Stephie",
"Vikki Simer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ysidd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64151 | Why did my ceramic coated loaf pan turn brown?
I used ceramic a coated loaf pan and the inside color which was white, changed to brown, as if it has burnt, is that normal?
Welcome Buthaina - can you tell us give us the details on how you used the pan?
What were you cooking in it? Is it an even brown all up the sides, or more splotchy; is it where the food/loaf was in contact with the pan or not?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.093741 | 2015-12-06T15:09:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64151",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Erica",
"Heather Price",
"John Fagerlund",
"Keerthikan Thirukkumar",
"Keri Page",
"Michael Paul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"james greany"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65813 | Glass baking lid broke - what to substitute?
The glass lid for my pyrex 10x10 baking dish broke. What can I substitute? Tin foil doesn't work -- nothing cooks! Ideas?
Thank you.
I have had success finding replacement lids at Goodwill, Salvation Army and thrift stores.
Pyrex has become rather inexpensive. You could just buy another, and probably even at Walmart, or if not there then pay a little more at Williamson Sanoma. Also check amazon.com
What are you cooking? Does it need a tight seal, or could you just set something oversized on top? And what was the problem w/ the tin foil?
I'm assuming you want an actual substitute, not a recommendation to buy a new lid or a new dish entirely?
One "hack" to try is to put a larger glass baking dish on top (e.g. 9"x13" over an 8"x8"). It is heavy enough to make a moderately decent seal.
I usually using a big plate for this (but make sure it can handle the heat or slowly heat it up) or as previously suggested use a bigger lid. Sometimes a flat baking form like for a quiche does work as a lid as well (a friend of mine even used a frying pan once). Just be creative and look for something that is heat resistant and large enough to cover the top.
I don't think there is something readymade which you can substitute. Other dishes, plates, etc. as suggested in other answers are somewhat usable, but tend to 1) not fit well, and 2) not have handles. The result is that, when you are taking the hot pan out of the oven, you risk a hot porcelain plate sliding and landing on the floor breaking, or on your lap and burning you. Whether you first try lifting the "cover" with mitt-clad hands, or getting the whole package out of the oven, it's a tricky situation.
Unless you happen to have a second dish with a very convenient shape which holds well to your pan, there is no low-effort solution that would be worth it long-term. If you don't want to buy a lid, you can try creating one yourself, but that would require advanced skills in pottery, metalworking or something else appropriate to the chosen material, and cost you more time (and possibly more money in material) than a new lid.
The second question is, we don't know what you are cooking. "Tin foil doesn't work - nothing bakes" sounds like you may have a situation where you need a high radiation (Toaster oven? Something like a lasagna which needs a crispy crust?) and then nothing but glass will help if you are baking with a lid 100% of the time. If this is the case, try baking longer with a less-penetrable lid on and then doing the last 10-15 min without a lid, possibly on a "grilling" setting.
That is one of the other questions I had... I don't generally use lids in the oven unless I'm braising, and that's always in a metal pot. The pyrex dishes I have don't even come with lids.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.093839 | 2016-01-24T23:53:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65813",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"John Allebon",
"Judy Watson",
"Justin Hammond",
"Lorraine B",
"Mary Howell",
"Michelle Sargeant",
"PATRICK BRESNAHAN",
"Pauline Gibson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.