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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
128372 | Can you deep fry soaked but uncooked whole chickpeas or are there safety or other issues that makes this a bad idea?
I make falafels the traditional way, grind up soaked but uncooked chickpeas/fava, add minced onion, garlic, etc. and then form and fry.
All the recipes I've found for crispy fried chickpeas start with cooked or canned chickpeas but is there any reason you can't or shouldn't deep fry soaked but uncooked chickpeas?
It works for falafel.
I suspect that just soaked chickpeas will never get cooked if just fried so that you have the choice of uncooked or burned. In falafel the chickpeas are much finer ground and are fried for several minutes.
Try it! It's a cheap experiment and there's no risk!
@jmk That was my thought too, either that or rock-hard.
@beausmith yup, i'm doing the experiment now, as you said it's cheap and I was too curious to wait for a possible answer here. i'll update with an answer later today. I soaked 50g of chickpeas in cold water last night, i'm cooking 50g of chickpeas now in water. I'll fry both batches at 160C for I'm assuming 2 to 4 minutes but i'll judge both batches on colour for done-ness.
@jmk I'm not too worried about the cooking time, falafel are much bigger so it would take longer for the heat to penetrate than a whole chickpea. I am thinking though, that the extra water in the onion and herbs might be necessary for the cooking process. i'll know for sure in an hour or two!
Yes you can deep fry soaked, uncooked chickpeas and get a nearly identical result to deep frying pre-cooked or canned chickpeas.
I did an experiment: soaked 50g of dry chickpeas overnight, the next day cooked 50g of dry chickpeas in boiling water until tender but not soft (about 45 minutes).
Both batches were drained and dried on a clean tea towel to remove surface moisture (soaked chickpeas weighed 85g, boiled were 90g).
Heated oil to 160C, fried the boiled batch first (all the recipes I've seen call for pre-cooked or canned chickpeas). After 5 minutes there was not much browning but the bubbling had reduced a lot so I drained onto a paper towel and sprinkled with salt. Fried weight was 51g.
Brought the oil back up to temp, fried the soaked (but not cooked) batch for 5 minutes, drained, and salted. Fried weight was 51g, same as for the pre-cooked batch.
The texture was close to identical for both batches, the pre-cooked ones felt marginally more floury on the inside but I might have been looking for differences. The soaked but uncooked tasted better because I was more heavy handed with the salt. They also weren't as crispy as I hoped, next time I'll fry at 180C.
I don't know you'll get the same result if cooked in an oven or counter-top convection oven.
Excellent, nice to see a self-answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.193527 | 2024-05-20T23:34:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128372",
"authors": [
"beausmith",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"jmk",
"user13716"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12134 | Making Mayo by hand , using whisk , emulsion breaks down
I'm trying to make homemade mayonaise and it's not really working out well.
I got a glass bowl that's fairly deep and use the following ingredients:
1 egg yolk*
1/2 teaspoon salt (not kosher)
1/2 teaspoon dry mustard
2 pinches sugar
2 teaspoons fresh squeezed lemon juice
1 tablespoon white wine vinegar
1 cup oil
I put the oil into a squeeze bottle, basically like a ketchup bottle so I can squeeze the oil out a few drops at a time in the beginning.
Well about 1/3rd of the way through I lose my emulsion and I'm left with egg and oil on top. Should I be using a whisk? The one I have I feel that the spacings are too far apart but I'm not sure.
How long should it take from start to finish to get this thing made? I don't know if I'm whisking too long or not...can you even whisk too long?
EDIT 1: I get an egg and separate the yolk out in a bowl and once i know it's all good I put it into my glass bowl. After this is done I add the sugar, dry mustard, salt, the vinegar and 1stp of the lemon juice.
I then start to whisk the crap out of this thing until it looks like it's been beat up. I then start to slowly add the oil. Just a drop or two at first, then slowly add more. I'm not sure if I'm adding the oil too fast or put the ingredients in wrong or what the deal is. At about the 50% mark I want to add the rest of the lemon juice.
Sounds like a great idea to use a squeeze bottle; I tried making mayo for the first time yesterday as well and had some trouble with the "pour in the oil in a thin, steady stream", things got rather messy. As for your question: could you provide some more detail about what you are doing from the start until the emulsion breaks down? Otherwise, it seems hard to give a more specific answer to this question than the generic mayo making tips given in response to this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5964/how-can-i-make-my-own-mayonnaise-properly
Sounds pretty much like the expected procedure, so no idea what's wrong, but I'm obviously not a mayo making expert. You may still want to double check with this answer to see whether you're not overlooking something: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5964/how-can-i-make-my-own-mayonnaise-properly/6231#6231 One more tip that's not covered there, and which I found in "On Food and Cooking" (H. McGee) is to start with just the yolk mixed with a little bit of salt, and only add the vinegar or lemon juice after you've already emulsified some oil into the yolk and it's getting stiff.
Did you perhaps use cold ingredients? They should be at room temperature. And I have to say, it sounds like you are pushing the egg/oil ratio a bit. Call me a p"#¤"sy, but I would not go that far myself. Perhaps if I was using really large eggs I would venture into the realms of 1 cup per egg yolk, but usually I back off at around half a cup per yolk.
I make my mayonnaise in a normal food processor (albeit with the small bowl attachment). Just whack in the egg yolk, mustard and vinegar/lemon juice, start blitzing, then just pour the oil from a jug in a thin stream. I've never, ever had it split on me and I almost always use ingredients straight from the fridge. If you've got a food processor, use it; that's what it's there for.
It's important to determine whether your emulsion actually broke immediately or was just creaming.
I'm going to trot out this diagram again from yesterday:
(source: Cube Cola)
Creaming occurs when the oil drops, which are less dense than the water, float to the top. As long as the droplets don't coalesce, you can still fix this with agitation (whisk, blend, or shake vigorously).
Emulsions with coarse particles (of oil) are much more prone to creaming, because their increased buoyancy makes them more able to push up past the water molecules. You want to have a very fine "mist" of oil suspended in the water; if you were using a squeeze bottle, perhaps the individual drops were simply too large. A ketchup bottle in particular would not be appropriate for this sort of thing, you'd want to use something closer to a syringe (or just get an actual syringe).
Now if you keep adding oil to a creamed emulsion or let it sit too long then it will also start to coalesce, and coalescence and creaming together are what cause an emulsion to break completely. This, you really can't recover from, except to let it separate completely, skim off the fat, and start over.
So, to recap:
Your oil drops may have been too large;
You may not have been agitating enough, especially when it started to cream;
You may have added too much oil after creaming had already started.
I also agree with commenter Henrik that the amount of oil sounds a little high; 3/4 cup would be more reasonable for 1 egg yolk. But since you say you only got 1/3 of the way through, that's clearly not your problem here.
Fantastic, I'll try to control the amount of oil added in the start of the process. I'll also make sure to whisk the thing a bit more furiously
Re-reading your question, I'm starting to wonder whether you only used the whisk to mix the yolk, vinegar and juice and after that relied solely on the squeeze bottle to mix drops of oil into that; was that the case? (As you asked "Should I be using a whisk?", I thought there was a word missing and you meant "Should I be using another whisk?", but I'm not so sure anymore.) I would still think a squeeze bottle is a good way to add small amounts of oil at a time, but you still need to whisk it into the mixture to break up the oil into small drops, not just squirt it in.
Should have read - should I be using a different whisk
I think it is important to use a whisk (or one of those hand-held blenders!).
You cannot over-whisk, the big danger is getting tired/bored after a while and dumping too much oil in at one time.
I don't bother pouring the oil in a steady stream (it is too hard, as well as risking a 'collapse' such as you experienced), instead, using a small plastic measuring cup with a spout, I pour in approx. a teaspoon full, whisk the mixture until the oil is fully incorporated, then add more oil and so on.
I think it takes about 15 minutes to incorporate .75 cups of oil, however I can't be sure because after a few minutes I seem to enter a sort of oil-whisking trance state...
OK - well then it looks like maybe I got bored and added in too much. Thanks!
I didn't see anyone mention adding water. Most commercial mayonnaise contains water because it helps stabilize the oil. Mayo is, after all, an oil-in-water emulsion (that is, the oil is suspended in water). If there's not enough water from your other ingredients (vinegar and lemon juice are almost all water, for example, so you could also step up the acid), then you will eventually hit a point where the oil has nowhere else to go and so it will again begin to coalesce into larger drops of itself. Egg yolks--specifically, the lecithin protein therein--is the glue that allows oil and water to form this emulsion, but all three must be present (in mayo, as traditionally defined--not trying to talk about mayo substitutes or variations). Hope this helps.
I think you add the oil too rapidly.
Only add more oil, if you already have something that looks like mayonaise, don't add it too soon.
More importantly, just a few drops of oil at a time. Don't get too confident.
Some details: the amount of mustard seems a little small (in comparison to the other amounts). Secondly, you can add a pinch of pepper if you want. Thirdly, you can add a tablespoon of water when you're done, if you think your mayonaise is too greasy.
And just a personal tip: I prefer making it with a fork instead of a whisk.
My mom makes mayo with only yokes and oil, adding salt only at the end. You don't want an oil with strong flavor. Trader Joes canola works great.
Room temperature ingredients are important. And so is the agitation. Alton Brown had an episode about it and he mentions a blender is too violent and you have to add one egg white in to help the egg "molecules" from getting shredded.
My mom hand whisks on a plate, sometimes using just a fork, starting with egg yokes, then adding the oil slowly. She has the technique down; pours the oil from a measuring cup, starting with drops and then once she has an emulsion, a steady (but thin) stream.
When the emulsion is created the consistency changes drastically from viscous liquid to something that seems more elastic. It is sudden and really almost magical. It should take a very short time to get the emulsion. After you get it, you don't need to even whisk anymore, just mixing and stirring (less intensity than whisking). The whisking part really takes some stamina; you are doing tiny Arsenio Hall arm pumps over the plate as fast as you can.
Any yoke/oil mixtures that fails you can the pour in slowly as you mix after you have the emulsion started.
At the end she adds salt which really stiffens it up. It is incredible to me that you can taste this straight up and it doesn't taste like oil (or only very slightly). She puts it on potatoes that have been boiled, peeled, and cut into inch size cubes. Then you absolutely cannot taste the oil.
I have tried about 10 times and only got the emulsion to happen once. If you can taste oil you have done something wrong.
EDIT
I've since been successful making it, again, with room-temperature ingredients, but using a single whisk on a hand mixer. It comes out way more like "grocery store" mayo this way (more white) than the hand version (which comes out very yellow).
Today I'm going to try with a power drill set to low speed, because I feel like the hand mixer is too fast, and in a jar or cup to cut down on the splatter mess, too.
EDIT
The power drill worked nicely, because I was able to whisk much more slowly - so I got the more drippy, yellow version, as opposed to the firmer whitish mayo.
The temperature of the eggs is very important. They must be at room temperature. But I have been told that the eggs should never be refrigerated at all, if you are making mayonnaise (by a lady who has chickens).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.193776 | 2011-02-14T18:00:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12134",
"authors": [
"Arnab Gupta",
"Bret",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Freda Harman",
"H.Scheidl",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Ibasas_lady",
"Raghuvaran D",
"Rinzwind",
"Spot",
"adRn",
"erer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4239",
"ist_lion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110231 | Defrosting: How long should food be kept in refrigerator?
I am trying to defrost some meals by placing them in a refrigerator.
The meals are a variation of salmon/halloumi + rice + greens
How long should it be placed in the refrigerator? Does it depend on how long it's been frozen?
what "meal' are we talking about ? normally, we defrost in the fridge until thawed (or close to)
@Max edited the question - meals like salmon + rice + greens
The moment the food is thawed, the rules for safe storage times in the fridge apply, which is already covered here. Or did you mean “how long does it take for the food to thaw”?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.194851 | 2020-08-16T13:16:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110231",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81392",
"nz_21"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105593 | Is Erythritol acid or alkaline and what is it's pH compared to brown sugar?
Is Erythritol acid or alkaline and what is it's pH compared to brown sugar?
In many baking recipes, baking soda is added together with acidic ingredients, such as brown sugar.
Also, this way, the possibly metallic taste of baking soda is neutralized.
Does this applies to Erythritol ?
Edit: Sugar alcohols generally are not measured with pH directly, but with pKa indirectly. So in a nutshell, I'd like to know if it would behave more like an acid or as alkaline. For example 180g pure Erythritol (pka 13.903@18degreeC), in 100 ml H2O with 1.2g baking soda.
Some people bake with it and baking soda, some with baking powder (with the rest of ingredients being about the same). In the end it's hard to know which one will give better cooking yield and flavor(based on how it reacts with baking soda) without wasting ingredients... please help!
based on this, it seems that the pKa( tldr: ph equivalent) is around 13, which makes me believe it is slightly alkaline.
In that case i'm not sure if using baking powder instead is the answer, as what I'm going for is chocolate chip cookies, and would NOT want them to be "cakey".
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Erythritol#section=Optical-Rotation
Your question makes no sense. Erythritol is a solid at room tempreature. If it has a solution with free ions (which I am not sure about), you have to specify the solution concentration for whose pH you are asking.
Hi thanks for your reply. I'm not an expert in chemistry, or food science, so if posible walk me through this. You may make assumptions or use reasonable examples. I use commercially available food grade Erythritol. I don't know if there is any variation among brands. I would assume it's 100% Erythritol. I use 180g Erythritol, 1 egg 113g butter(or oil), 50 egg(might want to assume it's water?). Finally cookies made with brown sugar add .25g of baking soda, but maybe something else would be better with Erythritol ?
Perhaps, For example purposes one could assume 100g Erythritol with 100g water solution ? (maybe the link attached can provide some extra info?)
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Erythritol#section=Optical-Rotation
As a 4 carbon sugar alcohol, erythritol lacks both strongly acid and strongly basic groups. pH of a 1 molar solution will run around 7. It is not going to affect the pH of a solution when you add erythritol. It will affect osmolarity, and water activity but those are different properties.
I add this to your answer - which I up voted - : https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/105503/sugar-solutions-have-a-neutral-ph-in-themselves-but-it-makes-your-body-acidic and a pdf https://tinyurl.com/tlm8rvk
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.194944 | 2020-02-28T21:09:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105593",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Joao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81399",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94663 | Difficulty with frozen bread dough
My favorite yeast bread dough yields more rolls then my family can eat. I usually freeze it in quart-size Ziploc freezer bags. When I'm ready to bake a few rolls, I take a bag out, let it defrost enough to shape the rolls, let them rise, and bake them.
Sometimes this worked really well, yielding delicious fresh fluffy rolls. Other times it flops into a sticky flatbread that doesn't bake through.
I'm not sure why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Is it a problem with the yeast? The defrosting process? The storage?
Possible duplicate of Can I freeze bread dough after the first rising?
Prepare the rolls as if you were to cook them–rising times included–, and froze them at the moment you would put them in the oven.
When you want to use the rolls: Do not defrost them. Put them directly in the oven.
It works for croissants too!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.195151 | 2018-12-10T21:08:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94663",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103214 | Turning on oven's fan for preheating - Oven turning off by itself - How to preheat properly
Should I turn on my oven's convection fan for preheating? Or should I only turn it on when I put the cake inside?
Because my oven OFTEN turns off by itself when preheating, I think it might be the fan.
I have researched a lot about this, oven turning off on it's own means the lack of airflow or overheating, I preheat the oven at 180 Celsuis for 20 minutes with the fan turned on.
I'm asking this question because it happens often times. So trial and error doesn't really work here, if it did turn off all the times, I could try a lot of things to narrow down the problem. I have tried preheating without the fan and it still turned off again if memory serves me right. No I was wrong we never tried this, because mom persists to use fan all the time.
This is a gas oven with physical rotating knobs, and about a handful of times when I was about to put the cake inside, I found the oven turned off, the lights are on and the fan is on but the flame is off, and the oven is somewhat cold and if I turn it on, it works fine, I never found it turned off with food inside.
After reading your comments I feel like I'm not doing the preheating correctly.
I searched more and found a suggestion on the internet to preheat the oven 25 Celsius degrees above the required temperature to cook [source].(https://avivservicetoday.com/ovens/how-to-preheat-your-oven/) But I don't like this since my oven doesn't have digital temperature display, I might overheat it or even underheat, it could ruin the cake.
There's also another suggestion saying preheating longer than x minutes could automatically turn the oven off, but as I had read the manual of my oven before asking this question, such thing was not mentioned.
About the fan, the manual suggests to use it to cook the core of food efficiently. In spite of other ovens which suggest to use the fan for browning the tops.
Hi Shayan, a few questions: what kind of oven do you use? I assume electric because of the convection fan (gas ovens don't have those as far as I know), is it with physical knobs you turn to set the temperature or with digital controls? How do you notice it turns off and what happens when you turn it on again?
& to further clarify - do you mean the light goes off, the fan stops & the oven will if left simply go cold after a time? Otherwise it sounds simply like the thermostat is doing its job & switching on & off to preserve your preset temperature.
@Tinuviel gas ovens can have a convection fan too, my mother had one.
@Luciano good to know, I'm not familiar with gas ovens (they are not very common where I live)
Does the oven ever turn off during baking or only during preheating?
I'm going to ask the classic question: what does the oven manual say?
The oven fan helps cooking foods more uniformly; in the case of gas ovens (with heat from the bottom) it means browning the top of the food as well as the bottom but not necessarily just browning the top: for that you'd need a strong heat source from the top(a broiler)
@Luciano my oven also has top heater ;)
I assume that your oven has a window. Use an oven thermometer to see what the temperature is. Monitor the temperature over time. I'd expect the inside of the oven to be "cold" when you open the door since you're letting all the hot air in the oven out. That is why some recommend to preheat oven 25 degrees hotter, then turn temperature down after putting cake inside oven.
Do you know if your oven automatically turns burners on and off to keep a certain temperature? Apparently, this technology exists in gas ovens, https://applianceassistant.com/appliance-repair/range-stove-repair/how-gas-stoves-ranges-ovens-work/.
@rumtscho But if it's turning on and off automatically to keep temperature at desired rate, the oven should not be "cold" when I open the door of the oven.
After so much trial and error, I found the solution, and yet, it's so simple:
Leave the oven door open for 2 minutes when preheating, then close.
And I also turn the fan on for preheating, I think it will make it more effective.
It doesn't turn off by itself anymore.
As far as I know, pre-heating to 25°-30° allows for the decrease in temperature when you put whatever in. It looses 10° every second that your oven is open.
There's also another suggestion saying.
preheating longer than x minutes could.
automatically turn the oven off.
Your burners go on and off based on the oven temp. When the burners go off, the light will reflect that,, and once the temp drops by x amount, it goes on again. So if the light is out and you have turned it on, then you know it's baking time.
If it is still cold, then it may just mean that you have to call the repair man...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.195257 | 2019-11-01T09:44:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103214",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Luciano",
"MaxW",
"Shayan",
"Tetsujin",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117297 | Is it possible to cook an egg in a thermos flask?
Scenario: I want to hard-boil a single whole egg with the least amount of effort and active cooking time. I don't own an egg steamer and don't want to buy another kitchen gadget that takes up space without being used most of the time. I also don't want to cook the egg in a pot of boiling water because it seems wasteful to heat up so much water for a single egg. (Edit: I only have 2 sizes of stove hobs, so the smallest pot I own is the size of the smallest hob: 14,5 cm / 5.7 inch diameter)
However, I do have a thermos flask with 1 liter capacity and an opening big enough to put an egg inside. Yesterday I put an egg in and filled it with about half a liter of freshly boiling water. After 25 minutes only a few millimeters of the outer eggwhite were cooked and the inside was completely liquid. I took the egg directly from the fridge, so that might have contributed to the fail.
I also thought about putting the egg directly into my electric kettle, but if the shell cracks it would be a nightmare to clean the kettle afterwards.
I know that microwaving an egg has an insanely high risk of the thing exploding in your face. There are many reports of people receiving really bad burns to their faces and hands.
Is it even possible to cook an egg in a thermos flask? Is there maybe another method I overlooked? I'm willing to wait about an hour for the egg to finish cooking, as long as I don't have to actively monitor the process.
Update:
I tried again with the 2 methods that appealed to me the most:
Joe M's method: egg in thermos flask. I only have the "keep things warmer for a little longer" kind of flask, not the "keep things hot for hours" vacuum kind, but if I fill it up to the brim with boiling water and gently tilt it every 5 minutes to even out the temperature insite, I can get a hard-boiled egg in 20 minutes.
Tjaden Hess' method: steaming in a pot. This works like magic. I made a little "throne" for the egg from aluminium foil and boiled a cup of water in the electric kettle before pouring it into the pot, which was heating up in the meantime. After pouring the water and adding the lid, I could turn the hob down to the lowest setting and forget about the egg for 10 minutes. It came out perfect and this method required the least effort and resources by far.
The reason that recipes call for boiling water for a fixed amount of time is that they then know what the temperature is. Using a thermal cooker would require knowing how it cools off with time, so would be different instructions for every vessel, just like how microwave recipes have to be adjusted depending on the wattage of the device
You could cook multiple eggs at once, and this will actually use less water. Then you have eggs on hand for salads, sandwiches etc.
What would be the desired doneness for your egg?
@Stephie At a minimum 95% of the egg white must be solid (soft boiled, I guess), but if it's completely hard boiled all the way through it's still acceptable.
a little tip. If you do decide to just cook it in a pot, just boil the water in the electric kettle first and pour it over to the pot and continue there. It's significantly faster and I think also more energy efficient than boiling the water from start in the pot.
Alternatively, if you really want just 1 egg, you can poach it in the microwave in a small cup - pierce the yolk with a toothpick to get it fully cooked
@JulianaKarasawaSouza There's a very real risk that eggs explode in the microwave. Not only whole eggs in the shell, but also poached eggs, just the yolks or just the whites and even completely hard boiled eggs still explode. In the best case you only have a mess to clean up. In the worst case it explodes the moment you open the door and the boiling hot mess gets flug into your face or onto your hands. There are posts and reports about people getting horrible burns and scars in their faces because they poached eggs in the microwave.
@Elmy that's why you have to pierce the yolk if you want to cook it longer, to eliminate the risk of explosion in case you leave it too long
We have an ancient tin cup that can handle 2 eggs, but they do sell similar stainless steel or aluminum camping mugs that you can cook directly. They are coffee mug sized and you can boil eggs directly in them.
The flask is an unnecessary step. See https://www.reviewmylife.co.uk/kettlecookery/
For what it's worth, stores selling Asian cookwear often sell essentially full-sized versions of this. You have a cylindrical pot - mine's about 3L - that fits into an insulated metal thermos "sleeve" with a top. You heat up something with a lot of liquid, say a stew, on the stove in the pot, bringing it to a boil. Then you drop it in its sleeve, come back 8 hours later and find a finished stew, no need to worry about starting a fire. Or wasting electricity. Final temperature is still pretty hot, about 70C, so food safety is not compromised. Bit restricted in preppable food range tho.
Just commenting on method 2. If you plan to use new aluminum foil every time, the wasteful aspect of boiling a full pan of water seems a better alternative.
Yes, it is possible to cook an egg in a thermos.
After thinking about the physics some, I decided to try this out. In particular, I considered that the egg is maybe 50ml in volume; with 500ml of boiling water, it shouldn't be a problem to transfer plenty of heat to raise the 50ml egg from 4°C to 82°C on the outside (less in the middle, yolk is cooked by around 70°C).
The important thing is to make sure the egg is immersed in water that stays around 80-85°C for the duration of the cooking cycle - about 10-15 minutes. So:
A thermos must be a true Thermos® - or at least, a very close kin, double walled vacuum style. The "keep your hot food hot for 8 hours" type, not just a coffee tin that will keep your coffee sort of warmish while you hop on the bus to work.
You lose a few degrees of heat when you pour the water into a cold thermos - so I tested pre-warmed vs. cold thermos.
How much water is needed? I had a 500ml Thermos® and two 300ml Thermos®, so that seemed an apt comparison.
My experimental setup: 1 pre-warmed 500ml thermos, 1 pre-warmed 300ml thermos, 1 room temp 300ml thermos. One kettle of boiling water with about 1.5L water. Three "American large" eggs, pulled from the refrigerator just as I started the setup but well after I put the kettle on (so only out for a few minutes, no meaningful raise in temperature from the 4°C fridge).
Method: I poured some extra boiling water from a separate kettle about 2 minutes before the main kettle came to a boil into the 500ml and one 300ml thermos. Then right when the main kettle came to a boil, I poured those two out. Then I put eggs in all three (the warm 500ml one was very hard to do that in, it was very warm!). Then I poured 100°C water (temped from my electric kettle) into the three, filling each to the fill line (the metal band) and as quickly as I could topped them each with the screw on top.
Then, I waited 15 minutes. I left them alone - no mixing, no touching, me sitting at my computer ignoring them until my timer went off. After that time was up, I opened all three and immediately temped the water in them. Then, I quickly removed the eggs, placed them in bowls, and cracked them with a spoon, then cut with a knife.
My results:
The 500ml setup cooked an egg precisely how I like it - maybe even a tiny bit overdone if anything. Whites fully cooked, yolk medium to medium well with a great yellow/orange color. The water in the thermos after 15 minutes was 80°C, which is right where it should be. I'd pull this out a bit earlier next time, maybe after 10 minutes.
The 300ml "prewarmed" cooked a pretty decent egg also. It was less well done on the inside than the 500ml, but many people would like an egg boiled this way, and it's well within my "good egg" range. Whites firmly done, yolk not dry at all and a great yellow. The water in the thermos was 73°C, so a bit below the "done whites" temperature by this point, but likely it was within acceptable cooking range (80°C-85°C) for the 10 minutes needed.
The 300ml "room temp" was inconclusive. The egg was decent, but the color much lighter yellow - but also a much smaller yolk entirely, oddly small and pale compared to what I'm used to. It wasn't clear if it was underdone or okay; it wasn't runny, certainly. I don't know if the color was due to cooking or not. The water was 72°C, so basically the same as the other one - maybe the prewarming made a trivial difference, or maybe it made no difference at all; I don't necessarily think it's likely to, but who knows.
I also separately tried an egg in 1L of water not in a double walled thermos. This totally failed - the egg was still basically liquified; clearly partially cooked, but not something I'd want to eat, runnier than scotched eggs by a good bit. The water had dropped to about 60°C by 15 minutes later, so it clearly was not in the optimal cooking temperature.
In conclusion: yes, it's possible to cook an egg in 500ml of water in a thermos, provided you have a proper thermos that's capable of keeping the water at a high temperature! It likely is possible to boil an egg harder than I prefer, but the more water you use, the better for that.
My thermoses (the 500ml, and one 300ml, egg for scale):
Thanks for your great experiment! The pale color of the "room temp" egg is usually attributed to the diet of the hen. If there's too little beta carotene in the chicken food, the yolks get very pale.
That makes sense; it's not something I'd seen before - the eggs from the store I buy these at are usually incredibly consistent!
I'm always impressed when people actually do the experiment. This should be the highest voted answer.
Nicely done. I'm glad you did it because I was thinking I'd have to, but I'm not keen on boiled eggs (plus your flasks are more suitable than mine). To make prewarming a little easier, what I tend to do is boil the kettle, fill the flask, wait a couple of minutes, return the water to the kettle (lid back on flask) and reboil, which of course is quick so the flask doesn't cool much.
For convenience factor, using (a tiny bit) more water without pre-heating is certainly a win, if it gets your egg done well enough. Probably also for the amount of total energy spent heating water. But if you were pre-heating, probably instead of trying to put an egg into a hot empty Thermos, you could put in hot water then drop in the egg. With water to cushion it, you could somewhat drop it without it smashing on the bottom. You only needed to put the egg in first when doing a controlled experiment with your fill line. ( But if egg volume varies, I'd have thought you'd fill first.)
You don't need a dedicated device to steam an egg. I hard-boil eggs by placing the egg in a small pot with ~1.5 inches of boiling water. Cover with a lid and set over low heat (just enough that you can see a small amount of steam escaping). Steam for about 11 minutes.
Sometimes the egg can crack or cook unevenly (although I usually have good results). This can be resolved by crumpling a bit of aluminum foil and making a "bed" for the egg so that it is suspended above the water. You can reuse the foil as many times as you like.
The advantage here is that the time and energy to boil such a small amount of water is negligible, and to keep it boiling requires only very low heat.
If you don't have a small pot you could also use a small metal mixing bowl.
This sounds like the best compromize between "traditional cooking" that doesn't require additional appliances and "least wasteful cooking" that doesn't require too much water and energy. I'll definitely try this and I thank you very much for sharing this great idea. If "Joe M" hadn't conducted this experiment, you would have gotten the "accepted answer" tic mark.
1.5 inches are about 3.5-4 cm
+1 This is the only way I boil eggs, since I first read it in Cook's Illustrated. It works great, and is very reliable. They call for just 1 inch of water, and they suggest a steamer basket instead of crumpled aluminum foil.
I also find this technique makes the eggs easier to peel.
A steamer basket is probably the "right" way to do it, but that's one more piece of equipment you might not have. OTOH, I think it's a good investment; lots of food that you might consider boiling can be steamed with less energy and frequently better results.
There's no magic solution, to cook an egg you have to expend a certain amount of energy. The issue you had with the flask method was that there wasn't enough heat in the water to cook the egg fully. If you want to use a flask you'd either need a bigger flask with more water capacity or to pour the water out once it's cooled some and pour in fresh boiling water. Keep in mind that the same argument for not using a kettle holds with a flask - if the egg cracks it's going to be challenging to clean it.
You are right that the typical way many boil eggs is inefficient: crank the burner up on full and boil the daylights out of them for 10 minutes or more. You don't have to do that. I've found that a very effective and (comparatively) efficient way to do it is use the smallest pot I can, cover it, bring it to a full boil for about 30 seconds and then turn the heat off completely. The eggs fully cook over the next 20 minutes in the residual heat, so the only energy you expend is to bring the water to a boil, which is the same as your flask method. The consistency of the yolks comes out very well with this method.
If you are in a bit of a hurry you can keep the heat on, but turn it down. You only need high heat to bring the water to a boil, once it's boiling you can turn the heat down to the point where the eggs are juddering around some in the pot. With the lid on you'll find you really don't need much to keep things cooking. This is true with many things, including pasta, you can save money by cranking down the heat once things are boiling.
The flask in question was only around half full, and there's no mention of preheating it, so it might be worth trying again rectifying these to increase the hot thermal mass. Starting from chilled eggs won't help either
Filling the flask may or may not do the trick, it's worth a shot. I think if anything was going to be bought for this purpose a small pan would be the most versatile.
You could also save a bit of time by insulating the pot if using the residual heat approach on gas - remove from heat and wrap in a towel. Or return to the boil briefly after a few minutes
I reckon roughly doubling the ratio of bear-boiling water to egg, combined with preheating the inner skin of the flask, has a good chance, but certainly no guarantees. Gently inverting the flask every few minutes might also help as the water nearest the egg will cool the most. My flask will go in a dishwasher, so cleaning a broken egg out wouldn't be a problem (but the neck diameter and flask capacity are both marginal for this project)
I was trying to calculate the amount of time to hard-boil an egg using a 1L resevoir of 98C water, but I lack the physics knowledge to make the math work. FWIW, data on the heat capacity and conductivity of eggs can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222276171_Density_heat_capacity_and_thermal_conductivity_of_liquid_egg_products
I don't agree that 1/2 L of water doesn't have enough heat in it innately - an egg is mostly water, so at least roughly similar amount of heat needed, and an egg is so far below 1/2L in volume that the heat is definitely there. Whether the heat can be transferred to the egg before it is lost to the environment, though...
With pasta, turning the heat down isn't just a matter of saving energy. If you leave it on high, it has a tendency to boil over. (Unless you use a very large pot.)
If you want the least amount of effort, active cooking time and utensils used: get a small saucepan (maybe less than a liter of capacity), heat the water on your stove or in an electric kettle (one extra gadget but uses less electricity), put the water in the saucepan, keep it a boil, and boil your egg for as long as you need to. Sure, you'll waste some water because the egg needs a bit of water surrounding it, but comparing that to your thermos method which took an hour and failed to cook the egg I think the classic method can't be beaten.
The active cooking time is essentially:
set up water (1 min)
wait for water to boil (no active time)
put in egg from fridge (10 sec)
wait for egg to be done (no active time)
get egg out, discard water (30 sec)
So in total less than 2 minutes. I don't think it's possible to beat that. The only thing you need to monitor is when to take out the egg, but since you want a hard-boiled one, it doesn't really matter that much if you cook it for a bit longer.
Regarding the thermos method: I think it could be possible to cook an egg this way, but you'll need more water. To hard-boil an egg it needs to spend almost 10 minutes in boiling water, and while your thermos insulates well, the water will stop boiling almost immediately after taking it off the stove or out of the kettle. To compensate for the lack of active heating, your hot water will need to act as a heat reservoir, and as you said, half a liter didn't even partially cook the egg. Thus, your thermos egg might need considerably longer, need more water, and might not even hard boil at all.
you don't even need to keep the water boiling after adding the eggs; just turn the heat off and wait for a longer time, so there's less active time (no need to monitor the pot at all)
If the outer millimeters were properly cooked, then you probably had around half the required energy. So it might work if you change the following:
Preheat the thermos with hot (not necessarily boiling) water
Fill the thermos completely, i.e. you said you can put in almost twice as much water, do that.
I would not try to let the egg sit on the counter first, fresh from the fridge is good because you are boiling the egg less thoroughly than usual and I would want to be sure that it was permanently properly cooled before you cooked it with this method (and also properly cooled afterwards, if not eaten immediately).
Depending on county, eggs need to be refrigerated or not. This depends e.g. in whether the eggs are washed or not before sale. If a reader is in a country where eggs need not be refrigerated, there’s no food safety issue with using room temperature eggs. It’s also not a food safety issue if refrigerated eggs are left out in the counter for up to two hours (cumulative) and consumed right after cooking.
It's probably not a food safety issue, but it's unnecessary - Serious Eats went into some detail in their article about this, but it basically makes zero difference to cooking time unless you leave it out far beyond that two hours. So, if you're in a "refrigerated egg" country, leave'm there!
@JoeM It's a shame really that they take so long to warm up, because room temp is about 15°C above fridge temp, or roughly 20% of the temperature rise we're aiming for
@ChrisH Microwave! 15"/egg, the eggs get just lukewarm, no problem with over pressure.
@gboffi that's an alternative, and a valid one in some cases. But the OP may not have a microwave (maybe if they did, they'd just cook the eggs in it). Here it's not an issue - eggs must be sold unwashed, so keep at room temperature.
@ChrisH I was answering your comment, It's a shame really that they take so long to warm up
@gboffi, I realised that - but after I wrote the word "alternative" and forgot to edit it. BTW if I liked boiled eggs enough, the thermos approach would be good while camping (probably packing a few more in and reheating the water part way through). No microwave there, or even power
Putting the egg directly in an electric kettle is indeed a common way to cook eggs with the least amount of effort - see this guide for example. As you note, it can be a little messy, but I've done it many times in the past and never had anything that was too much of a problem; having a kettle with a stainless steel inside makes it very easy to clean anything that does go wrong.
Other than sous-vide cooking, which does work, the kettle method is the least involved - just put it in the kettle, add water, push the button, walk away - come back in however many minutes you want based on how done you like them (0-15 minutes after boiling).
If it worries you to have egg in the kettle, consider getting a second kettle - we used an older kettle for our "egg kettle" back when we cooked them this way.
(Our current method uses an induction stove, and involves keeping the water at 85°C for 11 minutes; it's not particularly more work, and since it's induction it's actually decently efficient, but not nearly as efficient as the electric kettle.)
If you want your egg to peel itself, pressure cook it for 6 minutes. try it!
That actually sounds like fun ;). Unfortunately a pressure pot is another one of those gadgets that I don't own because it takes up a lot of space and doesn't get used most of the time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.195673 | 2021-09-23T07:08:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117297",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Elmy",
"Eulenfuchswiesel",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Italian Philosopher",
"Ivo",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"John Doe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Luciano",
"Mike",
"Peter Cordes",
"Robin Salih",
"Sebastiaan van den Broek",
"Stephie",
"Tjaden Hess",
"cja",
"gboffi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95706",
"rtaft"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94924 | Reheating Falafel without drying them out
I'm planning to make falafel for lunch break for my colleagues, but I have to prepare them the evening before eating them. The only kitchen appliances available to reheat them are a microwave and an electrical water kettle. Fresh water and all kinds of plates, bowls and dishes are available as well.
What is the best way to reheat falafel without drying them out or making the outer layer tough and rubbery? Should I adjust my recipe in any way?
A damp paper towel draped or loosely wrapping the food will help keep the moisture levels up.
Also, most people reheat at 100%; this is the quickest way to ruin almost all food's texture. Use the microwave at 70% power for a bit longer time. This provides a more even heating and prevents the moisture from essentially boiling out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.197478 | 2018-12-17T13:42:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94924",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96459 | What is the lowest temperature at which botulism spores are killed?
I am wondering if it's possible to pressure can low-acid foods in my Instant Pot. Now hear me out. I know it's not recommended because the highest pressure that can be guaranteed on it is 10.2 PSI, and many low-acid foods require 15 PSI for a certain amount of time to reach the proper temperature (240-250 degrees fahrenheit, I believe). However, I have also read that killing spores is a function of temperature and time. So my question is, does anyone know if a lower temperature (possibly attainable by my Instant Pot) for a longer period of time would do? Does anyone know of a table that lists various times and temperatures a food must be held at to kill botulism spores (not bacteria)?
Additional information: I live at 4564 feet above sea level. I am most interested in canning chicken and beans. Here are the links I have found helpful in my search thus far.
USDA Recommendations for meat https://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/usda/GUIDE05_HomeCan_rev0715.pdf
USDA recommendations for beans https://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/usda/GUIDE04_HomeCan_rev0715.pdf
Instant Pot increase in cook times for altitude https://instantpot.com/cooking-tips/
Resource that says that spores are killed when food is held at 121 degrees Celsius (250 degrees Fahrenheit) for three minutes. https://www.fsai.ie/faq/botulism.html
tl;dr;
The resources for this topic are terrible. The best I have come up with is reasoning from first principles. That reasoning suggests the probable temperature at which spores are destroyed is somewhere between 113.3C and 116.4C, but without a proper microbiology experiment it's hard to say with much certainty whether that's correct.
Problems with Existing Resources
None of the resources on this topic that I have reviewed provide a credible answer to the question of what exposure time, temperature, and pH is required to destroy C. botulinum. At best they provide confusing and ambiguous statements none of which seem to be substantiated by experimental evidence.
I have not performed an exhaustive review of academic journals for this topic. Hopefully, an experiment from a specialist on this topic will surface, but given the dearth of references to such materials I encountered, I'm not optimistic.
Conflation of Process versus Spore Time and Temperature
All of the resources I have reviewed on this topic are imprecise in a critical way: The stated process times and temperatures required to destroy the spores are not distinguished from the time the spore itself must be held at temperature to destroy it. For example, the USDA's "Home Canning Guide 1 - Principles" states the following:
At temperatures of 240° to 250°F, the time needed to destroy bacteria in low-acid canned food ranges from 20 to 100 minutes. The exact time depends on the kind of food being canned, the way it is packed into jars, and the size of jars.
The only interpretation of this statement that makes sense to me is that the phrase "At temperatures of 240° to 250°F" here refers the temperature the spores must eventually reach while the "time needed to destroy bacteria" refers to process time. That is it might take exposing a can to that temperature "20 to 100 minutes" such that all of its contents reach a high enough temperature for long enough to destroy the spores. In other words, the critical targets for spore and process are ambiguously discussed within a single sentence. This conflation is characteristic of all documents on this topic that I have reviewed.
It's difficult for me to understand how the authors and editors of these publications decided that introducing this kind confusion into a topic of such import is helpful.
Absence of Scientific Data
I am further skeptical of the veracity of the resources I have reviewed published on this topic because none of them include references to any scientific literature measuring the relationship between exposure time, temperature, pH, and survival rates of C. botulinum spores. I have searched for the same and come up empty handed. It seems that all of the recommendations I have found for destroying C. botulinum are not based on scientific evidence.
Analysis from First Principles and Customary Practices
Absent the results of some sort of a microbiology experiment performed by a competent empiricist, the best I can hope for is to infer what temperatures spores must have customarily reached in successful home canning environments over the past decades. To make this inference, I'm relying on the well-established thermodynamic principles forming the basis of the pressure canning process, and some assumptions about what must have been happening in those millions of cans of food that must have been successfully preserved without causing botulism.
Newton's Law of Heating
Pressure canning is a thermodynamic system where the cans are immersed in a heat reservoir by way of establishing a water/steam vapor-liquid equilibrium at a particular stable temperature. The temperature of any point on the inside of the can is described by Newton's law of heating and cooling:
where t is time since the the water/steam reached , T is the temperature of the point, is the temperature of the water/steam in equilibrium, and τ is the time constant that is characteristic of that particular point.
By way of a qualitative understanding of the heat equation applied to that thermodynamic system, the lowest temperature point inside the can while heating will be at the thermodynamic center of the can. The thermodynamic center corresponds to the mechanical centroid of the can assuming the can and contents have homogeneous thermodynamic properties. As best I can tell, the process times and temperatures commonly recommended to destroy C. botulinum correspond to the time expected for this coolest point to reach and exceed some temperature long enough to destroy the spores.
I have measured the time constant for my own bolognese sauce on my stovetop in a one-liter jar in steam/water equilibrium at one atmosphere with the following results:
Note that R² has four nines which, I think, qualifies this as another example of Wigner's observation. For this particular jar of bolognese τ is 41 minutes.
The important property of Newton's law for pressure canning is that the coldest point in the can approaches but never reaches the temperature of the steam. Accordingly, the temperature of the spores inside the can are always somewhat less than the temperature of the steam/water equilibrium.
Customary Process Pressures and Temperatures
Where I live the most common manufacturer of pressure canners I encounter is National Presto Industries. I have heard many accounts from at least two generations my senior of regularly canning meat, seafood, fruits, and vegetables using Presto pressure cookers. In my region of Canada, at least, it seems like it is customary to simply strictly follow the Presto instructions for the food product when canning. None of the canners I have spoken with mentioned food-borne illnesses where they suspected the cause was canning. I take this to mean that whatever the process that has been prescribed by Presto is sufficient to destroy C. botulinum spores.
I have a paper manual of a Presto 418 from what I think was the 1970s. I also have the manual from amazon's #1 best seller pressure canner, the Presto 01781.
The former prescribes the following for all meats:
PROCESSING TIME TABLE MEATS
Amount of Pressure Pounds: 10
Quarts Minutes: 90
The latter prescribes the following for Spaghetti Sauce:
Spaghetti Sauce with Meat
Pressure canning: Process at 11 pounds pressure...quarts 70 minutes.
These gauge pressure values of 10 and 11 psig correspond to 115.2C (239F) and 116.4C (241F), respectively.
While I have not come across any data measuring the prevalence of meat canning using Presto pressure canners, I have encountered some examples of that myself. With respect to prevalence of botulism in this region, Health Canada states the following:
While outbreaks of food-borne illnesses in Canada are relatively common, botulism outbreaks are quite rare. In recent years, about two cases per year have been reported in Canada.
Customary Times
In general, the time constant for Newton's Law differs for of each combination of food and canning jar. We could make the reasonable but unproven assumption that the time constant of the Spaghetti sauce process from the Presto 01781 manual is the same 41 minutes as the measured time constant of my bolognese. Assuming a starting temperature of 100C, a water/steam equilibrium temperature of 116.4C, and the 70 minute process time prescribed by the Presto manual, the minimum temperature of my bolognese would reach 113.3C at the 70 minute mark. By dint of the heat equation, that minimum temperature would have continued to approach the water/steam equilibrium temperature for some time after the heat was removed from the canner.
Conclusion
Based on this, I think it can be concluded that users of Presto canners who strictly follow the instructions have been successfully canning meats where the maximum temperature reached by the meat was less than 116.4C (241F). I think it can also be concluded that those same users were probably achieving a minimum temperature of at least 113.3C (236F). This suggests a range of between 113.3C and 116.4C wherein the minimum temperature at which C. botulinum spores are likely to be destroyed would lie.
This is not at all a conclusion that I would consider to be beyond reproach. But at least what underlies this conclusion is reasoning from first principles which seems to be an epistemic improvement over the other resources on this topic that I have found. You'll have to decide for yourself whether this line of reasoning is good enough to rely on for your health.
In all good conscience, the only recommendations I could follow would be USDA or an equally authoritative source, and they only recommend pressure canning at a minimum of 240F. At 4000-6000 feet, that requires 13 lbs pressure for dial or 15 for weighted (as the weights are normally only 10 or 15 lbs). They make no allowances for increasing time as you can for most cooking as they will not accept killing below that temperature. Are they being overly cautious? Possibly, but they are the ones which for years have done the scientific tests.
Now, I cannot find the articles, but I do recall that a couple years ago the USDA ordered a recall of a pressure canner built similar to an instant pot. That canner was only rated to 2500 feet, and had a misleading label stating it was USDA compliant or some similar wording. It was order recalled because the USDA statements were to the effect that it had never been approved, or even submitted for testing, and further, if it had been it would have failed. That the USDA would not approve that low of a power supply as being able to maintain a consistent pressure and temperature to match what a heavy pressure canner on a stove burner can do, nor did it have a high enough heat reserve to meet those requirements.
I own both a pressure canner and an instant pot, not not for a minute would I personally think the instant pot could do the job I am afraid, and I also would not want to put that much strain on its heating element. And frankly, except for the space it takes up, my pressure canner was cheaper so would not risk the more expensive tool that is not up to the job.
You may find this link helpful (Youtube).
RoseRed actually has a probe she inserts inside the canning jar in an Instantpot Max to measure temperature, then plots it out on a graph and compares to USDA recommendations.
I can every week in my 2 InstantPot Max pots and regularly eat meats and low acid veges canned 2 years ago in them. The Max cans at 15PSI and displays temperature. Note that spores require the high pressures and temperatures to kill them, but if spores germinate and produce botulinum toxin in the food, it only takes boiling for 3 minutes before serving to kill the toxin.
Unrelated quandry: The Amish have canned low acid meats, milk and veges in just boiling waterbath for centuries and they sell their products, yet I cannot find any significant reports of botulism outbreaks from their products. The one piece of data I haven't found is an algorithm or chart of how much I can reduce the time if I can at 15PSI at sea level. Commercially higher pressures are used and drastically shorter times but I cant find that info for 15PSI at sea level
Welcome to the site. I have fixed some formatting and spelling problems; if you approve the edits. Note that the 15PSI/time requirement is defined for 1 atmosphere of pressure - essentially sea level, as per standard scientific conditions. Higher pressures used commercially raise the temperature reached, which means less time needed to sterilize.
Out of interest I had a look at some of the primary literature, which dates back to the early and middle parts of the last century for this bacterium (Clostridium botulinum), which produces the botulinum toxin and results in botulism.
Unfortunately many of these papers are largely behind paywalls or haven't been digitized (yet). I do have access to some of them through a library at my local university. In general the early experiments were done with spores in a suspension of medium and using basic methodology, where they were subject to heat over a period of time and a percent death calculated. Most studies from the early period used 80 C (176 F), and found in the <0.0001% remaining after about 15 minutes. However note (this is really important) 0.0001% is still lots of bacteria in most cases - you can fit about 109 of the average bacterium in a cubic millimitre (0.000061 cu inches), so you can't rely on that temperature and time, and as subsequent studies have found, there are a range of things that influence survival.
I did also find a freely available review:
Setlow P. Spore Resistance Properties. Microbiol Spectr. 2014 Oct;2(5). doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.TBS-0003-2012. PMID: 26104355.
This review nicely summarizes the conditions that affect heat kill of spores (and other methods too), and indicates that there are quite a range of conditions that enhance survival in spores (see table 3). Among these conditions is that wet heat (as in canning) is easier to survive than dry heat, and that 90 C (194 F) is insufficient to kill the more than 90% (D-value) of the population (table 1; the numbers are times to D-value) - but this doesn't help you much when canning, where the temperatures and pressures are higher.
The only devices that are validated to kill all pathogenic bacteria are autoclaves. These are high temperature and high pressure, usually done at 121 C (250 F) and 15 PSI (103 kPa) over conventional air pressure (effectively a doubling of standard air pressure and water boils at that temp under that pressure) for a minimum of 15 minutes at that temperature and pressure for sterilization of biological media. This means that the internal temperature of whatever is being sterilized needs to reach the temperature for sterilization, not that you can put the device on and come back 15 min later! As in the answer from @Alx9r, you need to ensure that they reach the temperature and time effectively to ensure(!) that you have the killed all the bacterial spores. Home canning devices can reach the right temperatures too, so are safe to use.
So, what is boils down to is that so far you have been lucky - botulism is relatively rare, so the chance of having the bacterium in your canning process is relatively low and you have been able to inactivate all/most of these with no adverse effects. However, this is really playing the lottery, and you can't rely on luck forever.
TLDR: Use the proper temperatures and times and you will be safe. Don't use your Instapot because it can't reach the right temperatures!
According to the National Center for Home Food Preservation, low-acid foods should be sterilized at temperatures of 240° to 250°F, attainable with pressure canners, operated at 10 to 15 pounds per square inch, as measured by a gauge, to destroy botulinum spores. At temperatures of 240° to 250°F, the time needed to destroy bacteria in low-acid canned food ranges from 20 to 100 minutes. The amount of time depends on the type of food, the size of the jars, and how it is packed into them. I don't have an instant pot, but I would want to be pretty certain of the exact temperature and the exact pressure if I were going to pursue pressure canning. You might find the link above helpful.
As far as I can tell, you can't do pressure canning in the instant pot. There is a product called the Instant Pot Max that comes with a home canning setting. However, both the manufacturer and the USDA have cause for concern. You can read this for more information. Basically, further testing needs to be done for them to be comfortable that it will eliminate botulinum spores.
I think “20 to 100 minutes” might refer to the processing time not the time spores must be held at temperature to destroy them.
20 to 100 minutes is in reference the the processing time depending on the contents. In other words USDA says that 240-250 degrees is required for the entire processing time. Now, think about this...does anyone really think that in our homes that the flame under our canning pot is "exactly the same heat the entire processing time"? Nope. That is why if you dont use a jiggler to regulate the pressure then you are babysitting the gauge as it goes up and down during processing. Yep, that is what I said "the psi goes up and down" thru the entire processing time. Even with the jiggler we must listen/look for the right juggle as it processes. It is not rocket science to understand that when we are home canning that nothing we do is consistent or exact. The author is spot on with a range of 135F-141F to kill botulism. The length of time, well..A college scientist with a Phd suggested for longer processing time, the "kill zone" was 45 mins. Again, confirming what the author of this post said "there is no definitive scientific evidence to confirm temp or time to kill botulism and the spores"
Welcome to SA! You are answering an old question, and your answer does not add any information not already covered by the existing answers. Try answering something more recent.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.197604 | 2019-02-20T21:41:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96459",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"alx9r",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"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
} |
17221 | Mixing baking ingredients separately
Why would one need to mix the dry ingredients (flour, salt, soda) separately and before mixing into the liquid (butter, sugar) than just mixing everything into one bowl at the same time when making cakes? What would be the result if done ?
Thank you for including sugar with the liquids (seriously) :)
By mixing the dry ingredients separately and whisking them a bit before adding them to the liquid, you are making sure that the baking soda/powder/salt, gets evenly distributed throughout the flour. Also, the flour will be able to absorb the liquid easier and more uniformly without the flour becoming over-worked.
From my personal experience, when I didn't do it this way my cakes seemed to be drier than cakes I had made when I combined them as instructed. But this is from my personal experience, and others may have had different experiences.
Getting it uniformly mixed is kind of the real reason. You want to get it all mixed as much as possible before you get the flour wet and it starts to develop the gluten. Regardless, you have to mix enough to make it uniform.
For cakes (mentioned in the question), its largely about avoiding 'over-working' the batter. You want a small, even crumb so (unlike breads) you're trying to avoid gluten. Mixing, like kneading, promote gluten. You want to make it so that as soon as the flour gets wet, you're doing the least possible mixing to incorporate the ingredients. You also want to use the batter quickly. Luckily, modern cake flour is very low protein. If you're using standard AP flour instead of cake, you really need to be very careful about overmixing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.199132 | 2011-08-28T18:06:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17221",
"authors": [
"Jeannette",
"Joebagadonuts",
"Sam",
"gabtub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36999",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17317 | How to preserve squash
I just got a squash from a coworker (he grows it) and it occurs to me that my wife likes to use fresh vegetables for making our own baby food. It also occurs to me that she's out of town for the next two weeks.
What options do I have to preserve this squash in such a manner that she can make baby food when she gets back? If it can sit on the counter for three weeks and be just fine, that works for me. Otherwise, what can I do to cook it that won't render it unusable for baby food? I don't really know what goes into baby food other than I think she steams the veggies so they're soft for our baby.
If it's a summer squash you could maybe try freezing it? Since it's being turned into baby food anyway, preserving crisp, freshness isn't high on the list of priorities?
Disclaimer: I have no experience freezing summer squashes, but a quick google came up with this and it seems to make sense: http://www.pickyourown.org/freezing_summer_squash.htm
A further search reminded me that Alton Brown covers freezing stuff in an episode of Good Eats. He explains why the above blanching method works for many vegetables.
I chop and freeze summer squash all the time. Put it in reasonable sized bags after chopping. Although, if she steams it, having it chopped and frozen won't work so well for steaming. Even a summer squash can last for a week or two on the counter, perhaps longer if refrigerated. As long as it doesn't start to mold (and you keep an eye on that), perhaps it is best just to wait.
What type of squash? Winter squashes will certainly sit on the counter for several weeks, as long as it stays fairly cool and dry.
I'm told it's a summer squash. It's very yellow.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.199318 | 2011-08-30T16:17:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17317",
"authors": [
"Dr. Flow",
"Mary Lembi",
"Shod",
"Simon",
"corsiKa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7245",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17379 | How does boiling remove vitamin C from food?
It's generally known that boiling vegetables removes a large fraction of vitamin C, but in what way?
Does the high temperature destroy it?
Is it merely absorbed by the boiling water?
It isn't really "absorbed" by the boiling water; more precisely, it is leached into the water. As kiamlaluno said, Vitamin C is water soluble. An important thing to note is that the leaching of vitamin C into water, by itself, doesn't destroy the vitamin C. It's still there; it's just in the water rather than the vegetable. If you consume the liquid you cooked in, you'll reclaim some of the "lost" vitamins.
High heat can reduce the vitamin C content of the vegetables, and when heat and water are combined, as they are in boiling, you can see significant reduction of vitamin C. (One study found that boiling reduced the vitamin C content in broccoli by 45 to 64 percent.) This is because the vitamin is first leached out of the food into the water, and then degraded by the heat. Heat alone will cause some reduction in vitamin C, but not as much as when combined with loss of nutrients through leaching. Steaming and microwaving are recommended cooking methods for preserving as much of the nutrient content as possible because they involve minimal exposure of food to both water and high temperatures.
"heat doesn't reduce the vitamin C content of the vegetables;" => this is plain inaccurate; see David N. Andrews' answer for explanations.
Actually, vitamin C degrades with heat. The following, by dietician Jill Irvin, says it all:
Vitamin C is one of the least stable of all vitamins in solution
and is oxidized readily in light, air and when heated. It is also
water soluble. This means that heating in water, (like cooking
broccoli in boiling water) causes the vitamin to leach out of the
food into the water and also to be oxidized, first to dehydroascorbic
acid and then to diketogulonic acid. This last compound has no Vit[amin] C
activity at all and is irreversible.
She goes on to say that normal cooking doesn't affect levels of the vitamin too much, but the main issue being queried here is how boiling removes vitamin C from food, and this quotation tells how that happens.
M. Ed. = Master of Education
C. P. S. E: = Certificate of Professional Specialisation in Education
I'm not a cook or a dietician, but my background is in sciences.
This is the only answer that "answers" the OP's question. Vitamin C gets degraded with temperature. That's the reason you shouldn't heat babys milk above 40C/100F (or why they gave orange juice to babies in the past, when they gave boiled milk's cow diluted in water). Or the reason you don't find traces of it in baked bread, despite they add E300 to enhance the dough.
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20546391 it appears that enzymes within the vegetables themselves also play a significant role in Vit C degradation, without necessarily leaching out into the cooking water.
Vitamin C, as most of the vitamins, is soluble in water; one of the few vitamins that is not soluble in water is the vitamin D, which is fat soluble.
The melting point of vitamin C is 190 °C (374 °F), which means the temperature at which you boil the vegetables cannot destroy the vitamin C.
Unless you boil away all the water, surely the vitamin C is never solid - it's in solution.
It's what I said: When the water is evaporated (100 °C), the vitamin is still solid.
But when people boil vegetables, they don't boil them dry. They boil, then drain. The soluble vitamins are poured out. (And the question was about boiling vegetables.)
When people boil vegetables, the vitamin C is dissolved in water; that is what soluble in water means.
Yes. I understand that, and never disagreed with it. All I meant by my comments is that your point about "still solid when the water is evaporated", though true in that hypothetical situation, is irrelevant to the original question.
My point is that the temperature at which you boil vegetables doesn't destroy vitamin C.
-1. Sounds reasonable, but you're assuming that the stability of pure vitamin C (>190°C) implies the stability of impure vitamin C at 100°C. That's not a chemical necessity. In fact, the presence of ascorbic acid oxidase in vegetables makes it utterly meaningless. AAO is an enzym that actively destroys vitamin C. See e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20546391
@MSalters The presence of AAO doesn't imply that all the LAA is oxidized to LDHAA. ("A 10-min thermal treatment at 80 degrees C almost completely inactivated AAO in broccoli.") "L-dehydroascorbate can then be reduced back to the active L-ascorbate form in the body by enzymes and glutathione," which means that LDHAA is still usable from the organism.
@kiamlaluno: True, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that you extrapolate the stability data for pure compounds to impure mixtures, and the link is just one example of complex higher-order effects that you'll encounter at temperatures below the melting point.
@MSalters At the same time, it is also true that temperature can inactivate AAO, which you point is what can destroy vitamin C.
The melting point of pure substances may be determined by putting it in a neutral atmosphere like helium. Many substances burn before they melt if in an oxygen atmosphere.
How about a piece of evidence which, while completely anecdotal, is also more end-to-end "empirical" and less subject to Spherical Cow Fallacies? I have been cooking literally every vegetable and eating no fruits for several years now, and I don't have scurvy yet... That being said, a lot of the comments here are encouraging me to eat raw stuff once in a while.
Since Vitamin C is a water soluble vitamin, boiling the vegetables cause the vitamins to get dissolved in the water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.199512 | 2011-09-01T02:23:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17379",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Cascabel",
"David N. Andrews MEd CPSE",
"Didgeridrew",
"FEB",
"HWgeek",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Lucas Wiman",
"MSalters",
"Red Flag",
"Snshyne",
"Sumyrda - remember Monica",
"Tootsie Rolls",
"Valerie Anderson",
"WAYNE",
"avpaderno",
"durron597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81688",
"jammypeach",
"pete",
"user27533",
"user42426"
],
"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
} |
73052 | Why does steamed potatoes sometimes have a smooth, banana-like texture?
Sometimes when I steam potatoes, they have a lovely dry, fluffy, crystaline texture. Other times, they're the complete opposite, looking dull with a texture like that of banana.
Do you always steam the same type of potato? If so, what kind is it?
Do you store your potatoes in a cold place? Microscopic ice crystals that form inside when potatoes get cold will help create steam during cooking, producing a fluffier texture.
Cold storage converts the starches to sugars, which can certainly impact the texture, but generally in a manner opposite what's stated above, and no ice crystals are involved.
@Ecnerwal against the back of a fridge ice crystals may well be involved. We tend to keep new potatoes in the fridge at least in warm weather, and the veg drawer doesn't always have room. In this case you could tell as only those which had been touching the element would lose texture.
@ESultanik yes, I store them in the fridge at approx 5C
Could it be you are not using the same type of potatoes all the time? Different varieties of potatoes do have very different textures. The ones with the brown, rough, dusty skins ("russet" I think they are called?) usually cook up with the fluffy, dry, almost "sparkly" flesh. The smoother skinned ones tend to have denser, waxier texture inside. The pink, smooth ones ("rose" or "early rose") seem to fit the description of "looking dull" inside when cooked.
Yes. Russet is what they are called in the US. They are 'starchy' as opposed to 'waxy'.
Russet's a specific variety of potato. As a whole, they're generally called 'starchy', 'mealy', 'floury' or 'baking' potatoes, and are your normal ones for baked potatoes, mashed potatoes and deep frying. 'waxy', 'boiling' or 'roasting' potatoes (eg, red bliss) are used for cases where you want them to hold up and not turn to mush (eg, soups and stews, etc.). There's also a class that's between the two types of potatoes, like many of the more recent yellow/golden varieties (eg, yukon gold) that can be used either way if needed.
You mentioned in the comments that you store your potatoes at close to freezing in your refrigerator. When potatoes get cold, microscopic ice crystals can form inside that will help create steam during cooking, producing fluffy texture like what you describe.
I'll bet that the inconsistency in your potatoes is due to slight differences in temperature in your refrigerator (i.e., some areas of your refrigerator might be 5°C but others 0°C; refrigerators are rarely 100% consistent). It could also be the case that your potatoes were stored at near- or below-freezing temperatures before you bought them.
The cold will also promote the starch in potatoes to convert into sugar, which can cause the potatoes to taste sweet and/or cause premature browning. This effect and the textural changes may be desirable for certain recipes, e.g., french fries. However, for most recipes you will want to use potatoes that have never been close to freezing temperatures.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.200031 | 2016-08-10T23:12:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73052",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"ESultanik",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Physiks lover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7256"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96849 | Why is gluten-free baking possible?
Maybe a silly question, but I've been trying to learn a lot of baking fundamentals and trying to understand specifically what makes a cake. Most explanations I've read are something along the lines of:
flour for structure
fat to interfere with gluten development
sugar for taste and moisture
binder (eggs) to keep it all together
Then the explanation for the flour is that the water and flour interact to produce gluten that then gives the cake its structure. One main thing doesn't make sense to me here though:
If flour is there for the gluten, and gluten is required to form the structure of cake, how can gluten-free baking ever work?
Now, I've done gluten-free baking plenty of times. Have never really had an issue. Additionally there are tons of alternatives, how can you get something cake-y out of so many different materials, none of which have gluten? Are there alternative protein networks that function like gluten? Are these protein networks common or rare, or beside the point altogether?
Not sure if it's related, but why does adding xanthan gum to these gluten-free flours seem to always make them better?
While I appreciate the check-mark, I feel that a more comprehensive answer is possible, even if just focusing on cakes. You might want to follow the convention on other SE sites and wait 24 hours before accepting.
Also, in this question, are you specifically asking about cakes or gluten-free baking in general? If you are asking specifically about cakes, I recommend that you change your title to reflect that.
It's gluten-free baking in general, cake is just a nice balance that I think shows this discrepancy with particular strength. Will definitely update if a better answer comes along, but I'm on here rarely enough that I'm comfortable awarding a bounty if that happens.
Gluten serves a number of purposes in baked goods: binding together the crumb, providing elasticity, retaining moisture, making air pockets, etc. Take a look at this older question: What does gluten “do” in baking?. Substances other than gluten can be used to bind, elasticize, moisturize, etc.
@Juhasz Yea, there's a lot of good information on that, just most of what I've read (that answer included) doesn't really talk about why baking doesn't require gluten
Then the explanation for the flour is that the water and flour interact to produce gluten that then gives the cake its structure.
Your confusion is well-founded, because
gluten is required to form the structure of cake
is too strong of a premise.
Gluten can be a primary contributor to the structure of a cake, as in a wacky cake, but it is not required.
This answer limits its scope to cakes and does not discuss other forms of gluten-free baking (bread, pies, etc). Gluten is a significant contributor to the structure of wheat products including breads, croissants, and some types of pie crusts and pastries.
Non-Gluten Sources of Structure for Cakes
On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee is a well-regarded reference. In its section on cakes, it does not describe gluten formation as necessary or desirable. I consider this weak evidence that "conventional wisdom" does not count gluten as a major structural contributor in cakes.
Egg Protein
As noted on page 554 of the second edition of On Food and Cooking,
A cake's structure is created mainly by flour starch and by egg proteins.
The omission of gluten as a contributor to structure is especially notable given that the next sentence mentions how other ingredients interfere with gluten.
The tender ... texture comes from gas bubbles ... and from the sugar and fat, which interfere with gluten formation and egg protein coagulation, and interrupt the network of gelated starch
Angel Food Cake
As noted in this recipe for angel food cake by Stella Parks, egg white can provide sufficient structure for a cake.
... angel food cake is so high in protein from egg whites, it has enough strength to stand on its own ... With that kind of underlying structure, all angel food cake really needs is enough starch to keep its moisture in check
Note that the motivation behind removing gluten in this recipe is specifically avoiding the additional structure gluten provides:
angel food cake toughens up like shoe leather in the presence of gluten
Personal Example: Gluten-Free and Egg-Free Brownie Recipe Adaptation
In my personal experience with a few brownie recipes, protein from eggs provide a considerable amount of structure; omitting eggs without adding protein produces dramatically different results.
The most rigorous experiments that I have performed were attempts to remove gluten and replace eggs in this recipe for brownies by Alice Medrich.
Egg Protein
In my earliest experiments adapting Medrich's recipe, I tried replacing wheat flour with an equal amount (by mass) of rice flour. This produced a result that was recognizably a brownie.
However, also replacing eggs with binders and emulsifiers without protein (in my trials, a mix of water, lecithin, fiber, and starch) produces a sticky, caramel-like mass that separates from a significant amount of oil. This outcome was observed when using rice flour and gluten-free flour with xantham gum added.1
These two results are evidence that, in this recipe, eggs are sufficient for structure even without gluten.
Another recipe by Dandelion Chocolate also appears to work fine with AP flour replaced by an equal amount of rice flour.
1 Correction: A previous version of this answer reported similar results with AP flour, and inferred from that result that the procedure outlined in Medrich's recipe made the gluten content of the flour irrelevant. In light of newer experiments that showed that simply adding enough starch and enough gluten in place of the AP flour produces brownie-like results, the inference is incorrect.
Other protein
Whey protein isolate, mixed with psyllium and starch for binding, baking soda for lift, and water for hydration, is the best substitute for eggs I tried so far; it produces a crumb very similar to that produced when using eggs.
Carbohydrates
Adding more starch than called for in Medritch's original recipe (e.g. increasing flour used from 65g AP flour to 100g rice flour, then adding another 10g of tapioca starch) appears to have a stabilizing effect.
Mucilage (in the form of hydrated xantham gum, psyllium, or flax) may contribute to structure as part of their role in egg replacements.
Gluten-free baking is possible because there are a variety of ingredients that can replace gluten in recipes. These include starches, flour, and other alternatives that do not contain gluten. These can create a wide range of baked goods, including bread, cakes, cookies, and pastries. With a little experimentation, you can create delicious gluten-free treats that are just as good as the original recipes! Additionally, many grocery stores now carry a wide range of gluten-free ingredients, making it easier to find what you need for your baking projects.
I personally follow the gluten-free diet recipes for Japanese rice flour (Here are the recipes: https://japanesericeflour.com/recipes/). Hopefully, you also benefited from these recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.200327 | 2019-03-10T18:02:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96849",
"authors": [
"Juhasz",
"Slater Victoroff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72906",
"user95442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96985 | Is it practical to boil drinking water in a pressure cooker?
At my home and relative's homes I've never seen anyone using a pressure cooker to boil water (to make it safe for drinking). They just take an ordinary steel vessel, fill it with tap water, add some salt and jeera seeds, cover the vessel top partially with a lid and let the water reach boiling point.
I just realized that it might be far more efficient to boil water in a pressure cooker until the first whistle sounds, since it's a closed environment that would lose less energy to the environment. It may boil the water faster (less cooking gas consumption), boil it to a higher temperature (greater variety of bacteria dead) and perhaps lose less water to evaporation. Is this practical or are there downsides to this technique because of which people dont use it?
They add salt to drinking water?
Very little salt is added. Just to increase the boiling point.
That doesn't actually work @Anon, the amount you'd have to add is huge. See this question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6641/does-adding-salt-help-water-boil-faster/6645#6645 . Don't waste your salt.
When we get a "boil water advisory" they generally tell you to hold it at a rolling boil for some amount of time ... generally you have to hold it at a higher temperature for less time (eg, it's usually 1 minute at sea-level, but 3 minutes in the mountains) ... so if you're in the mountains and the pressure cooker takes less than 2 minutes more, it's a benefit. (time is your easiest estimate for gas usage, assuming you have the burner on high the whole time ... which it's possible you might turn it down some once it boils)
Overall it will make little if any difference.
The pressure cooker won't reach 100°C noticeably quicker than a normal pan with a close fitting lid, and the pressure cooker is made of thicker metal which will take more energy to heat. Simply closing the lid would help quite a bit.
If you want to hold it at a boil the sealed lid of a pressure cooker would help, except you can't really monitor the temperature. Waiting until it whistles will mean it has been boiling for long enough to produce enough pressure for a whistle, but that's still a measure of pressure, not time.
There are a few species killed by the temperatures achieved in a pressure cooker, and not at 100°C but my understanding is that these aren't the pathogens that tend to contaminate drinking water.
As you're flavouring the water as well, you may have to adapt the quantities of seeds if you use a pressure cooker, because the flavour will extract faster.
This is not entirely true - pressure cookers in the US tend to function at 15 psi - which raises the boiling point to 121 C (250 F), which is the same temperature and pressure used in autoclaves in laboratories and is considered sterilizing. Some also have a lower pressure setting which is does not reach sterilizing conditions.
Unless the OP lives on, say, the Tibetan Plateau, where water in an unpressurised container boils at 85C... but even that is enough to kill active pathogens.
never ever boil water in a pressure cooker, because, that may result in serious burn injuries... especially your facial area...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.200955 | 2019-03-19T04:25:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96985",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Julian",
"Robin Betts",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"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
} |
95904 | After I eat some foods beer tastes weird?
I'm an obsessive home brewer. So I'm always trying to critically evaluate the flavour of beers I make with a view to constantly improving their quality. In particular I am searching for off-flavours, like by-products of fermentation, or is some-ingredient too prominent in the flavour profile.
However I find that if I eat certain foods (like flavoured chips/crisps), before drinking beer, some parts of the malt taste profile (or the yeast?) flavours go weird, the sweetness becoming kind of saccharine (maybe).
Some foods do not prompt this at all, e.g.: unflavoured corn chips/crisps, salted peanuts.
Is this a known phenomenon?
Is there a way to "reset" one's palette?
Maybe I should post this to the alcohol section. But this is really a question about food & flavours. I'd like to prepare meals (and snacks) that don't make beer taste weird.
EDIT: Cross-posted to Homebrewing
EDIT: I tested this out over the weekend. I tasted beer - it's good, ate "Cheese & Onions Chips" (crisps), beer then tastes weird.
Rinsing my mouth with lots of water alleviated it quite a bit.
Drinking Milk didn't seem to do anything.
Eating plain bread (suggested elsewhere) didn't seem to do anything.
I will try the High Salt rinse next.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. :) This might be a better question for "Wine-making, Brewing, Distillation and Fermentation: homebrew"... I realize that you are asking about flavors, but you are asking about flavors in relation to your specific (beer) reicpe -- which I'm not sure anyone who hasn't tasted it would be able to answer.
Some flavor agents bind tightly taste receptors; Stevia, Saccharin or aspartame for example. Chemicals other than sweeteners can do it well. Tight binding means that once they get bound, it can take a long time for them to come off, minutes to an hour or more. During that time period, the flavor agents in your beer won't be able to bind to those already filled sites. -That makes it taste different. A high salt rinse might clean things out. Some swear to dairy as the cure. It depends on the mechanism of the binding.
@WayfaringStranger - I'll try both salt & dairy. Many thanks.
@WayfaringStranger if that was an answer I'd vote for it. (BTW I think this is perfectly on topic here)
Hello Kingsley and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please don't post the same question on more than one SE site. Please decide where it's the best fit, leave it on that site, and delete it from any others.
Should also be noted that salts block bitter flavors (try adding a pinch of salt to your coffee next time...) so salty chips might well be doing this. I would expect that drinking some water or something similar would alleviate this effect, so it's probably not completely down to the salt, as others have noted. A salt wash would have the same effect, so you probably want to rinse with water afterwards.
Even sugars can affect the flavour of the next mouthful or two. This includes the dextrose added to quite a lot of savoury snacks (and similar foods, often before cooking so it caramelises), which might explain why some crisps (chips) have this effect and others don't. I find that a couple of small sips are enough to restore taste to normal.
Without rigorous testing I find that this reduces the flavour of a malty beer. More hoppy beers tend to taste more bitter after certain foods, but mainly sweet foods, so I've always put that down to the contrast in flavours. Again this is a short-lived effect.
I haven't mentioned the tight binding flavourings that appear in the comments, as I'm hoping WayfaringStranger will post their own answer on that aspect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.201468 | 2019-01-24T02:55:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95904",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Kingsley",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125689 | Is there a way to remove the mud / dirt flavour note from freshwater fish
Often we buy farmed freshwater fish from the supermarket, but sometimes it has a "muddy" dirt note to the flavour. Nearly always with barramundi.
Is there a way to remove this flavour?
Already I have tried to cover it with stronger flavours (like grilling (broiling) with 50:50 miso + mayonnaise on top... drool). This is only partially successful.
Usually the muddy flavor is from farmed fish that grow up in overly polluted water, although that's not always the case. But that does suggest that you might be able to prevent the muddy flavor by finding barramundi from a different provider.
Soaking the fish filet in a mix of water/vinegar, water/salt, water/soda, or in milk are all suggested ways to reduce the muddy flavor. However, none of these seem to work reliably, especially if you're soaking fish that is already a couple of days old by the time you buy it.
Beyond that, the only solution is to cook the fish in very strong-flavored sauces that will cover up the taste.
2-Methylisoborneol! Delicious! /s
Isn't it not advisable to just "cover up the taste", especially if it is due to overly polluted water? Shouldn't health and safety come first before taste?
@user21820 "Polluted" is perhaps not the clearest term. FuzzyChef is talking about high levels of algae in the water, not heavy metals or anything. It's not a matter of safety.
@Sneftel: Thanks, then maybe a better word is "dirtied". On the other hand, it's not just algae; this happens when fish are over-crowded with no water flow, causing leftover food and fish feces to accumulate. I don't know whether that affects the consumers...
@user21820 It's not a food safety concern.
@Sneftel: Great!
Yeah, I didn't want to get into "this can be because of natural mud and algae, but it can also be caused by agricultural runoff or feces" because that's a whole long discussion, and doesn't really answer the question.
If you can get live fish then you can keep it in clean fresh water for a day or so, or at least overnight (it also depends on the size of the fish). My first husband was a keen angler and he often brought carp or catfish home (quite remarkable monsters weighing 10 or more kg). We used to fill a tub in our second bathroom and let the water slowly flow. A carp or catfish will survive a car ride home if wrapped in a wet blanket or kept in a barrel. I know it is not very practical, but it worked for us.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.201775 | 2023-10-30T22:56:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125689",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Kingsley",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98420",
"user21820"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110066 | How to make bread improver?
For unknown reasons, but probably related to the covid pandemic, we are unable to buy bread improver.
Related question - What is 'Bread Improver'?
Our daily bread is made in a bread machine, and our recipe is approximately 50% rye, 50% white (or sometimes wholemeal), salt, water and yeast. Without the bread improver, it's still OK, but is about 30% larger "loaf~ier" with the improver included.
Is there some way of making your own bread-improver? I found these suggestions, but I would have preferred more of the science behind the actions of the ingredient.
I think the main ingredient in our improver is Soy Lecithin.
Since lecithin is found in egg yolk, milk and soy beans. I'd be happy to add all these to the bread, but I'm after a few hints before I go wasting good flour on ill-informed experimentation.
My current thought is to start with maybe a tablespoon (20ml) of skim milk-power added to the flour. Does that sound reasonable?
EDIT: found a recipe: http://www.breadmachinedigest.com/recipes/enhancer-recipes/bread-freshtm-dough-enhancer.php I'm by no means a vegetarian, but I am also not particularly keen on adding gelatine to my bread.
Vitamin C is probably the most critical of the components of most bread improvers. It helps the yeast grow essentially - just like you need vitamins, so does the yeast. Apparently it also strengthens the gluten through a chemical reaction.
Lecithin is also good to add. At the quantities provided in a typical lecithin additive to bread it acts as an emulsifier - breaking down fats/oils supplied in the bread mixture and making them more available to the yeast, thereby enhancing metabolism, as well as improving moisture retention through better mixing of the fat/oil and water within the loaf.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.201986 | 2020-08-07T03:21:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110066",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
119779 | Dot's pretzels seasoning
I made a batch of homemade Dots pretzels (pretzels with garlic salt, lemon pepper, cayenne pepper, etc.) They turned out to be too salty. My wife thinks that we can keep the same amount of seasonings and pretzels per batch but with double the oil to make them less salty. I say the same amount of oil and pretzels but half the seasonings. Who's correct?
Just a side note to add that I’m skeptical you can get that magical Dots flavor without some msg, yeast, artificial butter… something!
If you want your pretzels to be less salty then you simply need to add less salt, there's nothing complex about it. Doubling the oil will just make them more oily, it's not going to dilute anything because you're still adding the same amount to the pretzels at the end of the process. If you like the balance of other herbs and spices then just reduce the salt and leave everything else the same.
Op might want to use salt and garlic powder vs garlic salt to better control the salt
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.202148 | 2022-02-08T03:54:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119779",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95587 | What term should i use to describe the taste intensity of a crop?
I am making a questionnaire about food and one of things people can rate is the taste intensity or taste strength of a vegetable/fruit/nut etc. Right now i just call it taste intensity and people can rate it from 1 to 10. Strawberry has a very rich taste so i would probably give that a high taste intensity score whereas a cucumber tastes very watery so i would give it a low score.
So is there a term that describes 'taste intensity'?
Edit: This is my full rating survey.
hi, i have other tastes people can rate. Please see the picture i've added. Its a survey for a gardener website i'm making
It possible that different people perceive the intensity of flavors differently. Your "rich tasting strawberry" might not taste so rich to me. What are you trying to learn by surveying gardeners?
yes but on average people will agree that a strawberry tastes less sour then an orange right?
also, its a opinion based survey, the whole idea is to give a representation of how sweet people rate a particular strawberry on average for example
Your taste intensity is like the thickness of the soup/broth?
no its how strong the taste is, for example cucumber hardly tastes like anything (very mild watery taste) whereas radish has a very strong flavor. Maybe i should just call it flavor strength? @Cindy
@Conifers see my previous post
I think it is very difficult to rate flavour intensity of a food on a scale, and even more to compare the answers from different people, as they will set the scale differently in their heads. So I might rate a strawberry to be a 6, while you might rate it 8, even though we experience the same taste. I think a better approach would be to ask people to rank different fruits/vegetables, so you have a relative rating instead of an absolute one.
I'd go with "Flavour Intensity"
Another term that comes to mind is flavor pungency which can possibly substitute "flavor strength" and it works synonymically with taste intensity.
isnt pungency the same as spicyness? According to the dictionary pungency is saying how hot a food is
It can be interpreted that way. Perhaps it is best to stick to taste intensity so it can't be applied to any specific such as spiciness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.202274 | 2019-01-12T22:29:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95587",
"authors": [
"Conifers",
"Maurice",
"Sarineh at tumblingpots.com",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99469 | Is there a kind of food like bread that I can use to absorb sauce but that doesn't dry out so fast?
This is more related to eating than cooking: is there a kind of food that I can use to absorb sauce but that doesn't dry out as fast as bread?
I was thinking in the context of using bread to get the remaining sauce from a plate. And rice of pasta are par meals whereas this would be complementary to a meal.
when you say "dry out fast" do you mean over the course of the meal, or that the loaf dries out over a few days before you can eat it all?
I mean over 1 or 2 days, which for me is a pretty short period of time, too short for it to be worth buying fresh bread ever.
Depending on the meal, would thick cut chips be a suitable substitute? (UK chips FYI)
Yes I guess it could work, although not as well because chips don't absorb as well as bread, but it does take more effort and time to prepare. I had something easier in mind but I realize that what I'm looking for might not exist.
I was thinking of something like indian naan bread but I'm not sure that it is much better at staying fresh...
What's wrong with bread?
when you say "dry out fast" do you mean over the course of the meal, or that the loaf dries out over a few days before you can eat it all?
Depending on the meal, would thick cut chips be a suitable substitute? (UK chips FYI)
@GdD there is nothing wrong with bread, it has nourished civilizations for ten thousand years, this is entirely a "first world problem" I believe kids call it these days
Any reason you can't use the preservative laden breads that last over a week? I know the quality isn't as good, but it has the longevity you desire.
Bread rolls might keep better, or buy them singly, or freeze them. Are they available where you live?
Naan bread dry out quickly.
BTW, where are you? My answer is a little UK-centric but should make sense in much of Europe and North America. I would have written it slightly differently for France, Germany, Canada or the USA, to account for differences in availability
I am in Switzerland and all the things you mentioned are accessible, thanks for the great answer! I think bread rolls and part baked bread are a good option. I have bought toast bread (the soft kind that's "processed" and has a square shape) for some time but I think it's not super healthy.
Here are a few ideas, starting with how you can make bread work, based on my comment:
Bread rolls often keep better than loaves, because they have a crust all round. You can often buy them singly. Demi baguettes are similar but about twice the size.
Part baked rolls keep for months (sealed, once open keep in the fridge and use within a few days). You finish cooking them just before serving, which is easy if you've got the oven on anyway.
Bread freezes well, at least for short periods, as does home made dough. You could form it into rolls, freeze, defrost in the fridge, and bake twice a week.
Many of these ideas require using an oven. If you don't have one or don't want to use it daily, you still have the option of flatbreads. Chapatis, for example, are intended to eat sauce with, and cook in a dry frying pan. They're simple to make fresh or, as with flour tortillas, you can buy or make a batch, keep in the fridge, and reheat in a microwave. You can often find prepacked flatbreads in 2-serving packs; until opened they keep for weeks, after that, seal them up and you've got a couple of days.
If bread is getting a little dry, toasting it makes it nicer (especially if you melt butter with crushed garlic and spread that on it).
Moving away from bread, rice and pasta don't really absorb much sauce, but couscous does (especially if you are a little mean with the water when cooking it. Boiled, jacket, or even roast potatoes can be mashed into gravy with your fork.
As long as you start with something very dry such as crackers, it should hold on to moisture well. Keep sealed in a refrigirator.
You can also do the same trick with drying the bread in an oven and using it like that.
Frozen waffles. These are great in so many ways. They come in big boxes and stay good a long time. Toast some up when you need them as sauce mops. Also they make a good PB&J.
2. Corn flakes. I keep corn flakes for putting under chili or beans.
3. Pancakes. It is really easy to whip up some pancakes. Scratch pancakes are so easy if you generally have those ingredients on hand: flour, baking powder, oil, milk, sour cream or yogurt or kefir. Pancakes are as thirsty for sauce as they are for syrup and fresh pancakes are awesome.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.202487 | 2019-06-09T14:35:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99469",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gamora",
"GdD",
"John Cataldo",
"Kate Gregory",
"Max",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95985 | Is burnt microwave safe to use?
Microwave popcorn left a burnt hole on the little metal plate inside the microwave. It still, works perfectly fine. But is it safe food wise? Should i use it?
This sounds like it may be more of an electronics question than a cooking question... Generally speaking, electronics with burn damage should be considered potentially unsafe, as they may be a fire hazard.
Are you sure that's burned metal? Metal doesn't burn... My microwave has a cardboardish piece covering some hole like that. I think it's called a wave guide cover. You can order a new one (e.g., online) and just replace it. The black stains could just be from the burning cardboard. Try wiping them off.
That's not a metal plate. it's heat resistant mica composite. The microwaves come into the oven through the hole behind it. You can take it out scrub it off, put it back in and be good to to go. Be gentle with the stuff. It'll crack if you scrub too hard. From the soot marks on the metal above the piece, you must have had a big blob of grease explode onto the shield, where it burned merrily. Clean the soot off too.
Pull the piece up gently to remove, and push it down under the clips to put it back.
The OP says there's an actual hole in it, in which case I'd suggest it's not safe to use. If it's just a mark your advice would be correct.
I don't see it. If there is an actual hole through it, you can buy a replacement, cheap: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=microwave+mica+waveguide+cover&t=ffsb&ia=products
I have always been told by my dad that a fire in ANY electric appliance warrants an expert who is knowledgeable in the repair of the appliance before it is used again. Electricity is one thing, microwaves are another. All of the shields are there to protect you and your family. What price will you pay later to save a few dollars. My advice is take it outside and destroy it. People go thru dumpsters to pick up stuff and sell it to someone who is trying to save money. If it works use it is bad advice. But do what you want and I hope you sleep well
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.202845 | 2019-01-27T18:20:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95985",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"GdD",
"Robert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
109441 | Why my Biriyani gets mushy when I cook for 30/35 mins (suggested by lot of chefs)
I am trying to make some Kachhe Biriyani (Cooked with raw meat and half cooked rice).
For that I am using following ingredients.
600 gm, Lamb
4 tbsp, Ghee
160 gm, Onion
70.00 gm, Raw Papaya
50 gm, Natural Yoghurt
300 gm, Basmati Rice
Now I cook my rice:
For 5 mins to cook it to 50%.
Then I mix it with meat marinade (above) and cook it for 35 mins on low flame (33% of high flame).
This is the way it has been described by a lot of cooks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLaLwAeAxBw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMuedBOODTs
But following this, my Biriyani rice always gets soft and mushy.
What is wrong? Am I using too much heat? Is my meat releasing too much water?
What is different compared to other chefs using this method?
Do you open the lid and serve your biriyani immediately after cooking? Leaving it sealed, even for a short time, will over cook the rice.
@moscafj - imho with a biryani, it's not so much that it overcooks, but that you have to wait it out as it dries up again slightly, resisting the temptation to stir it - which I presume is why most biryani recipes just drop the rice on top of the meat mixture & don't stir until the very end.
@Tetsujin...I make mine in an enameled cast iron pot with heavy lid. Once, when I cooked too soon, and the family was not ready for dinner, I removed from oven and left on stove with the lid in place. 20 minutes later, it was an overcooked mess. BTW, my recipe layers the rice and meat. There is no stirring. Rather, it is flipped onto a serving platter...ideally, revealing the crusted part that was at the bottom of the pan.
As with many dishes of this type, there are as many ways to cook it as there are cooks - but overall I think you have three things combining to make your rice mushy.
You are over-cooking your rice at the start.
Your burner temperature is too high
Your simmer time is too short.
Basically you're driving off water but not at a pace the rice can settle to its final state, absorbing some of the oil too - or being nicely coated at least.
As a 'first fix' method, I'd start with only 2 mins boil of the rice - some chefs even kill the heat as soon as it boils.
If you have an oven, I'd switch the cook to the oven, in a pot with a well-fitting lid, 170-180° for anything from 1 to 3 hours, depending on how cooked down you want the meat. Personally, I'd go for 3 hours - that means you either need enough practise to get your water level right at the start or check it half way & add more if necessary. Don't stir it during cooking, you'll risk breaking up the rice too much.
If you still want to go with stove top, then I'd invest in a simmer ring [$£€ 5 on eBay etc] so you can spread & reduce the heat getting to the bottom of your pan. This will mean you can leave it longer without risk of it burning.
Lengthening your cook time will improve both the meat & the rice.
After comments:-
It may be worthwhile investigating different rice brands, of course, not all rice is equal.
Another option [you don't mention in the question whether you already do this] is to pre-soak the rice in cold water for 30 mins, then rinse well, before cooking.
Overall, the biryani method relies on the rice first absorbing water as it cooks, but then being infused with the oils from the meat & marinade in the later stages; through this period it will go through a slight drying stage & tend to separate better at the end of cooking.
I think the suggestions in this answer are great, and just wanted to add one tiny thing - if you still aren't getting the desired results with these tips, maybe try out different brands of rice. There is a huge amount of variance in quality, as well as starchy-ness, and stickiness, all which are factors that could be impacting your biryani!
Yes, Indeed. Good quality and right type of rice greatly affect the outcome
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.203035 | 2020-07-03T10:48:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109441",
"authors": [
"Spyros K",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"mfox",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
129276 | Sushi and Sashimi
I love going to Japanese restaurants and enjoy eating all different types of sushi and sashimi. I would like to make sushi and sashimi at home. I think it would be a fun thing to do. What things would I need to buy to get started?
The "duplicate" question is about sushi... it doesn't say if there are any other considerations for sashimi
@Joe Sashimi is just raw fish, it doesn't need to be 'made'. You only need a trustworthy source of sufficiently fresh fish.
@quarague it's not always raw fish, although that's the most common in the US. It can also be preserved or lightly cooked, and doesn't have to be fish
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.203479 | 2024-09-26T22:30:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129276",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
111008 | Can you use cookie cutters on sticky dough?
I am a baking novice trying to make these oatmeal chocolate chip cookies. I'm trying to get them to be cute shapes with cookie cutters but the cookies keep spreading. I am wondering if maybe this type of dough is just too wet and sticky to hold a shape. Should I give up trying to shape these cookies?
You could try freezing the shapes before baking them, they will still spread but not as much.
That looks like a delicious recipe, but not one that will hold a cookie cutter shape. When a recipe says to space the balls of cookie dough four inches apart, you can expect them to spread in the oven. Cookies that spread will not hold a definable shape. There's no hope of getting this recipe to make cookies that hold a shape.
There are oatmeal cookie recipes designed to be rolled out and cut into shapes. For example, Chewy Oatmeal Decorating Cookies and Oatmeal Rollout Cookies. You might be able to add miniature chocolate chips, but they may make the cookies crack and fall apart. Finely chopped or grated chocolate would probably work fine.
If you feel like experimenting (and are willing to risk having some "failed"* batches of cookies), you can experiment with increasing the oats in your recipe. I haven't made this exact recipe, but I've made many batches of oatmeal cookies with varying levels of oats. I've found that you can use up to double the oatmeal called for in a typical oatmeal cookie recipe before the dough becomes too dry to hold together. Additional oatmeal gives a stiffer, dryer dough that will come closer to holding a shape. The finished cookies will be a bit dryer and a bit less sweet. The large oat flakes in your recipe (since it uses old fashioned oats) will still give the shapes slightly irregular outlines, so don't expect to get a lot of detail. But simple shapes like a heart, star or diamond should still be identifiable in the finished cookie.
*Where "failed" means not perfect, but your kids/coworkers/classmates will still eat them. If you are the only one eating your cookies, baking experiments can be hazardous to your waistline.
What would probably work is making them so that the baked cookies are each larger than your cutter, and cutting the finished product. The edges might be less well-finished than you'd like but it will at least hold the shape.
But often the edges of the cookies are the best part, because the sugars are caramelized and the butter is browned. If you cut off the edges you loose all that good flavor. Also, since the cookies in the original recipe are supposed to be quite soft in the center when they come out of the oven, they might still lose their shape if cut while warm. On the other hand, if cut while cool they may crack and fall apart.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.203562 | 2020-10-04T21:42:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111008",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"csk",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117236 | "Red Pepper Flakes" for German-style Doener Kebab
I grew up near Munich, Germany and remember that I would love to eat my Doener by adding pepper flakes. I am pretty sure they were not the typical red pepper flakes you may put on pizza but I am not having any luck at finding the specific seasoning.
Does anyone have an idea?
Thanks!
Especially in Germany go to your next friendly turkish grocer and ask for „pul biber“.
Which is known in other areas as "Aleppo pepper", and has been more difficult to find for a few years. (if it's truly from Aleppo, I suspect the Syrian civil war is part of the problem)
I believe the name is used for the cultivar, and not as a designation of origin, and that it is grown outside of Syria too - it is used in Turkish döner because it's popular in Turkey :) Anyway, I don't think most people can taste the difference in cultivars once the spice is dried and mixed into a döner, so a different red cultivar with a similar heat level, using the same processing technique, should be practically indistinguishable.
jmk is correct in identifying the spice as pul biber.
Looking at the ingredient lists, some are just crushed (Aleppo) pepper, 5-10% salt and a bit of vegetable oil. Other brands sometimes include more spices like paprika. The main supplier in my area in Germany uses the former.
If you can get whole Aleppo peppers, you can crush them and add a bit of salt. Crushed ones are often already salted and oiled and can go directly onto your dish - that’s pul biber.
Here in Canada and I expect in a lot of other countries as well, recent Syrian refugees as well as Lebanese immigrants have been here long enough to raise the capital to open stores where "Aleppo pepper" is available. The stores run by previous generations of Palestinian refugees could probably provide something similar as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.203796 | 2021-09-18T06:49:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117236",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121736 | How do you determine the Scoville units of a salsa made with 3 kinds of peppers?
Do you add each Scoville unit of each and the grand total is your answer or add each Scoville unit and divide the grand total by 3?
Example Jalapeno 2,500 SHU + Serrano 10,000 SHU +Arbol 15,000 =27,500 SHU or 27,500/3= 9,166 SHU. I just need an estimate :)
Are the proportions exactly equal, or are there different amounts of the different peppers?
Definitely a duplicate of the other question. See the answer there. To sum up: that's not how scoville works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204006 | 2022-09-20T22:27:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121736",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
} |
86359 | Where to get active Milk kefir grains
I am from Austin, Texas. I am looking for milk kefir grains to make fresh kefir at my home. But I couldn't find kefir grains in Whole Foods. I don't know how to reach to individuals who can share. Any advice?
@Sobachatina Looking for your advice
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. We really can't help you find a specific ingredient in your neighborhood; sorry.
Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I don't know why it didn't notify me.
Kefir grains are a life symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast. They have to be fed and I imagine it is a niche market. Kind of like sourdough starter in that regard. I'm not surprised you didn't find them in a store.
People who have grains regularly have extras to dispose of and I have found they are usually eager to share and get other people hooked.
The last time I found grains it was on a forum dedicated to that purpose. I picked them up in a different state as I was passing through. Unfortunately this was about 10 years ago.
A quick Google search for kefir grains sharing sources turns up many resources. I will second ecnerwal that Craigslist is a good place to start. Freecycle is a good candidate.
I ran across this page that refers to a Facebook group.
http://www.yummykefir.com/get-milk-water-kefir-grains
I'll be surprised if you don't easily find grains in Austin. For better or worse kefir has kind of become a hipster probiotic thing.
"Whole Foods" the chain? Probably not - smaller scale "whole" or "health" food stores/co-ops often have a bulletin board you could post a note on. Given the age we are in, posting a wanted ad on the local craigslist or any similar system that's specific to your area rather than covering the planet as this one does.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204107 | 2017-12-13T23:07:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86359",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63703",
"vigneshwer sundaram"
],
"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
} |
116811 | Is my wild yeast starter a throwaway or salvageable?
I followed this YouTube video to make a wild yeast starter. My intention is to use them for making bread, hamburger buns, and maybe even try them out in a 1-gallon experimental homebrew!
The TLDR; of that video is:
Mix 3 tbsp flour + 3 tbsp pineapple juice into a mason jar and lightly cover
Whisk every few hours for the first 24 hrs
Then, starting at the 24-hr/1-day mark, add another mixture of 3 tbsp flour + 3 tbsp distilled water every day, for 4 more days
By the end of the 5th day, you should have a vigorous yeast starter, foaming with lots of bubbles
So I followed this and I am now on Day 5, and I see 2 problems:
Although I do see lots of tiny bubbles on the surface of the starter, and it smells doughy/malty/toasty, it doesn't look as "bubbly" as the mason jar on that video. It looks like I'm not even half-way to where the jar in that video was at by Day 5. So I'm not sure if my yeast is activated enough to be useful for baking.
Every time I added flour + water, I mixed it in, and accidentally scraped/wiped the fork off on the inside of the jar, above the starter. So over the course of a few days, there's been "wipe off residue" clinging to the side of the jar several inches about the starter. Well, I am now seeing little bits of mold forming on the wipe off (that my fork left behind), which got caked on to the upper part of the jar. I'm guessing this happened because, whereas there's enough yeast down in the starter to fight off any bacterial/mold infection, there's not enough of it up on the caked on "wipe off" parts higher up in the jar. So mold is being allowed to form up there. Not much, but visible.
So I ask:
How can I tell when I have either enough yeast, or enough "active" yeast to use for baking, and is it safe to transfer the non-infected (not moldy) starter from my one mason jar to another, clean one?
You've got the process about right, but you probably want to clarify what you are creating. Your starter will be a mixture of yeast and bacteria. This is good for bread making...not good for beer (at least for the vast majority of beers, I realize some are spontaneously fermented). Once it is active, you need to maintain it, by removing some (so it doesn't become too acidic) and feeding it on a regular basis. Use the search bar to learn more about sourdough starters.
Thats why I said the 1-gallon homebrew batches would be experimental. And sometimes magic happens in brewing, and you get your nutrient profile just perfect and the yeast become the dominant gang in the wort and kill off all the other invaders. Unlikely, yes, but I'm going to play around with it. But these starters are 95% for buns and breads.
Mold: wipe it off. It is not dangerous once your starter reaches its healthy acidic state… that can take more than 5 days.
Incidentally, if you neglect your starter on the counter for a week, it can start to stink… you can resuscitate it by dumping 3/4 of it or more, and adding clean flour and water, and build up a healthy starter with the right bacteria. It is very low maintenance.
As for no bubbles: Try to use an unbleached flour, whole wheat flour, or some flour that might have some existing natural yeast and bacteria. Don’t use all purpose flour, it may be too clean.
My starters have taken a week or more to start from scratch. Just keep going. And also, the consistency of your starter will depend on how much water you add. I add only 50% water each time I feed, and so my starter is pasty, not soupy, and I can only tell how active it is by how tall it is.
How can i tell if I have enough yeast?:
One test is to drop a spoonful of the unmixed, fresh out of the jar, starter into a glass of water. If it floats, it is ready.
The way I normally tell is by height: each time i feed it, i throw away half, add fresh flour and water, and mark the height with a rubber band. Then, when it doubles (room temp affects duration), I know it is ready.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204291 | 2021-08-12T00:23:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116811",
"authors": [
"hotmeatballsoup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73447",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110714 | Can I freeze beef bones and use them to make a broth later on?
I am interested in making my own beef broth from bones left over from chuck roasts, t-bone steaks, etc. However I currently do not have enough bones to make a batch with.
Can I get a big ziplock "bag o' bones" going and keep it in the freezer, adding to it as I get more bones, and finally thaw + use all the bones once I have enough?
Or do bones "go bad" in the freezer, freezer burn easily, or cause other problems when accumulating the bones slowly over time?
Yes, you can. The advantage, as you point out, is that you can collect the bones until you have enough to make a flavorful stock. They freeze well, but will last even longer (avoiding freezer burn) if you can remove as much air as possible from the package. I often do with with chicken bones, necks, and skin until I accumulate a decent amount for a stock.
Yes.
But considering you can highly condense the stock (past consume to bullion), it’s not clearly why you want to do this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204651 | 2020-09-15T20:44:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110714",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96896 | Stainless steel pan discoloration
I couldn't find something that resembles this but one day I used my stainless steel pan and I think I didn't clean it properly so I woke up to discover these "stains" on it (BKF didn't help scrub them off):
Anyone know what these could be and how to treat it? Not sure if it's even safe to cook in it anymore.
I don't think this applies to the "brown stains question", Divi. These look more like inside stains, possibly a light residue from the food. I get them occasionally (but I ignore them).
Yeah it's not something you can "feel" on the pan, it's more like embedded inside it? I tried scrubbing but nothing sadly
We have dozens of older questions about discolorations on stainless steel, and while people sometimes describe them differently, it seems that frequently it is just a matter of word choice. Also, no matter what the supposed color, as long it is not polymerized oil, all the answers go into the same direction. So I closed as one of the older ones saying "cloudy", which roughly applies to this picture too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204768 | 2019-03-13T20:38:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96896",
"authors": [
"Vincent",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73472",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97126 | How to make coffee that closely resembles early 16-17th century coffees?
Making my coffee this morning, I found myself wondering what early coffee tasted like. I'm guessing quite different to modern coffee, both in how the beans were, and in how it was prepared or customarily expected to be drunk.
Foods and drinks change over time. I know that it's possible to find places and drinks that are said to more closely resemble historical "chocolatl" drinks. But I can't find the equivalent for early coffeehouse coffee of the 16-17th centuries, or how it was customarily prepared or expected to taste, in those days.
Also, perhaps early middle-eastern coffee from 16the century Turkey and Yemen were different again from the versions that gained popularity in Europe.
I also suspect that I'd have to use a specific type of bean, or prepare the beans a specific way, because the beans themselves have surely evolved and had some traits bred in or out, over time and with massive commercialisation.
Hence my question - if I wanted to experience these early coffees, what should I expect and how can I achieve it?
To be clear, I am excluding coffee that was so early it was basically chewed or bare berries - I'm thinking of early popularised coffees in both Islamic/Middle East areas, and in European areas, if that helps (they could have been quite different).
As an aside on this, if any "novelty" or "niche" source these days is actually claiming to make/sell something like this, it would be interesting to know for informational purposes or to perhaps try from them as well. I'm in the UK if relevant, for buying/availability purposes.
I don't think this is off topic for Seasoned Advice, but you may get better answers on the Coffee StackExchange. Interesting question, though!
There's a dedicated SE for coffee?! Just wow. But asking how to make a particular style of historic coffee should surely be on topic.
Similarly, history.stackexchange.com might be of help.
Oh yeah, I think it's on topic -- just saying if you don't get much in the way of good answers from us, maybe consider asking for migration :)
I can't answer for the 17th century, but Townsend's has a nice (but long) video on how they prepared coffee in 18th century America. That'll bring you closer to the year you're looking for.
Also, note that, in Europe at least, imitation coffee was quite common. Both deliberate imitation, and fraudlent sales of not-really-coffee.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.204894 | 2019-03-27T09:21:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97126",
"authors": [
"0xFF",
"Erica",
"Stilez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73729"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116653 | How should red wine be used in Spaghetti Bolognese?
The classic Spaghetti Bolognese recipe adds red wine right at the beginning to the fried minced beef until its all absorbed with little liquid remaining. In theory, this makes sense to me in enhancing the flavour of the beef, yet I can't taste any difference: it still tastes 100% beefy to me. On the other hand, it does add a red-wine flavour to the sauce if its added at the end into the whole simmering mixture. Yet the recipe also adds beef stock to the simmering mixture which then clashes with the red wine, so its purpose is confusing to me.
As Julia Child said: 'I love cooking with wine, sometimes I even put it in the food.'
Did you taste the beef with and without wine reduction side by side? I bet you'd taste the difference then.
The beef stock you are using might not be the stock the recipe intended, and might be overpowering the red wine impression.
In general, when meat or vegetables are fried in hot fat, sugar and amino acid particles are formed. To capture this roasted aroma caused by this reaction (called Maillard reaction), you pour water or wine over your beef. So the main reason for deglazing is to capture this special taste of "roast".
The reason why you add the wine directly after frying i.e. to deglaze is that you wanna keep the good aroma of the wine but get rid of the alcoholic taste. When you add the wine directly or at the end, the alcohol tastes strong and the wine is the dominant flavour of the dish.
I think the solution/ trick to solve the flavour problem you describe, is to add the wine in small batches rather than "pouring it over /extinguish the minced beef". For Bolognese, I would add a small amount of wine, let it boil down and "sizzle" and repeat this 3-4 times.
This should help to preserve a stronger wine flavour.
But at the end of the day taste is subjective and if you would like wine to be the dominant flavour of the dish, you can always add it after. I personally can also recommend using red wine vinegar instead of red wine, if you like it tangier. But that's a question of personal taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.205114 | 2021-08-02T00:43:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116653",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"GdD",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17395 | Why does adding sugar to sour things cause them not to be sour?
This is one of those things which I've always thought to be obvious and never really noticed as strange.
"Obviously", if you add sugar to something sour, it makes something sweet. Take for instance Bramley apples in apple crumble, or lemons in lemonade. This is just something that people know!
But if you add sugar to something bitter (coffee, say) it doesn't stop tasting bitter! It just tastes like sweet coffee.
Any explanations?
It doesn't completely neutralize sour flavors, or you couldn't have sweet-and-sour foods.
Sugar does not cause sour food to be any less acidic. The difference is purely one of perception; we are wired by evolution to prefer sweet tastes and tend to perceive less of other tastes when a high sugar concentration is present.
Sugar does not ionize - it is not basic or acidic. Acidity itself is a chemical property, and only a base (such as baking soda or trisodium citrate) can actually neutralize it. Two other compounds - miraculin and curculin - actually alter our mouth chemistry and really do cause sour foods to taste sweet, without actually sweetening the food itself. But plain sugar does nothing at all - there is no chemical reaction happening. It's just masking other tastes, not neutralizing them.
The reason sugar doesn't mask bitterness as effectively as sourness is that sweet and sour have roughly similar taste thresholds, while most humans are extremely sensitive to bitter tastes. We can detect quinine (the reference solute for bitterness) in solution at 0.5 ppm, whereas sucrose isn't normally detectable at levels below 5000 ppm. The amount of sugar needed to mask a significant bitter taste is simply not practical.
If you want to neutralize a bitter taste, use salt instead.
I've edited this to use the more common definition of sourness: it's the perception, distinct from actual acidity. "Sourness" refers to the taste ("having an acid taste like lemon or vinegar"), and we don't say that things have that taste if we can't taste it, even if there's acid present.
There is no chemical reaction taking place when you add sugar to coffee, so the sweetness of the sugar and the bitterness of the coffee are both preserved. You can try to achieve a balance between different tastes, but in most instances you aren't altering the chemical compounds that we detect with our taste buds. The coffee, though sweetened, doesn't stop tasting bitter because humans detect different tastes by using different receptors, so we can taste multiple things simultaneously.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.205335 | 2011-09-01T21:22:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17395",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Brian Vicars",
"Bubbalu",
"Cascabel",
"Hate to Waste",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Schaap",
"Soham Ghosh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37384"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17472 | High Elevation Souffle
I am making a Blue Cheese Souffle today and because I live in the Mile-Hi city, I am a little concerned about it not working. Are there any special tips - specifically for Souffle's at high altitude or elevation?
I have tried everything imaginable for my favorite chocolate cake and the only time it did not sink it tasted very bad, so I have learned to live with a sinking cake. I would like to balance the flavor with the rise, so please include side effects for any suggested tip.
Thanks!
Mary,
Everything I see online does indicate that souffles can be problematic at altitude, so you're right to seek advice.
Here's two resources for help:
Cooking At High Altitude Blog: http://cookingathighaltitude.blogspot.com/2008/11/chocolate-souffle.html
Pie in the Sky Cookbook: http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780060522582-0
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.205568 | 2011-09-04T16:09:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17472",
"authors": [
"Artem Kulikov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37650",
"oruma",
"sandra",
"user37650"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123620 | Sourdough starter brown liquid (hooch) forming earlier than expected according to this recipe
I am following this recipe to make sourdough starter (Masa Madre = Mother Dough = sourdough starter?). According to the recipe, it takes around 5 total days (I won't put quantities, I will just use units):
Add unit of integral flour and unit of water, mix. Cover and let it rest 24h
Dough might look the same, it's okay. Add unit of strength flour and unit of water. Some sugar and mix. Cover and rest 24h.
Bubbles start appearing, bigger in size and (using translator) "pungent smell". This means the starter has begun to activate. Add U strength flour and U water, mix. Cover and rest 24h.
Brown liquid might start appearing. Remove it (I'll reference this below), and feed it with U strength flour only, mix, cover and rest 24h.
Ready to use!
I've been researching a bit on hooch, and it basically means that the starter is "hungry", so, ready to be fed more with flour (and water?). I started to make this recipe yesterday at around 19:00. How is it possible that in that recipe, it is only appearing in the 4th day, but while me doing it, it appeared after only 13-14h? How should I proceed, following (or not) this recipe? There's a question on this site but in here it appears at least 2 days after, so on the 3rd day.
Here there is a picture of my starter after 14h aprox.
Also, the recipe mentions to take the liquid away. Now, I have noticed that culturally speaking, I've found more commonly breads that taste sour, in northern countries I've visited/lived in, Germany, Netherlands. But I have not tasted that much sourness in bread in Spain. Is it possible that some areas are used to take the liquid out, and some other are not? And why?
I'm mentioning it because the words Masa Madre (starter or sourdough starter), does not have the word sour in it. And therefore if we have a pan (bread) of masa madre, it means it's made of starter (not yeast from the supermarket), but not that it tastes sour. And from what I read, this liquid is what makes the bread taste more sour (I have read recipes that explicitly say "if you want a more sour/pungent taste, leave the liquid or some of it).
I did not add the hooch tag because that probably goes inside the sourdough one(?)
That looks like mold, unfortunately. Is there foam on top?
No foam! I just edited the post with another picture so it can be seen better! I don't think it is mold, it's just that the walls of the container have some of the batter/starter. It looks exactly like hooch sourdough starter, although it's my first time making this! @FuzzyChef
What's the room temperature where you are? How much sugar did you add? (btw, sugar is not normally a component of a new starter).
Room temp: 20-23 avg daily. This is just after the first step! So only water and integral flour! That is why I'm wondering what that is, something related to the fermentation, but no sugars were added to create this liquid? @FuzzyChef
Based on photos and chat, I'd say there's two possibilities:
The brown liquid in this case is just water, and it's brown because of the wholemeal (integral) flour.
You got lucky with flour that already had a lot of natural yeast on it, resulting in extra-fast fermentation.
The way you can tell the difference is how it smells. If there's no smell at all, then it's (1); if there's a sour, alcoholic, fermented smell, it's (2).
Either way, you want to proceed with 3-5 days of building up the strength of your starter. If it is fermenting fast, you might want to feed it every 12 hours instead of every 24. Do not add any sugar.
The reason you discard the liquid (hooch) is that it is an alcohol-and-water solution that the yeast give off as a waste product. Stirring it into your starter actually inhibits yeast growth. It's not related to how sour any resulting bread products you make are. That's a function of flour, rising time and technique, not holding on to the waste alcohol.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.205668 | 2023-03-14T11:57:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123620",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"M.K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99788 | Gluten-free Carrot Cake batter mixed with normal Carrot Cake batter
Yesterday I wanted to make 2 small carrot cakes (1 gluten-free for a celiac friend, and a regular one). For the gluten-free one, I literally just swapped regular wheat flour for corn flour (same quantities), and the texture of the batter looked alright (don´t know if I had to do any kind of conversion though).
The thing is, I ended up baking only the regular one (in a small mold), and there was some batter left. As I am not gonna see my celiac friend for a week or so, I was planning on just mixing the gluten-free batter and the little left of normal batter to eat the cake myself and my family (no celiacs here, don't worry).
Will that mess anything up? Like flavour, timing in the oven, etc? Or will both batter types mix properly?
EDIT:
I guess I'll try this evening and write the result in here, but wanted to know the result beforehand to know if doing it or not in case it was a terrible idea!
Well, it went quite well. The flavour was really nice (I guess corn flour did not change the overall carrot cake flavour that much), and the texture (which was what I was most scared of) was as a normal carrot cake.
The timing in the oven was more or less the same (as I used the same mold several times, I did not measure the grams I was pouring). So my conclusion (not scientifically tested) is that it did not change, or if it did, it was minimal.
Just to state constancy, the final mix was more or less:
1/4 of all the mix: Normal Carrot Cake batter (wheat flour)
3/4 of all the mix: Gluten-free Carrot Cake batter (corn flour).
I also mixed some blue coloring but in the end it turned out green, but it did not change the flavour nor texture!
Final results: As I needed to transport the cake for 30 minutes by car, the frosting went a bit ugly, and in the fridge later, it was hard to re-shape it properly. But flavour was good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.206074 | 2019-06-27T13:50:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99788",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121514 | Baking muffins filled with cream cheese frosting instead of cream cheese filling
I wanted to make 'stuffed' carrot cake muffins. I checked a few recipes, like (carrot cake muffins with cream cheese filling), (stuffed carrot cake muffins) or (carrot cheesecake muffins), just to follow methodology of the filling part, as I have done tons of carrot cakes before, and also carrot cake muffins. My guess was:
Making a regular carrot cake muffin dough (whichever your fav recipe), pour in baking moulds until half (or whatever preference), pour filling, pour the rest (to close/complete the muffin shape for when it bakes).
Then I noticed the 'filling' part, as I did not consider it would be different to the classic frosting in a carrot cake (hence why I thought and used the 'stuffed' word in the beginning of my question). I've seen there are differences between filling and frosting, and here. I always filled and topped my carrot cakes (and other cakes, chocolate cake with choco frosting unless I did a ganache, Red Velvet, etc) with frosting. Never did I consider that they should be made different (if they should at all).
The ingredients of a cream cheese filling seem different than cream cheese frosting (recipe example). More specifically, I've noticed that butter is not present. Just cheese and sugar (+vanilla).
So my question: is there any difference in BAKING filled muffins with filling (as all recipes I've seen) and baking filled muffins with frosting. Does adding butter to make it from filling to frosting, change anything in terms of baking it? In the SA.SE answer to the question, it is stated:
You can therefore have a filling made of frosting, but you cannot have a frosting made of filling.
But I'm assuming it's for already baked goods. What about for to-be-baked goods?
I am confused about your question. Are you asking if you can bake a piece of the mass intended for filling or frosting inside a muffin, as opposed to injecting it into the muffin after baking, or are you asking what is the language difference between the terms "filling" and "frosting"?
My bad, I will try to edit the question for a better understanding. I'm asking if is there any difference in BAKING filled muffins with filling (as all recipes I've seen) and baking filled muffins with frosting. And what can the additiona ingredient in frosting (butter) affect in the baking with filled frosting @rumtscho
Yes, butter will make the filling melt and possibly "dissolve" into the batter, rather than staying firm as a filling. It will also not set up as firmly once its fully baked.
It took me some time. I did a baking experiment and decided to bake Cream Cheese filled Carrot Cake Muffins. Half of the muffins filled with cream cheese filling and the other half with cream cheese frosting.
What I found curious about this filling (not frosting), is one of the 3 ingredients it has: flour. The ending result for these ones is nice.
As stated in my question, prepare carrot-cake muffins batter/mass/dough.
For the frosting, the recipe stated
120g of butter
120g of cream cheese
250gr glass sugar
I used half the ingredients (And there was a some left over, so I guess dividing by 3 would have been fine. I used less sugar though. Beat well sugar and butter until specially creamy (5 mins), then add cream cheese.
The following pictures show the end result. Filling: left muffins, Frosting: right muffins.
For the filling part, I first filled the base, filled a sphere of filling/frosting (seems small in the picture but I added more after taking it), fill sides with muffin, repeat 2-3 times overall. I tried to do it equally for all muffins. It's quite some process, troublesome and gets everything a bit dirty.
I filled 5 muffins on the right with frosting, 5 on the left with filling. The ones with filling seemed perfectly fine. The ones with frosting on the other hand, exploded. The texture might seem foamy, but it was actually like grilled cheese. I would post another picture with the looks of them after some resting, the cavities of the now missing frosting inside. But this answer already has too many picutres, sorry. They were empty on that side, so the butter not only melted into the muffin but also helped some of the frosting firm up, and made it into some kind of sweet grilled creamcheese.
And the final result, on the right, "cut in half" is a frosting filled muffin, and on the left is a filling filled muffin. It had a texture similar to oven cheesecake. I guess flour as a main ingredient made it's wonders. So as a final answer: If you want to bake filled muffins (not filling them afterwards), use filling, not frosting (for these specific muffins and this specific filling).
The filling-frosting language conundrum
First, you seem to be confused about the meaning of the terms "filling" and "frosting". They are both structural terms - just like the name "roof" means a specific part of a house, no matter if made out of tile, corrugated tin, or thatch, "frosting" and "filling" are both specific parts of a cake, no matter what they are made out of. If somebody writes up a recipe for "filling", then they actually mean a recipe for "a mass that is suitable for filling cakes". In reality, you can always use a mass-meant-for-filling to frost a cake, and mass-meant-for-frosting to fill a cake*.
It is indeed quite common for carrot cakes in the US to be filled and/or frosted with a mass based on cream cheese. This doesn't mean that it is universal that the mass for filled cakes will be different from the mass of frosted cakes. The recipe differences you found may be due to tradition, to selection bias, or to a preference for thicker layers of filling. So the question of using "filling" or "frosting" is not really meaningful.
Baking a "filling" or "frosting" mass inside a muffin
Now, to your actual question. You are planning to put either a mixture of cream cheese, sugar and butter, or only a mixture of cream cheese and sugar, into muffin batter, then bake.
You will be facing two problems: 1) your mass mixing with the batter, and 2) your mass melting in the oven and then re-solidifying.
My intuition was that any creamy dairy-based filling will invariably run into the second problem, and so the original version of my answer suggested to not do it at all. After comments mentioning that it works in practice, I will revide: if you try the "pack it inside before baking" route, do use a mass which is both dense, and unlikely to get unpleasant after melting. For both reasons, you'll be better off if you don't include any butter, and stay as close as possible to pure cream cheese - or even use a cheese which won't melt, such as ricotta or quark, if you think you'll enjoy the different flavor.
If you want to be less restricted in your choices and be able to use any mass intended as frosting or filling, you can achieve this by baking cupcakes first and then piping the filling from outside afterwards. You don't even have to be especially good at piping, just use a long tip and press until it is full, but not overfilled.
Chris H's idea of freezing the core first is intriguing. It will likely require very precise time and temperature control and a lot of well-guided experimental tweaking to both the batter and filling, until it starts working. You don't want your filling to ever melt, and at the same time, you want all the batter in contact with it to bake through; that's a tall order.
* You may have to use a very thin layer if you are filling with something without structural strength, but it will still be a filling. And due to the way languages work, people may look at you strange if you tell them that you frosted your cake with a jam, and tell you that you didn't frost it, but glazed it. But these complexities are not all that relevant for the rest of the answer.
cream cheese fillings inside liquid batter do indeed work, since both are viscous enough that they barely mix. Cream cheese softens a bunch when it's hot, but doesn't really ever flow (although adding butter to the mix would likely make it flow). I've done it before and seen many recipes, and if you read the OP's recipes carefully, all of them bake the cream cheese filling inside of the muffins. Some recipes also call for flour to thicken the filling a bit, just to be sure it doesn't melt into the batter.
Very detailed and nice answer (as usual!), thank you. I am 'concerned', as @Esther mentions, that in the recipes linked, I found they bake them together, and the final result pictures don't look bad at all. Although it probably won't be the same visually as 'injecting' it post baked.
@Esther now that you say it, I must admit that I have not worked with fillings made from cream cheese specifically, only with other dairy-based ones, and my intuition may be wrong. I will think about deleting the answer, but if you know it to be incorrect, the fair thing would be to downvote me.
I posted an update with my findings, that go where @Esther was pointing! Hope you find it insightful!
Anything meant to be applied cold or slightly warm to a cooled cake will melt in baking without special precautions, especially if it contains butter. But baked Alaska works so it's certainly possible to bake a sponge around a cold filling.
Freezing a lump of your buttercream or cream cheese frosting then surrounding it in cake mix before baking might be worth a try.
In terms of wording, "filling" is necessarily broader - you can fill with jam for example, but filling is inside while frosting or icing can go on top.
Cream cheese frosting for carrot cake may or may not include butter. I wouldn't use butter. It may or may not be used inside as well/instead of on top. There's no reason for including butter in one place and not the other, and definitely no reason to make 2 similar batches for one cake
It makes sense, but i don't understand why these recipes (and end result pictures) seem to be okay... About the freezing, I have seen (and made) coulant recipes where you freeze them (at least for a bit). But it makes sense as everything is the same dough/mass. Here, the frozen filling can have an impact on the muffin right? I'll make an experiment then! Thanks!
The fact that they call it a "cheesecake filling" at the first link makes a difference, as cheesecake can be baked and doesn't usually contain butter. Then they add flour to thicken it; the flour probably needs to be cooked so as not to taste raw, and starting with it frozen it wouldn't get cooked.
I ended up making 2 batches just to check the difference. Good results for filling, not the desired one for the frosting. I posted it below
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.206251 | 2022-08-31T10:41:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121514",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"M.K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
114721 | Recommended lemon juice to water ratio when making lemonade
A lot of recipes I see call for lemon quantity but this can be very relative as some lemons differ in weight/size, thus yielding to different amounts of lemon juice.
For instance, if I wanted to make half a gallon's worth of lemonade, what would be the recommended ratio of lemon juice to water be? I tend to use about 2 cups of sugar to give you an idea of level of sweetness in half a gallon's worth of lemonade.
Don't lemons also differ in taste, so some are sweeter and some are more sour.
Definitely. It’s been a game of trial and error as far as brand hunting. I’ve had organic lemons that were just as sour (if not worse) than non-organic.
According to this lemonade recipe Best Lemonade Ever rated by 3K people, averaging a rating of 5 stars, the ratio is
1 ¾ cups white sugar
8 cups water
1 ½ cups lemon juice
Since you're using 2 cups of sugar, I recommend you follow the recipe:
2 cups white sugar
9 cups water
1 ⅔ cups (27 tbsp) lemon juice
As for lemons to lemon juice estimate, from How Much Juice Can You Get From One Lemon?:
1 Small Lemon (4 oz.) = 3 tbsp fresh juice.
1 Medium Lemon (5 oz.) = 4 tbsp fresh juice.
1 Large Lemon (6 oz.) = 5 tbsp fresh juice
So...
using small lemons, you'll need about 9
using medium lemons, you'll need about 7
using large lemons, you'll need about 5
My mother taught me to make lemonade using a 3:1:1 ratio: 1 cup of lemon juice and 1 cup of sugar for every 3 cups of water. Based on that ratio, if you're using 2 cups of sugar, you would also use 2 cups of lemon juice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.207023 | 2021-03-10T15:14:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114721",
"authors": [
"Carl Edwards",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100151 | what material should i use for cutting board?
What material should I use for cutting board? And which dulls more the knives?
As many cookers might know that wood cutting boards can be bad for use if it is not cleaned after use, because the growth of bacterias and even mold on there, also wood absorbs moist, color, and smells of what was chopped like garlic for example, I have also read that plastic ones also might be bad for use.
I have tried a glass cutting board which are really unconfortable for use, but safer for cleaning, though I have one but I don't use, because it's unconfortable when cutting and harmful because very it's sloppy though.
Also i think it would dull the knife a lot. I wouldnt use an iron,steel, or aluminium cutting board (if them exist) for same reason. btw i always keep my knives sharp with help ofthe bottom of a mug when they need some sharping. btw do you any trick to clean a wood cutting board of bad smells?
Well, not Chinese Ironwood: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100144/do-chinese-ironwood-cutting-boards-dull-knives-quickly
Wood and plastic both have their (dis)advantages as noted below, but PLEASE do not use glass or ceramic cutting boards. They will dull your knives, and are slippery, so you might cut yourself if you hold your knife at some weird angle.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/183/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43074/67
I personally prefer using good quality wooden chopping boards. Avoid using plastic as they aren't environment friendly and good enough for long time. Glass boards were never comforting for me to work as they make so much noise while chopping.
Wooden board have to be cleaned soon after its use. More you keep it unwashed, more difficult it would get to clean later.
To clean the wooden board, sprinkle baking soda over the board and then squeeze lemon and clean it. It removes odour from the board and cleans it. This also works for plastic boards.
Note that food safety experts and many chefs use plastic boards as they are non porous and can be cleaned of any contaminants easily. Especially when cutting chicken and the like which could have negative health issues.
It is true that they are not environment friendly, but they last for a long long time, AND, if dropping anything saucy/oily like a tomato sauce, it will stay impregnated in the wood... I do not quite agree with you! But I guess every cook has its tricks!
It is not a "trick" it allows restaurants to stay in business and not make their customers sick. They should be used with any uncooked food that could potentially spread unhealthy bacteria, chicken and fish come to mind. Not trying to be harsh here but a plastic/teflon board will last forever and help you do the same.
Wood is safer than plastic; that unsafe thing is a myth from the 1980s. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/10/health/wooden-cutting-boards-found-safer-than-plastic.html. Update your myths, M.K.!. Re cleaning: I use the lemon straight from the lemon and I rub the peel on the board too, then I let it sit. No baking soda. The straight juice whitens the board and I think the lemon oil might help too.
From a safety perspective, wood is far superior. I find glass chopping boards hinder chopping and are incredibly dangerous. Just don't pour boiling water on your wooden chopping board!
@Howeitzer Safety of your hands, or the person eating?
@Andreas on your hands.
There's a huge standing debate on that, and you'll find several articles contradicting each other.
While wood seems at first like a bad choice (it porous, so it harbours bacteria) it's quite the opposite.
Researchers discovered that used, knife-scarred wooden cutting boards harbored no more bacteria than new boards, while knife-scarred plastic boards were "impossible to clean and disinfect manually." When the researchers scanned the plastic boards with electron micrographs, they saw "highly significant damage" to the surfaces from knife cuts. Bacteria inside wooden boards don’t multiply and gradually die. Comparing the bacteria found on wooden boards to those found lurking on plastic ones when both have been cleaned manually, the researchers found more bacteria on a used plastic surface than on a used wood one.
Relevant excerpt from the article: "The good news from this study is that plastic boards can be successfully cleaned in the dishwasher"
You might be surprised but the answer is polyethylene. More economic and less heavy, easier to handle and I'd say due to materials, less dulling than wood. Wood has the problem of bacterias, and with heavy use, stick with the flavours of several food. Polyethylene is really easy to clean not only by hand but in the dishwasher, which ensures the cleaning quite better depending on the hurry when you are cleaning.
In the hotel/resutarant sector, they are used also because of something you might find stupid: COLORS. Having different colour can help you to have several boards to cut depending what. I personally have 2 different cutting boards at home, and it is quite useful to use one or another depending on what you are cooking.
If I were you, I'd give them a try!
Most of the advice on this site seems to tell people to stay away from plastic cutting boards; can you argue against that?
It all depends on what you want to have and spend. A good wodden cutting board can be expensive, and has the problems mentioned above. Regarding the durability about the plastic boards, at least in the experience I´ve had so far, they have yielded brilliant results. Not the most environmental friendly option, that´s for sure, but I haven´t had any problems with durability if taken care of! @DavidZ
I use hard plastic ones. They are easy to cut on and it may have a few scratches after a while though!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.207187 | 2019-07-12T02:10:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100151",
"authors": [
"Andreas",
"David Z",
"FuzzyChef",
"Howeitzer",
"Joe",
"John Doe",
"M.K",
"Steve Chambers",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99581 | How to remove white stain after stove cleaning?
I cleaned the gate of my stove using easy off oven cleaner and then had some white stains that cannot be removed:
How do I remove the stains?
Have you tried a thin film of oil? Drizzle a small amount of oil on a cloth or piece of kitchen tissue. If that doesn't help, I'd guess that the metal itself is tarnished
@JanDoggen Yes, it is Easy off cleaner. My apologies.
Easy-Off's site says it's fine for stainless steel.. How absolutely 100% certain are you that your door handle is actually stainless steel. I've seen heavy cleaners do damage like that on metals containing brass, copper, nickel etc, but never stainless steel. The fact it appears to have damaged the handle but not the door face would reinforce that possibility.
That looks to me like it's a plastic handle with a metallic plating - and you've started to rub the plating off, exposing the plastic underneath.
It's been a few months; did you figure out a solution? Is the handle really metal or plastic? Can you come back to comment / self-answer the question? Check [answer] if you have any doubts.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.207959 | 2019-06-17T08:33:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99581",
"authors": [
"Ciaran Haines",
"Luciano",
"O.S.",
"Tetsujin",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76069"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100721 | Roasted Peanuts
What is the best way to dry roast peanuts, Slow Dry Roasting or Quick Dry Roasting? Which will give maximum flavour and what will be the impact on the moisture content of peanuts & shelf life?
I use electric radiant heaters to dry roast peanuts but I find it does not give the same aroma as sand-roasting does. Does anyone know why, and if the aroma effects the final taste?
Thank you in advance.
I have "roasted" peanuts ( and other nuts) in a frying pan on a burner. Watch them closely and stir often , it produces good flavor. Adding oil is optional. They were used immediately so I don't know about shelf life.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.208094 | 2019-08-13T14:26:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100721",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100109 | Meat Substitutes
Allow me to set the stage! My wife has decided it is time to be healthier, and while I begrudge the fact that she is right, I agree. In doing so, we want to reduce the amount of meat (of all types) we consume and increase the consumption of fruits, veggies and other healthier stuff. Now, that said - she doesn't cook all that much and I grew up on meat and potatoes so I have been reading online about meat substitutes and what not, so that I don't have to change too much (because frankly I like meat...). The one site I have gleaned the most out of, in terms of ideas was here. And yes, the link is for people who are or who are planning to go vegan. I just found the variety of suggestions in one place a great jumping off point for this question/discussion.
Now all that said, I am not looking to substitute meat but rather, looking to cut down our consumption of meat. As such we are looking for foods that can "replace" it on the plate. This may come in the form of different cooking styles, seasonings (spices, sauces, etc.), or even a new mindset when it comes to cooking and food preparation.
As I embark on this change in my culinary journey is there anything I should be aware that may not come up on several google searches?
Instead of going with the approach of "replacing" meat, consider treating meat as a flavoring, not as the main dish. In some cases, you could take something where meat is isn't served as a big hunk but instead distributed throughout the dish (stir fries, casseroles) and slowly change the proportions of meat to vegetables.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/223/67
@Joe, great insight. We will be doing that as well. We also want to cut down the amount we eat for a variety of reasons, so yes for some dishes we will be cutting down (stir fries, casseroles, and other dishes) and in other meals just outright cutting it out.
Assuming you are not going vegan like the information in the link - consider eggs - very versatile and relatively healthy compared to meats.
Another related question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/29664/67 (not sure if this is the question that I've been trying to find, as I think someone had asked something similar in the past)
@Joe I did see that question, and the reason I still asked mine was his was specifically about resources, whereas here I am trying to ask about tricks or tips or other things that are often learned through trial and error. Thanks!
@JCrosby : I'm not saying it's a duplicate or that it even answers your question ... I just try my best to cross-link related questions (as if someone asks one, they might be interested in the other). Oh, and if you haven't encountered the word already, you might want to search the internet for 'flexitarian'.
You may want to spend some time on vegetarianism.se (although narrower questions are recommended) :)
In addition to the advice above about not explicitly trying to replace meat, the best advice I can give is to think about two things when cooking vegetarian:
Umami. This is the Number One problem most people have (I'm talking to you, work cafeteria) when cooking vegetarian. Meat gives the umami/savory flavor in a dish, and you can't simply replace it with a meat alternative that has none and call it a day. In my cooking, I'm always looking for sources of umami- some of the best are mushrooms (grill the sh*t out of them, they just get tastier), cheese, nutritional yeast, soy sauce, MSG...
Protein. So much vegetarian food out there is just plain carbs. It's terrible. When I'm cooking I try to have as much protein as possible, so I don't end up being hungry an hour later and eating a bag of chips (health benefits negated). Look for ingredients that can pump up the protein content- chickpeas, lentils, soy meat replacements, eggs, cottage cheese, tofu...
Meat usually combines these two in an easy way, but if you want to replace it, you often need to find these two aspects of the meal from different sources.
Source: vegetarian/pescatarian for ten years, lives with an omnivore with high standards for cooking veg food.
Edit: some recipe suggestions:
This one ticks all the boxes (umami + low cal + protein-rich) and is also a great weeknight dish- I make it all the time and the omnivore loves it. Needs some Indian spices on hand, but other than that it's some onions and a couple cans of chickpeas- add some greek yogurt to make it extra creamy https://myheartbeets.com/instant-pot-chana-masala-punjabi-chole-spiced-chickpea-curry/ Cook the onions in butter for an extra umami punch, and ignore the pressure cooker part- if your chickpeas are pre-soaked just cook it on a normal stovetop for ~20min.
Also a great weeknight recipe and with ingredients on hand. The secret is to toast the walnuts, the umami comes from the goat cheese + vinaigrette and protein from the lentils. Ignore the 'fancy lentils' requirement, normal are tots fine https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2014/04/french-lentil-salad-with-goat-cheese-and-walnuts-from-my-paris-kitchen.html.
Here's my tricks and tips based on 25 years of being a vegetarian and cooking for a spouse who is not:
Avoid meat substitutes entirely for most meals. They just don't satisfy, and simply act to remind you of the meat you're missing.
Learn to cook & like cuisines that do not require meat, or only require it in small quantities, including Middle Eastern, Mexican, Chinese, and Indian. Many cuisines are primarily about vegetables, fruits, and grains, and as such you may even have eaten vegetarian meals from them without realizing it. Middle American cuisine is your enemy here.
Get away from the idea of having a "main dish". It's not an acccident that the low-meat cuisines also tend to have lots of small dishes instead of one big one. Mollie Katzen calls these "side-by-side dishes".
Learn to be bold with spices. While you can't replace the meat flavor, you can add other flavors, and if a dish has 3 Tbs of 6 spices in it, you're a lot less likely to think it needs meat. Smoked salt also helps.
Where meat substitutes do work is the few dishes where the meat is more of an accent and there's an appropriate product. I've had luck with spicy veggie sausages in a base for gumbo, for example, and "bacos" can replace bacon crumbles. Meat substitutes work best for things where the meat in question was very processed in the first place (sausages, hamburger) and will be heavily cooked.
Tofu, Seitan, and Jackfruit can be delicious and useful ingredients on their own, but they do not taste or feel like meat. They can sometimes satisfy a craving for protein, but really they're better eaten in dishes where they would shine anyway, mostly Asian cuisine (although really you can put just about anything in a taco). Also, most tofu and seitan you can buy in supermarkets is very low quality, which doesn't help.
Hope that helps!
I think you are spot-on here, I'm no vegetarian, but do love me some veges, and the flavoring, if similar to those associated with meat dishes, can really help bring some extra appetite to the table. Interesting you mention smoked salt - there are quite a few common vegetables that smoke pretty well - zucchini, mushrooms (not really a vegetable, but close enough), eggplant/aubergine, bell peppers and can add plenty of flavor to a dish. I do find adding a protein substitute (often egg) helps with satiety though.
So much this. Many vegetarians hang on so much on meat substitutions that they're constantly "missing meat a lot" instead of eating more vegetables.
This is a non-vegetarian POV:
Eating healthier is often just as "easy" as eating less.
A good meat substitute would be to replace your meat with: Nothing.
Now I don't mean replace all your meat in a dish, just part of it.
Just halve the amount of meat you eat and you're already eating healthier.
Halve the amount of potatoes you eat too.
Keep veggies at the same amount.
What I have done in the past year is basically substitute my meat intake by half but buy better cuts.
You could say my meat substitute would be: buy better meat but less of it.
For instance: instead of eating 2 porkchops (400 grams) I got 1 pork tenderloin (150-200 grams)
A lot can be said about buying better cuts of meat and learning to cook them well. When reducing meat consumption, sometimes you can then buy prime for just a couple of dollars per person more and enjoy it far more than choice. The quality can make you eat less due to the satisfaction it provides.
Meat substitutes - a word of warning for someone attempting to replace meat in one fell swoop...
I'll leave everyone else to come up with viable meat alternatives, if that's what you actually require, but as someone who once did this & failed miserably, a word of warning.
Don't expect meat substitutes to give you the same flavour or texture satisfaction as meat.
They won't.
If you expect them to, then your new regime will fail in a month.
You have to 'embrace the vegetable' rather than 'fake the meat'.
Only then will you succeed.
I thought I was doing really well, when I tried this - I was using soy meat & being reasonably satisfied with the texture replacement. For flavour you really have to drown soy-meat in big sauces, but the texture is OK.
I was availing myself of my local Gujarati vegetarian restaurant for my curry 'fix' with no meat at all - that was working very well.
The fall came when someone in an effort to 'help' made me nut cutlets for dinner... canned nut cutlets... like some kind of vegan Spam, sliced & fried.
My attempt at vegetarianism ended that day.
I think I described it as having the flavour & texture of conti-board, an imitation wood wall covering popular in the 1970s.
This, of course, is not actually an answer to the question, but it is something the "new vegetarian" is going to have to deal with.
After comments:
If the intention is to reduce rather than replace meat, then I think you will have a far easier time of it.
My ideal curry used to be sheek kebab followed by keema madras & 3 chapatis. Total meat weight, maybe 3 - 400g or so [at a guess]
In my new regime, that would now be vegetable samosa, followed by a small portion of even the same keema madras, but with palak (sag) paneer & channa masala to fill out the plate, sitting on basmati rice. That probably needs only 1 chapati to eat it with, as it's much more of a 'fork meal' with the rice. Total meat weight probably 60 or 70gm. Satisfaction = 100%.
My other regime change is that I would ring for the old curry from a take-away... I make the new ones from scratch.
I appreciate the honesty. We aren't going to vegetarian, we are trying to drastically reduce the meat we consume. I am unsure of how to word it other than how I did in the question (feel free to edit it lol). However, this is why I am asking more about "tips and tricks" than replacing the meat itself.
Many of the things I cook these days just lean more heavily on interesting "veggie side dishes" rather than trying for total replacement. Big meat curry... two veggie sides, + bread & rice. Total meat content, about ¼ of what I would have had before I changed my regime. Satisfaction quotient, still there.
Speaking as someone who's been veg for 20 years, Tetsujin is on the money here. If you "like meat", the worst thing in the world will be a meat substitute. They just don't taste like real meat. You're far better off focusing on dishes that don't need meat -- which is going to mean embracing some ethnic cooking. It's way easier to make non-meat meals that don't feel incomplete if you're cooking Indian or Middle Eastern or Chinese than if you're making Middle American.
Although I second the “embrace the vegetable” point, I think this answer is misleading. Your view about meat substitutes seems quite outdated. Food chemistry has come a long way in the last 20 year, much of that in the last 5 years. There are meat substitutes available that do their job well.
Me and my husband cook almost exclusively vegetarian at home, because he simply doesn't like meat very much in general. For the meat we do buy occasionally we value quality over quantity, which tends to get rather pricey and we simply can't afford much of it. However, I grew up on a lot of meat, so at first it was rather hard to come up with food ideas and in the beginning I, too, tried to substitute the meat in the recipes I knew from home. With time I came to realize, that this will just make it harder for me and everyone else and I learned to love my non-meat meals.
This, however, was already answered in another answer. Instead I'm going to get into detail about the recipes, where meat is more in the front and needs substituting.
What you have to think about when adapting a recipe like this: What is the meat accomplishing in this recipe? Is it because of the texture? Because it gives body to a dish? Because it's the main protein source? Depending on this, you can substitute different things. However, always be aware that the dish changes fundamentally when substituting, so you simply will get a different dish, which is not better or worse than the original but different.
For example: In a chilli con carne the meat has different funcitons. The first is of course taste, but we'll going to forgo that for obvious reasons. The second is texture and that's where we'll substitute. You can use tofu or seitan here, but I tend to simply go with red lentils. They have an amazing texture and the resulting product is really amazing. Not to be confused with a real meat chilli con carne of course, but it really can be an amazing dish by itself!
Another example: Burgers. Here the meat is more in the front. However, what I personally want from a burger patty is the smokeiness and savoryness of the grilled meat. I recently found out that I can get a similar (although of course still very different) experience by substituting the meat patty by a grilled cheese like halloumi. It doesn't get soft when heated but remains rather firm. It is amazing on a burger, I can tell you.
Always remember, that you don't have to remove all the meat from your diet. This tends to make people crave it even more and makes it harder to achieve your goal of eating less meat. Just go step by step. With time you will notice, that it is a very natural transition and you'll realize how much more you appreciate the meat you do eat. When I visit my family now I can't believe how much meat they eat. It just seems strange to me today. But then again, I can really appreciate my fathers cooking, because I hadn't had a really good steak in a long time.
Thanks for the insight! And to your comment, "Always remember, that you don't have to remove all the meat from your diet," we don't plan to - what we (as a family) have decided is to cut down the portions we eat as part of our plan to be healthier.
From a commercial/industrial standpoint, there are two sources for TVP that are industry "go-to"'s: CHS Proteins and ADM. In particular, CHS Protein's QR600 line (non-GMO version is QR600N) has the most closest match we've been able to find through sensory evaluations for matching actual meat (cooked from raw ground). If you soak them, spin dry, then mix into the ground meat emulsion -- up to 60% ± your preference -- and season / cook as you would usually, it's actually quite difficult to even differentiate between the original and TVP-included versions. If anything, the TVP actually adds a texturing consistency, improves water retention and emulsification (juicier), etc., and it even qualifies for a heart-health claim according to FDA.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.208203 | 2019-07-10T15:39:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100109",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"leftaroundabout"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100503 | No lower heating element
I noticed that my GE oven does not have a lower heating element, after more than 5 years of use. Is that normal or a defect?
Welcome Jerry, while your question seems to be good. Its a little more detail. Five years seems a bit short for an element to wear out. However, if you bought it or received it used, it may be more normal. Also, please feel free to check out the tour and help centre to better assist you in asking better questions for this site. And as always welcome to Seasoned Advice.
What does it say in the instructions, or on the dial on the front... or what model is it...
If it's like my GE oven, the lower element is actually underneath the bottom surface of the interior of the oven; it's not exposed like the broiler coil is on top. While nice, I suppose, it does add a couple minutes to preheating time.
Check your owner's manual to see if this is the case in your oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.209473 | 2019-07-31T19:28:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100503",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100548 | The rim is off, the lid is secure, but the button can move up and down, is it safe?
I have a jar that the lid is secured to the glass BUT the button still moves up and down. Is it safe or not?
I have edited the grammar in your post - but there are still a bunch of unanswered questions. For instance, a jar filled with what?
Please take the tour and read the help page to help you asking beter questions that will get you accurate answers.
If you did the canning just now, you should move it to the fridge and use it soon. If this is something that was in your pantry, you should dispose of it
The button on a metal lid- whether purchased or home canned- is an indicator of a vacuum in the bottle.
During canning, a vacuum is formed that sucks the lid on tight and pulls in the button so it can't be depressed.
If the button can be "popped" then there is no vacuum and the bottle is not sealed. If the lid doesn't move that just means it's stuck not that it is sealed.
This means that the safety of the food is compromised. If you just canned the bottle then you can either try to can it again with a new lid or put it in the fridge to consume immediately. If it has been in your pantry then consider it spoiled and throw it out.
Incidentally- having a button not pop does not guarantee that the bottle is sealed. Rarely, the button will be sucked in and the seal will fail but the button does not pop back out. If the lid is stuck in place you would discover this when opening the bottle as there would be no resistance from a vacuum. After bottling, I gently check the seals on my lids even if the button is in.
A "safety pop-up button" on a glass jar with a metal lid is 'safe' if it won't press/click when you buy it.
Once you've opened it there's no way to make it not click when pressed.
That's why it's a safety button.
If it clicks before you open it... then someone else has already opened it & it is no longer 'safe'.
If you opened it yourself, then it's 'safe' as regards interference & subject to the usual rules of how long you can keep it in the fridge, etc.
The safety pop-up button is not an indicator of freshness, it is a tamper-proof lid. Once opened/tampered, it becomes 'just a lid'.
Late note: I hadn't spotted the 'canning' tag, of which I have zero experience. I was assuming consumer store purchase.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.209588 | 2019-08-02T14:55:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100548",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122082 | Does "hydrogenated vegetable oil" on a US food label legally mean fully hydrogenated?
Some food labels list "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" as an ingredient. Others say "hydrogenated vegetable oil." Are there any US regulations regarding how those terms differ? Can the term "hydrogenated vegetable oil" legally be used for partially hydrogenated oil, or does it only apply to fully hydrogenated oil?
According to US law, hydrogenated means fully hydrogenated.
If the fat or oil is completely hydrogenated, the name shall include the term hydrogenated, or if partially hydrogenated, the name shall include the term partially hydrogenated. If each fat and/or oil in a blend or the blend is completely hydrogenated, the term "hydrogenated" may precede the term(s) describing the blend, e.g., "hydrogenated vegetable oil (soybean, cottonseed, and palm oils)", rather than preceding the name of each individual fat and/or oil; if the blend of fats and/or oils is partially hydrogenated, the term "partially hydrogenated" may be used in the same manner.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.209807 | 2022-10-23T00:00:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122082",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108253 | How to dispense thick, intense hot sauce without getting residue on the bottle?
I have a bottle of Dave's Insanity Sauce. I enjoy putting it on my food in small quantities and have no trouble handling the heat... in my mouth. The problem is that the outside of the bottle seems to have some capsaicin residue on it. Even when I wash my hands after handling it, I later experience pain if I touch my eyes or my nose or, um, other body parts.
I suspect the problem is that it's a thick, viscous sauce and I'm not able to dispense just a drop or two without getting some on the lip of the bottle (where the threads for the cap are), and from there it seems to spread. Is there a good way to 1) dispense sauces like this cleanly, or 2) make the bottle less hazardous?
Washing the bottle with dish detergent may have helped temporarily, but it would be great to not have to do this every time I use the sauce.
Just so you aware, speaking as someone who went to college with Dave, that "sauce" is intended as a joke.
Thanks! I didn't know that. Fortunately I've never claimed to have sophisticated tastes, or good judgement in general, so I feel like I'm free to keep enjoying it.
Oh, you're not the only one. I might suggest trying one of Dave's other sauces, though; not only do they have more general flavor, but they would probably eliminate the "16 molecules of sauce got on my hands and I can't touch my eyes" problem.
@FuzzyChef To be fair, Dave's insanity sauce is 'only' about 50,000 scoville units, whereas something like Magma Hot Sauce is 500,000 scoville units, or even something like 'The Source' which is 7 million. Personally, I just have a jar of capsaicin powder at home that I like to use. :)
@Onyz : yeah, but it was (one of?) the first commercially packaged hot sauced that included refined capsaicin for heat. And it was before there was widespread knowledge of "ghost pepper" and other extremely hot varieties in the US. (I saw an interview with him maybe 20 years ago ... I think it was something like when closing time came around, and there were people who weren't in any hurry to leave, he'd offer people some food (might've been wings), and they could stay if they ate the whole thing.) So yeah, it was a joke.
Unless you want to go through the faff I do every time I use gravy browning (notorious lid-glue!) - wipe the top of the bottle; rinse the lid under the tap; seal top of bottle with thumb & rinse screw-thread - then why not just thin it down a bit so it's less sticky?
Water or vinegar ought to do it, assuming you at least use boiled water.
Part of the reason I bought it was so I could experiment with thinning it out, or with making other hot sauces more intense. You're right, it's possible that this will solve the problem.
Once you've got that sorted your next challenge is to discover why, no matter how much you shake it before or after use, Tabasco always manages to get one teeny solid bit inside the tiny neck that means nothing happens for the first 5 shakes. ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.209914 | 2020-05-10T04:51:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108253",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Onyz",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9764",
"octern"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22871 | How to cook a thin crispy pizza on a pizza stone
Hello I am attempting to make my own thin and crispy pizza and am cooking it on a pizza stone however it keeps coming out a little bit soggy (its not too bad, its still nice its just not as crispy as I would like) and I was wondering if anyone had any tips as to how to make it a but more crispy?
I could just be putting too much topping on it I'm not sure (I'm not stacking loads on though, just maybe a little too much cheese)?
How does the temperature of the oven effect this?
Thanks very much for any help
The most important thing is for the stone to be hot. That generally means you need to set the oven to its highest setting, and then let it preheat for at least 30 minutes.
I use a 1-inch thick paver from a hardware store, and I generally get my best pizzas when I set the oven to 500F and wait about 45 minutes before I put the pizza in.
For a thin crust, I like the results from leaving the oven at 500F and baking for ~13 minutes in my oven, but I'm sure some people would consider that "burned".
do you leave the oven at 500 when you actually cook the pizza?
(edited the answer to ... answer your question) Yes, but there's no rule that you have to. It's your pizza, so feel free to play with the time and temperature to get the results that make you happy.
Try two or three paves stacked up to really get things going
I agree with baka that the stone must be really hot--as hot as your oven can go (and completely preheated). To prevent sogginess, you need to cook the underside of the pizza as quickly as possible, so getting that strong, direct heat on there helps.
It also helps to use less sauce or a thicker sauce, and if possible, pre-cook or par-cook the vegetable toppings. Veggies release a lot of moisture when they cook, so if you get that out of the way beforehand, that can cut down on soggy crust. Another trick is to turn on the broiler just before you put the pizza in. This cooks the top faster and can help dry the toppings. But you have to be careful--if your stone isn't hot enough you can wind up with a burnt top and undercooked crust.
If none of that gets you what you want, you can also blind bake the crust a little: Put it on the stone for a minute or so before you put toppings on.
I should point out, though, that my sister has a real-deal brick pizza oven in her yard, and with that properly preheated, you don't need to worry about doing too many tricks to get the crust crisp (she does pre-cook watery vegetables like mushrooms). The air temperature in the oven tends to be more than 600 degrees, and the floor of the oven is at least that hot. Crisp crusts and melted cheese in about 90 seconds. So high temperature is crucial.
+1 for "high temperature is crucial" and pre-cooking toppings. Some folks actually break the interlock on their oven and use the self-clean cycle for pizza (pushing 1000 degrees F!).
...not recommended. :)
Take a look at Kenji's recipe for bar-style pizza
http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/04/the-pizza-lab-how-to-make-bar-pies-at-home-star-tavern-colony-grill-pepperoni-bar-pizza-recipe.html
There's some techniques worth reading in there. That's an A.P. flour pie, search for his NY-Style pie recipe for a Bread Flour recipe.
I've made two batches of the bar pie and it worked very well. I followed fairly precisely: few days in fridge, oiled pizza pan then onto a stone to finish.
As the other answers have said, preheating the stone is critically important, and you should make sure you're not putting a lot of watery ingredients on top.
To help with the "watery topping" problem, I usually spritz or brush the top of the dough with olive oil before putting on any toppings. It helps make a sort of moisture barrier that keeps too much water from seeping into the dough. Since the first thing I put on top of a pizza is roasted and crushed tomatoes, there's usually a lot of water to keep out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.210176 | 2012-04-08T10:12:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22871",
"authors": [
"Deleted",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"JoeFish",
"Nagorak",
"TFD",
"asf107",
"baka",
"dalearn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"naneharvey",
"stu",
"user3019593"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92022 | Must bread dough clear the side of the mixer using the hook?
I can get it to clear just fine with the paddle, but I can't reliably do so with the hook attachment, even after ten minutes at the fastest setting. My flour is fairly strong, autolysed, and the hydration is ~70%. I find myself adding way too much flour to have it clear the bowl.
Often, higher hydration doughs don't need to be mixed in a mixer at all. However, when using a mixer, it is more important to get the hydration correct, than to have all of the dough come away from the side of the bowl. I would say to use a kitchen scale to measure ingredients, and don't worry about whether or not the dough comes away from the side of the mixing bowl.
I agree weighing is a helpful starting point but getting a feel for the dough is still essential. A good feel for dough compensates for all variables. Weighing compensates for only flour compaction but the relative humidity is not accounted for and can play a significant role.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.210510 | 2018-09-01T06:50:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92022",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49217 | What do you get when you reheat and cool clotted cream?
I made clotted cream and tried to heat it for serving. It immediately disintegrated so I tried to salvage it by freezing it. It solidified into something yellowish and left some liquid at the bottom, just like when I made the clotted cream. Is the solid part still clotted cream or is it something else?
What recipe did you follow for making it? I found version based on heavy cream, normal cream, and creme double. Yellowish would make me speculate about butter, but that is pure speculation on my side.
Why would you heat clotted cream? It's used in the same way as whipped cream or ice cream...
@Layna: Low heated fatty, heavy cream for 12 hours then refrigerated overnight.
@ElendilTheTall: Because I store it in the fridge and I don't want to eat it cold.
It's meant to be eaten cold, or at least room temperature. It's definitely not meant to be eaten warm. If you don't want to eat it stone cold, take the amount you plan on using out of the fridge a couple of hours before you want to eat it.
From your description and re-reading the instructions for your version: yes, what you had on top was still clotted cream.
They liquid on the bottom should be whey, which gets separated from the rest during the clotting-process. Re-heating did start the same process you used originally, and left-over whey separated again.
You made butter. Unsalted butter, but butter nonetheless
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.210620 | 2014-10-24T05:01:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49217",
"authors": [
"Ashley Cheyenne",
"Chloe Forde",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Emre",
"Layna",
"Lyse Myette",
"Profile Spam Account",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9896"
],
"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
} |
41751 | Infusing orange into tea while avoiding bitterness
What precautions should I follow to avoid imparting a bitter taste when infusing orange into my tea by placing the rind in the teapot?
Try to remove as much of the pith as possible before drying peels or using them fresh. You can use a microplane or zester to remove rind without cutting into the pith.
You can remove even more bitterness if you boil the rinds for one minute, drain, add fresh water and repeat. Do this several times.
I found an ice cream scoop to be an effective depither. Thanks for the idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.210783 | 2014-02-04T00:52:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41751",
"authors": [
"Emre",
"MIKE",
"NewbieKaren",
"Prometheamoth",
"ShaileshKumarMPatel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9896"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51881 | Why do my pancakes taste dry?
I've tried various pancake mixes, and they always taste "healthy" and dry compared with the ones at a good cafe, and I don't mean greasy like iHOP's. What am I missing, fat?
We need more information to think about this problem. What is in the pancake mixes you've tried? How have you cooked them?
The most recent one has Brown Rice Flour, White Rice Flour, Corn Starch, Buttermilk, Granulated Honey, Baking Powder (Corn), Sodium Bicarbonate, Salt, Xanthan Gum. I don't know the older ones. I tried adding water or milk and cooking on a nonstick pan.
Are you gluten insensitive? Gluten free mixes like the one you listed are less likely to have a great texture/mouthfeel than standard wheat flour ones.
No but the others tasted similar.
The recipe list looks more for a self-rising flour replacement than an instant pancake mix. At the very least, I'd have expected you to need egg or some sort of egg replacement if you were to get away with just adding water.
More careful inspection of the good pancakes revealed that I was overcooking mine. The cafes brown the outsides but leave the insides slightly raw to be moist
Overcooking will do it ... but you may also want try letting the batter rest for 15-30 minutes after mixing it. You often need extra time for gluten free flours to hyrate.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.210976 | 2014-12-23T05:24:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51881",
"authors": [
"DM Dupéré",
"Emre",
"Hany Girgis",
"Joe",
"Matthew Walton",
"Puspam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9896",
"rumtscho",
"todd lam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24048 | How to determine quality of spices
I know using spices while cooking is often subjective and you would use spices that you deem appropriate for certain dish but it is undeniable that when you do use them, you should use fresh and good ones.
Now, this question is being made with intent of it becoming community wiki and a great resource for people trying to get good spices. To get to the question, how would you recognize superior spices when you go shopping? What would be some objective (and subjective) tests for determining spice quality.
In case this doesn't become a community wiki, I'll add a specific question so that this one doesn't get deleted and also to start the list of spices - how would you recognize great saffron from a lousy one?
I think you're trying way too hard to make this turn into a community wiki question. There aren't all that many different categories of spices, and it should generally be possible to provide an answer that covers most common things, even if it misses a thing or two (e.g. vanilla beans) where there's some very specific knowledge to be had, and it's fine to ask separate questions about those.
OK, will edit my question and make specific ones for other spices.
Well, let me just cover bottled spices here, since that seems like enough to bite off:
Age: while often difficult to determine, age is the #1 determinant of spice quality. Unfortunately, most mass market brands of spices do not print packaging dates on bottles (deliberately). Try asking the staff at your market. Dried herbs are at their best for 3-6 months, and ground seeds (cumin etc.) are good for 6-12 months.
Vendor: different brands of spices have different levels of quality of sourcing, preparing, and packaging spices. For example, I buy spices from Penzey's specifically because I know their high-quality sourcing and preparation. Cook's Illustrated rated Spice Islands superior among supermarket brands.
Variety: some varieties of certain common spices are better than others. Ceylon cinnamon is superior to Mexican; Tellicherry peppercorns are superior to the common variety; and Turkish bay leaves are better than Californian. Also, because they are more expensive, finer varieties of spices are often packaged and stored better.
Storage Conditions: heat, moisture, and/or direct sunlight all cause spices to age much faster. To check for moisture, look for caking. To check for exposure to sunlight, look for faded colors, especially on only one side of the bottle.
Smell: if you're buying in bulk, or you already have the bottle open, most spices should have a strong and distinctive aroma. If they don't, they're probably old.
Taste: Spices should taste of themselves and not have extra musty or bitter flavors. These off tastes are generally indications of age and/or poor storage.
Note that all but variety are true for basically all spices, and you can usually deal with age and storage conditions by just finding a good vendor, so finding a good place to shop (and evaluating the first things you do buy on smell and taste) is kind of the main answer.
@Fuzzy, great answer. The only thing that I would add is to look for labeling. The better spices will clearly label what they offer ("Ceylon Cinnamon", rather than just "Cinnamon", etc.) The vendors that offer quality want to tell you about it, others just obscure their product in a generic name.
@CosCallis: You have to be careful with that advice. Some spices have multiple perfectly good varieties (perhaps they're just different), and manufacturers aren't shy about labeling them to make them look better.
@Jefromi, perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to the completeness of the label not the "visual appeal". When spices come in 'equally good' varieties the better spice vendors will label them so that you know what you are getting.
@CosCallis: I understood you just fine - and I'm saying, a "complete" label is appealing to many people (it clearly is to you), and while sometimes the information might be important ("ceylon cinnamon" vs "cinnamon"), other times it might not be ("mediterranean oregano" and "oregano" are almost certainly the same thing).
@Jefromi, but "Mediterranean Oregano" is NOT "Mexican Oregano" where as "Oregano" may be either or neither...which is why I like "complete" labels.
I agree with Cos Callis here; in general any label which bothers to identify specific origin or species variety of spices is going to be superior quality. However, the reverse isn't necessarily true; many good brands don't make a point of spice origin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.211133 | 2012-05-28T21:59:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24048",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"FuzzyChef",
"Louise Goldie Landers",
"colsw",
"fred rollatini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9921",
"mikey",
"rlab"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23175 | Different techniques in making creme brulee
What is the difference between stirring the egg yolks and sugar then adding the heated cream and heating the cream and sugar together then add the mixture to beaten egg yolks? Also some recipes call for egg yolks only and some egg yolks plus whole eggs. What is the difference?
In this case, the mixing order won't make that much of a difference. You need the sugar dissolved and the yolks broken up.
However, adding the sugar to the yolks will have two results:
- it will allow you to more easily break up the yolks but if you mix too much it could actually aerate them- not a big risk but not good thing for creme brulee.
- more importantly the sugar will give you a little bit of buffer to keep the yolks from curdling when you mix in the hot cream.
As for using just yolks vs yolks and whites.
Yolks have a lot of protein but they are very high in fat. Whites are just blobs of protein, of course. Using only yolks creates custards that are very rich and creamy but also high in fat (which is where "rich and creamy" comes from). Using the whites gives some of the needed binding power while reducing the fat a little.
Additionally- whole eggs are easier to use because the eggs don't have to be separated and you have fewer extra whites to use elsewhere.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.211495 | 2012-04-18T16:12:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23175",
"authors": [
"21eleven",
"Debbie Erman",
"Letitia Hayles",
"Terry Diederich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52417"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23993 | How can I stop my eggs from cooking when I make lemon/lime curd?
I used this recipe http://allrecipes.com/recipe/fresh-lime-curd/. I added a lot of the hot liquid to temper the eggs and they looked good and then I added the mixture to the pot and whisked but the egg whites still cooked and I had to strain the curd to get it all out.
Is there a better way to avoid this from happening?
It certainly sounds like the pot was just too hot - and since you say "pot"... were you using a double boiler?
Yes sorry I was using double boiler and I turned it down and added about 2 cups of the hot liquid to the eggs to temper and it was all good until I combined it all
Two cups? There's one cup of liquid plus a cup of sugar, so there shouldn't even have been two cups of hot liquid to begin with. If you added that much to the eggs to temper, are you really sure you didn't actually cook them then and just not notice? Even if not, if there was little liquid left in the double boiler when you poured it back in, you might well have cooked the bottom layer immediately.
The recipe calls for two teaspoons, not two cups!
@BaffledCook: Two tablespoons, but yeah. "A little of it" not "all of it".
Ok I apologize I might have over exaggerated! I did add the two tablespoons but I was afraid they would still cook so I added a bit more (about 1/4 of the liquid) to get the temp up. The eggs weren't cooked before I put them back in the double boiler but I'm thinking heat might have been it because my water boiled off a bit
To prevent this from happening, apart from what Jefromi says, check the temperature with a thermometer. Eggs start coagulating around 60ºC. If you keep the temperature around 55ºC you are pasteurizing the eggs at the same time.
Thanks! I will keep these numbers in mind the next time I attempt curd
You're welcome, of course. Harold McGee is the man.
-1 At 60ºC the curd will never thicken. Yes, McGee says that coagulation starts around 60ºC/140ºF (63ºC/140ºF for egg white and 65ºC/150ºF for the yolk). But he also notes that egg mixed with as much liquid and sugar as you need for a curd, raises the coagulation temperature to between 79 and 83ºC (175-185ºF). See McGee, On Cooking p93 (EGG-LIQUID MIXTURES/Dilution Demands Delicacy)
The general things to keep in mind are:
Don't mix a ton of the hot mixture into the eggs at once. Add a little at a time.
Don't use too high heat. It's better to be slow about this than to have scrambled eggs.
Don't overheat before you temper the eggs. Go only as far as the recipe says to. If it's too hot, you might be fine if you temper carefully, but then when you mix it all back together, push it over the edge and cook the egg.
Don't let the mixture in the double boiler get too hot while you're tempering the eggs. If you've got it running too hot, and you take out a lot of liquid, what's left can get hot fast, and then when you pour it back in, you might cook a bit of the egg before you can whisk and even out the temperature.
So in summary: err on the side of too slow and too cool. The worst that can happen is that you have to stir for a long time while it thickens.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.211650 | 2012-05-25T06:33:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23993",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Hovawart",
"Jarrod Sears",
"Luz_Ramirez",
"Mike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user54447",
"user7360444"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23758 | Use high gluten (bread) flour for hand pulled noodles
I found that recipes on hand pulled noodles use various types of flours that's confusing from a chemistry perspective. Dough made from high gluten flour is more elastic and less extensible which doesn't sound like a good candidate for hand pulled noodles. Has anybody had success making hand pulled noodles from high gluten flour?
Any experience and theory is appreciated! Thanks.
I'm confused... if by extensible you mean "able to extend or stretch", then shouldn't more elastic dough be more "extensible"?
@jay no. Elastic means that it returns to its shape after deformation. A rubber band is elastic, because no matter how you pull it, it goes back after it has been left. Sugar syrup is extensible but not elastic, you can pull it to a very long strand (pulled candy or cotton candy) and it doesn't snap back.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/9084/641
Hand pulled noodles are normally made with low to medium gluten flour (cake flour)
Alkalines, like Lye water or baking soda are added to soften hard flours (high gluten). You use much less for soft flour
Elastic may not be the word you want, supple is what you want in the dough. It need to be able to pull and not break, and stay that way
The dough needs to sit a few hours to fully saturate. Also keep it warm at a high-ish room temperature to keep it supple
It can take years of practice to pull noodles well
a few hours? ok, I will try that.
Only did a quick pulling lesson and, yes, would need years... but the dough only rested minutes initially then half an hour between pull sessions: After 6 or 7 stretches, once everything ripped apart, dough rested and was then much more compliant with my torture.
Only managed in the end 7 pulls; fewer than my 6 year old!
So, give it a go with the higher gluten but longer rests in between
How many half hour rests do I need?
depends on how many sessions of stretching you find necessary before good results. I imagine that Iwould just fail miserably and rip apart my noodles then give it a covered rest, try again. As long as the dough doesn't dry out...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.211948 | 2012-05-15T01:40:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23758",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Candy Chiu",
"E.S",
"Guillaume Brunerie",
"Jay",
"Lily A",
"Pat Sommer",
"angel_butterfly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"user53880"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23974 | How do I keep dough moist while rising?
If I'm rising dough for a really long time (at home), what techniques are there for keeping the surface moist? What I'm finding is that the crumb comes out as I'd like (very aerated, mature), but that the top forms a skin, causing the side to burst despite scoring on the top with a razor.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21573/what-should-i-cover-bread-dough-with-while-its-rising
The best recommendation I have seen is plain plastic wrap. If you have an oil mister, mist the wrap before using it. If you don't, pour oil into a bowl, enough to form a puddle, and toss your ball of dough in the oil. Then transfer your dough to the rising container (if you use the same bowl you used for oiling, take the dough out, pour out the superfluous oil, return the dough into the bowl). In the best case, the bowl will be deep enough for the dough to rise without the middle touching the wrap, but if it rises more (even with the dough pressing against the wrap), dough with enough gluten development will peel off the oiled wrap with minimal losses, even if it is wet.
The wrap will keep your dough surface moist in both the fridge and outside. It doesn't allow breathing, but this shouldn't be a concern in most cases. If you overyeast the dough, the collection of fermentation byproducts in the bowl will probably make for worse taste than if they are allowed to dissipate, but the correct solution for this problem is to not produce them in the first place. With your "very long times", this is probably not a problem in your case.
You can also use this method for the secondary fermentation. But in the final proofing stage, you have to make sure that your dough never rises enough to touch the wrap, or else the loaf will deform while you are removing the wrap. Also, if you are proofing in banettons, don't oil them, use flour combinations to prevent sticking.
If you are out of plastic wrap, substituting alu wrap is a bad idea, because yeast is very sensitive to metallic ions. Today's non-reactive metal utensils are safe enough for use with yeast dough, but untreated aluminium can be problematic. Try baking paper instead (you may have to tape it to the outer bowl walls).
You can also use a kitchen towel with a plate on top to keep it 'sealed'. Personally I use plastic wrap and spray oil, though I spray the dough not the wrap because it's easier.
Actually, I should have mentioned, I'm making baguettes- about half a dozen at a time. This is quite difficult to cover with cling-wrap. I've been thinking I need to get a big plastic tub with a lid and build my own racking system in it, but was wondering if anyone had any better ideas.
In that case, get a big food-grade plastic bag, like a turkey bag, put the baguettes on the back of a sheet pan on some baking paper, and slide the whole shabang into the bag, then seal and put in the fridge.
As an alterantive to plastic wrap, you can also get a professional dough rising bucket:
We used to use these in the bakery where I worked, and I still use one at home for bread. The plastic lid seals well, and works great to hold moisture in.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.212154 | 2012-05-24T09:12:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23974",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Heidi",
"Mick Sear",
"Mien",
"RickJamesBitch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54443",
"knightofmars",
"user3700940"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36999 | What are the acceptable methods to thaw food items?
What are the proper ways to thaw foods? Are there any advantages or disadvantages to them?
There are four methods for thawing frozen foods which are recognized as safe:
In a refrigerator
In the microwave
Under cool running water
As part of the cooking process
These four methods all meet the criteria that they minimize the amount of time the food spends in the danger zone (40-140 F, 4-60 C) where bacteria can grow.
The pros and cons of the following often-recommended methods are also reviewed:
Leaving food on the counter overnight
Thawing in a bowl (or sink) of water
On a metal pan or with a "miracle thaw" device
In the refrigerator
Thawing food in the refrigerator is slow; it can take a day to thaw several pounds (a kilogram or two), and even more time for larger foods like a whole frozen turkey.
The advantage is that the refrigerator is at a safe temperature, and bacterial growth is already inhibited, so there is little risk.
This is probably the preferred method for many foods, if you have the time.
In the microwave
Thawing in the microwave is fast, but it has several disadvantages:
It requires a lot of attention, turning or rotating the food to get even coverage from the microwaves; for items like ground beef, you might even need to scrape off the thawed portions and continue defrosting the frozen portion.
It is easy to accidently go to far and start cooking the food, especially if it has an odd shape or small pointier parts sticking out (like wings on a chicken).
For this reason, microwave thawing is best done only for foods like soup or stew, where you can stir them and if one part boils a small amount while another part is frozen, no harm is done.
Under cool running water
This one is most surprising, but it is true: the fastest way to thaw food safely is under cool running water (at or below 70 F / 21 C), like the cold water from your tap.
The reason is that that water has an extremely high capacity for carrying heat, and the forced convection from running water ensures that it transfers heat from the food item as rapidly as possible. In the Good Eats episode What's Up Duck, Alton Brown thawed several frozen ice duck sculptures by various methods. The one under cool running water was almost completely melted, even when the one in the oven at 200 F was still fairly recognizably bird shaped.
It is important that the water be running, to ensure strong convection. You can do this by setting the food in the sink under a very small stream of water.
If the food should not get wet, you can put it in a zip-type bag or similar to keep it dry. Try to remove as much air as possible, to get the best contact between the water and the food (through the bag).
This is the best method for forced, rapid thawing (at least when microwaving is not appropriate or inconvenient), but it is probably less convenient that the refrigerator method. You also have to monitor the food, and remove it when it is thawed, or it will come to the ambient temperature of the water, which is probably in the danger zone.
As part of the cooking process
Some foods can be cooked starting from the frozen state, thawing and then cooking in one operation.
Among the ones most suitable for this are are smaller or thinner items, such as:
Cookie dough lumps
Hamburgers
Chicken parts
Pizza
Stew meat
Frozen, chopped vegetables
Frozen stock (at least in smaller quantities)
Bad idea: on the Counter overnight
This is a bad idea, especially for meats and other highly perishable items. You have no control over the temperature the surface of the food will reach, and it may begin to spoil at the surface before the center is thawed.
Bad idea: In a bowl (or sink) of cold water
Again, a bad idea. Without the convection, the thawing speed is reduced. There is also no source of newer, cooler water, so the temperature of the water itself will rise.
Some parts of the food may reach dangerous temperatures before it is fully thawed. Also, if you don't check the food frequently, the temperature can get into dangerous territories, facilitating spoilage.
Risky: On a cast iron, stainless steel or other metal pan, or a "miracle thaw" device
This method is most often used with thin foods like steaks or frozen hamburgers.
Physics are with you, as the specific heat capacity and conductivity of the metal are very high (higher even than water). The large surface area of the metal acts like a radiator or heat sink in reverse, conducting heat away from the food more rapidly than air alone would.
This method is not approved by health codes for commercial use, and carries some risks. You need to monitor the food closely, and cook it or move it into the refrigerator as soon as it is thawed. Failure to do so will allow the food to spoil, and the conductivity of your metal will become your enemy, more quickly bringing the food to ambient temperature.
While this method is not officially sanctioned, you may choose to assess its risks for yourself.
See also:
USDA Food Safety Fact Sheet
How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
please, define 'cool running water', as having a water heater allows to vary the stream temperature in like 15..60C.
Bypass the water heater; use the cold faucet.
USDA recommends cool running water means below 21 C
After managing restaurants, where chicken was a staple, frozen chicken does very well, under a small stream of running water, thawing safely. If you thaw in refrigerator, put your chicken on bottom shelf, avoids cross contamination with other items
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.212433 | 2013-09-22T15:38:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36999",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8988",
"kagali-san"
],
"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
} |
108753 | What would you call this spatula?
It's my favorite but its getting a bit worn and I've been trying to order a replacement online. I've tried "spatula with scooped sides" and "spatula with angled sides" but nothing leads to what I want. Everything I look for just leads to a regular flat spatula, or sometimes a rubber spatula, an angled spatula or even a fish spatula.
It's a slotted spatula with slightly angled sides to help scoop up food.
I got some similar devices searching for “curved slotted spatula.”
It reminds me of a wok chuan, though a chuan wouldn't usually have slots in it. I don't think your spatula has a specific name--it feels like it is just a slotted spatula that is inspired by a chuan to be well suited for stir fry
I guess just search for spatula, get some coffee and sit down for an hour scrolling through amaz0n till you find something similar.
@AMtwo : that was my thought too (although, I'm used to calling them a 'wok shovel', but like you've said, I've never seen one that was slotted.
"Nylon Slotted Scoop Turner" ? amazon
@zanlok That's exactly the same as mine! It even has that weird 9 bump grip on the handle and the hole at the end for hanging. I think an answer would also add the general description of a wok chuan/spatula though, as I was looking for something with raised sides and didn't realize this is what it was called. If you had an answer that incorporated that and the specific case with my spatula I would accept that. I guess this one just happens to be slotted.
See?! No-one knows what to actually call them ;-)
@Wolfgang Cool beans. Whatever the right answer is, at least now you have a way to get the desired replacement :)
Well I don't really like answering my own question, but I think there has been enough information to provide one.
The shape of the spatula appears to be based on a wok chuan or wok spatula, which have a shovel like design which helps when stir-frying dishes in a wok. However, these don't generally have a slotted design.
Credit to @AMtwo and @Joe for pointing this out.
@zanlok provided a link on amazon that exactly matches my spatula. Apparently it is a product created by Crestware. The description, "Nylon Slotted Scoop Turner" only returns results for the same product from Crestware, so I'm not sure it's a good general description.
@Tetsujin provided egg slice, and while I appreciate and have upvoted the answer, I think it more describes a wider spatula but doesn't include the raised sides that the wok spatula has.
I would guess that the best description would be "slotted wok spatula". However, I suspect that my actual spatula was only created out of an effort by a company to produce as many varying types of kitchen utensils so as to increase sales of said utensils. While I still like it, the functions I use it for may be better filled by either a slotted spatula or a wok chuan/spatula.
It's an egg slice - like a fish slice but more curved & wider.
It's for flipping/serving fried eggs… though tbh I just use a fish slice for anything like that.
Your only problem with searching it is 'egg slice' brings up a million hits for slicing eggs, so 'egg slice spatula' or 'egg fish slice spatula' might hone it down a bit. Lots of manufacturers have many things that vary in shape between the two profiles, egg or fish.
I always think half the issue with this is that no-one else knows it's properly called an egg slice either - so searching gets pretty tough.
You might get a better set of hits with 'egg turner spatula' as it seems many people call them an egg turner.
It does also look a bit like a slotted chuan, but if you search chuan, you don't get holes.
A fish slice seems to be a UK term for spatula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_slice_(kitchen_utensil)) so I think "egg slice" might be local to the UK as well. Wok Chuan or Wok Spatula seems to get the shape, but you're right I can't find anything that is slotted.
What about the elevated sides - is there a term for that? I think that may have been a key part of the question.
Two kinds on ebay, one slotted and one no slots. both under $3,00 and I just purchased several of both for myself and family members:
CRESTWARE NY1 Turner,Slotted,Curved,12-1/4 in. L
CRESTWARE NY2 Turner,Solid,Curved,13 in. L
Hope this helps.
Thomas
I would call it "a fish slice with raised sides".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.212871 | 2020-05-31T00:16:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108753",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Tetsujin",
"Wolfgang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16048 | Why are we not generally using egg in Buckwheat crêpe (or galette) but only in Wheat Flour crêpe?
I was doing so research over the internet to know why egg are typically use in wheat flour crêpe but not in Buckwheat crêpe. Is there's a reason for it or it is just a simple question of recipe ?
I have always seen eggs in buckwheat crepes (look for Crêpes au Sarrasin which is the French name for them)
I just looked at different buckwheat crepe recipes and they all had eggs in them. However, I often make crepes without eggs and use some chickpea flour mixed in with the regular flour. It works because of the flavor of the chickpea flour and the extra protein. Maybe buckwheat flour has the same effect?
Galette bretonnes traditionally just water and buckwheat, no egg. True, egg makes the crepe less fragile, but with a good pan and the batter the right consistency, eggs are not necessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.213310 | 2011-07-09T12:55:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16048",
"authors": [
"Rasmus",
"Robert",
"Sara D Gore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6711",
"nico"
],
"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
} |
89752 | How long can I store open wine for cooking?
I bought a bottle of wine larger than required for my recipe. How and how long can I keep the remainder, so I can use it in cooking again? (In other words, it needn't be drinkable.)
Can't you drink what's left ?
@Max plenty of people cook with wine but don't drink it, don't drink at all, or don't drink alone but live alone,etc.
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85518/can-i-use-cooking-sherry-instead-of-red-wine-in-my-stew/85519#85519 for another idea that might be of help.
Tightly closed and in the fridge it will keep for a few days, maybe a week if you can tolerate it being a bit rough (which you can for some dishes like my tomato, smoked garlic and red wine sauce with chilli - in fact that doesn't want anything too delicate to start with). If there's less than about 2/3 of the bottle left, transfer to a smaller container.
But that's not what I would do. Instead I'd freeze it in useful quantities. There are two things to bear in mind of you freeze wine: it expands (so use a bigger container than you think); and it doesn't go completely solid (so keep it the right way up). In the freezer it keeps indefinitely.
You don't want it to go far beyond drinkable, unless your recipe calls for vinegar as well, which you should use less of.
Wine has to be drinkable to be used in cooking, if it goes nasty you'll be adding the nasty flavors to your food! Don't cook with wine you wouldn't be happy to serve at your table. Wine keeps for a long time in the refrigerator, so cap it back up as tight as you can and get it in there as soon as you can after using it.
This assumes that the "nasty" flavors are a) less or equally volatile than the ones you want in the food, and that b) they are not usually masked or suitable in a savory context (vinegar is a problem in drinking vine, not in many savory dishes!). Can you elaborate?
When a recipe calls for wine it isn't calling for vinegar @rackandboneman. If you leave wine out and it goes bad that's what you essentially have.
I too regularly keep wine that has soured for cooking, and though I would not call it nasty, it is also no longer wine, it is indeed vinegar even if it still has some alcohol in is. Can still produce excellent dishes, but not the same ones as usually intended which wine. And even if vinegar is intended, one does have to be careful that vinegar is what they have and not spoilage.
@dlb , I'm not saying to throw out wine that's old, it can make part of a nice salad dressing. Depends on the wine.
I freeze it.
I have a bag full of wine ice cubes that I can use when I want to deglaze a pan, or just need to add a little wine to a dish.
It lasts for months this way. (at least, good enough for cooking with)
I recommend a Wine Pump Preserver, it's cheap and has open wine bottles last much longer.
Doing this and keeping the wine refrigerated should help the wine last longer otherwise taste and or smell for a sour or vinegar taste before use. Wine should be drinkable if used to cook with (exception being cooking wine for the drinkability but that also can still go bad).
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
I hope my edit helped clarify.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.213424 | 2018-05-11T17:11:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89752",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Divi",
"GdD",
"Jade So",
"Jolenealaska",
"Max",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86102 | Can I make Turkish Delight with jelly powder?
I have come across some Turkish Delight recipes calling for cornstarch, others for gelatin, some use both and one that uses store-bought jelly powder (aka gelatin dessert aka Jell-O).
The jelly powder recipe confused me because it has few other ingredients, so how does it end up with the texture of Turkish Delight rather than gelatin dessert?
On the other hand, using store-bought powder gives me easy access to lots of flavours. Can I use store-bought jelly powder to make feels-like-the-real-thing Turkish Delight?
Can you expand on what differentiates this question from the linked one? rumtscho's answer over there looks like it's also the answer to this.
As the answer to the linked question states, original Turkish delight is made using only cornstarch.
I understand you're asking specifically about the recipe linked and how it differs from other recipes. I'll try to answer the following points:
Q: Why do some recipes call other gelling agents such as gelatin, next to cornstarch.
A: Like most thickeners, gelling agents, cornstarch is also susceptible to syneresis/weeping. Using other hydrocolloids helps preventing this. In Turkey, apart from traditional confectioneries, to cut down the syneresis, pectin is mainly used as the choice of additional gelling agent.
Q: Can gelatin alone be used to get the same texture, as the traditional Turkish Delight?
A: The answer is simply: "No". As gelatin will form a brittle gel, which is not really even close to texture of the gel that would be formed by gelatinized cornstarch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.213706 | 2017-12-03T19:20:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86102",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993"
],
"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
} |
89429 | Is there a general strategy to cooking a stew?
I've looked at a couple of stew recipes with the aim of learning a general approach that can be applied to whatever I have on hand, but I can't see one. I was expecting something like:
brown meat
add hard vegetables after X minutes
add soft vegetable after Y minutes
Is there a general approach like this?
I suspect that it might be in "How to Cook Without a Book" or maybe some guidelines/discussion in "Cookwise", but I don't have access to look right now. A quick internet search found https://www.reluctantgourmet.com/how-to-stew-anything/ and http://www.azeliaskitchen.net/how-to-make-a-casserole-or-stew/ , but neither are specific on times. (it's difficult, as it's a function of the size that you cut things, not just 'hard' or 'soft', and acidity of the liquid ... and you often have "base" vegetables (onion, garlic) you add with the meat)
I completely agree with your second reference's advice not to flour the meat. I can see no reason to do it in a European-style stew. Far better to cook the flour out (with the mirepoix, if there is one, perhaps adding a bit of extra meat fat) and then deglaze with the liquid, adding reasonably gently, to make a smooth veloute as your cooking liquor.
You can't give a general approach the way you outlined it, as different cuts of meat (and different ages of the animal) demand different cooking times.
So the timing of the vegetables would have to be "X minutes before the meat is done"... (and that leaves out the characteristics of your particular batch of vegetables)
Then there's the option of adding a vegetable in two batches, once to add flavour to the stew (added very early in the process) and once just in time to get the vegetable cooked to taste.
So there not really a standard approach, but more a few basic principles to be understood and then applied at will.
(As an aside, flouring the meat is done here in France sometimes. I don't quite agree with the reason given not to flour the meat, as the maillard reaction needs both protein, from the meat juices, and sugars, from the flour. Browning only the flour would be closer to a caramelisation process)
I was just about to post that I had realized the mistake, but you already pointed it out -- it's not 'add them at (x) interval' it's more 'cook itemA for timeA; cook itemB for timeB' and then reversing it all to figure out when to add things relative to the item that went in just before it. Now we just need to find/make a table of cooking times (1cm potatoes diced cooked in simmering broth takes X minutes; etc)
Stew, in it's origin idea is way of creating a meal from oversalted cured meats during winter, long stored vegetables. Those things can vary from time it was stored, temperature it was kept in and amount of salt.
The rule of thumb is "STEW all until it's soft". You put meat and hard vegetables together. Add whole potato to have something to absorb the salt. If using fresh meat you need to fry it on high heat before to keep the moisture inside meat. And that's all. I've never seen a gulasz recipe that had time included.
Although I cannot compete with all the wonderful chefs above, I can affirm that I make a simple stew in a crockpot and it tastes wonderful! No browning, no flouring of the meat. Just throw everything in and let in cook 6-8 hours on high.
Spray the bottom of the crockpot. Put sliced onions at the bottom. Add 1/4 cup barley or rice (gluten free). desired vegetables (any combination of carrots, potatoes, sweet potatoes, celery, turnip, or other root vegetables). Add stew meat in chunks. Add bay leaves, garlic powder, black pepper, paprika and salt. Add packet of onion soup mix, if desired. Pour in water until it reaches ALMOST the top of the meat, but doesn't cover it.
After 6-8 hours, mix thoroughly and enjoy!
If you're struggling, one thing you can do is fry the meat (in one or more batches), reserve it in another dish, then fry the vegetables (again in one or more batches). This is normally done to avoid overcrowding the pan but makes the timing more flexible. Then you can add everything back in and stir it up with a little flour before adding the liquid. This is a good time to add garlic as well (if you want it) as it's easy to burn garlic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.213865 | 2018-04-26T16:06:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89429",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"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
} |
16077 | How can I tell if a vegetarian recipe is suitable for freezing?
I am a vegetarian looking to save time. I thought cooking in large batches and freezing would be a good option. However, I don't know which of my recipes are freezable and which are not, how can I tell? Are there certain ingredients that make a recipe non-freezable, or is it only possible to tell on a case-by-case basis, and if so what are the criteria?
Otherwise, are there good online resources for healthy, freezable, vegetarian recipes? Or, can anyone share any suitable recipes they recommend?
Freezing is bad for things which have a special structure and lots of water. Everything else should be OK with freezing.
The prime example of a thing which behaves badly when frozen is a fruit. It consists mostly of water, but is firm instead of liquid because the water is contained within a cellulose structure created by the cell walls of the fruit. When you freeze it, the water turns to sharp ice crystals, which also expand in volume (water is one of the few liquids which does that upon freezing), and they hurt the cell walls. When you defrost the fruit, it turns terribly soft, and all the juice runs out. It is practically like maceration without the sugar. You can use the fruit for cooking, e.g. for a jelly, but it is not the same thing as a fresh fruit.
Another example which is very structure dependent is whipped egg white. It is a fragile foam, and the formation of ice crystals is also very damaging for it. Whipped cream is similar - you can freeze it (and get ice cream), but it melts to a liquid, not a foam.
On the other hand, foods which have a specific structure but not much water are OK with freezing. Butter is not pure fat, it is an emulsion of 17% water in 83% fat. Emulsions tend to have very fragile structures (don't freeze mayonnaise), but butter is OK, because there isn't much water so the formation of crystals doesn't disrupt the structure. Another exception which is OK to freeze is dough. A dough being practically a mesh of gluten, it doesn't get really hurt by the crystals.
There are a few ingredients which develop an off taste when frozen. For example, don't freeze anything carbonated, it tastes terrible afterwards.
You should also consider the problem of freezer burn. It happens when the moisture of the frozen product sublimates in the dry freezer air. To prevent it, you have to seal the food airtight. You are therefore limited by the kind of food you can seal. If you have a food which would make a mess in a home vacuum sealer, like a wet stew, you could try freezing it for a night, so it is hard but does not have freezer burn yet, and then sealing the frozen chunk and returning it to the freezer.
Some ingredients will prevent the food from freezing into a solid block. Notable examples are salt, alcohol and propylene glycol (which is used as a solvent in food coloring and baking aromas). This shouldn't be a food safety problem, because first, bacteria growth is inhibited by low temperatures, and second, if you have these things in concentration high enough to completely prevent freezing at -18°C, then they will kill the bacteria by themselves. But it can cause some logistic problems if the food stays too soft.
As you see, these general guidelines have exceptions, or at least require some knowledge of what food is built like (but frankly, I would have predicted that yeast dough freezes badly if I didn't know from experience that it works well). So you should definitely try to remember it on a per-case basis for the most common things you intend to freeze. A very convenient guideline is to think if you can buy a premade equivalent frozen at the supermarket. If they sell it, it will probably turn out OK when frozen at home (sometimes with differences, like frozen fruit). If they don't have the food (or its major ingredients), there is probably a reason for that.
wow, thanks! combined with baffledcook's tips this basically covers everything not covered by experimentation - would a lasagna freeze well? my guess is a definite no?
Lasagna should freeze excellently. You can buy it in the store. Bechamel freezes fine.
I don't understand why you insist on 'vegetarian'. To freeze or not to freeze that's the question. Most vegetables & fruits freeze well. Some should be blanched before freezing (put the product in boiling water for a minute, then shock it in ice water, then freeze).
Most cooked foods freeze well. The only exception I'm aware of are whole potatoes (but that's a matter of opinion, I've got a book that says potatoes freeze without a problem).
The thing about freezing is to freeze correctly. 1. Let the food cool. 2. Make individual packages (for the amount of food you usually use: 1 person, 2 persons, family). 3. Press all the air out of the packages (use a vacuum if you can). 4. Put the packages flat and distributed in the freezer so they freeze as fast as possible. 5. De-freeze in the fridge.
Do put a date and content on the packages, and enjoy your food.
Pd. Welcome to this site.
just keeping the question focused :) thanks for the handy freezing tips
From experience, I will say that whole-bean dishes are not great after freezing but frozen bean/dhal puree works. That means frozen chilie will suffer but pea soup not.
Doughs and pastas are mostly good freezing candidates -uncooked. Homemade ravioli, Chinese dumplings, gnocchi, pierogi, and puff-pastry pockets are all good cooked straight from frozen. Lasagna being the most forgiving of the 'frozen left-over' category.
Grain dishes are not usually good candidates; the exception being polenta. Some folks swear by pre-portioned frozen brown rice, however (I will forgive them, just).
Mashed potato freezes well as does the nearly-mashed-texture of scalloped potato. The only other potato dish that is acceptably textured after freezing (mealiness!) is chips/fries -any shape destined to hit the oil.
Tomato-based sauces freeze well as does sauce bases of pureed veg such as onion or eggplant. All will separate a bit on thawing but sauces get stirred anyway.
Soft and wet dishes suffer less than dry chewy ones: veg curry and ratatouille are good choices.
Mixes and patties: raw falafel in balls or slabs are great to have frozen as prep is only worth it for lg quantities. Bean burgers and those made with commercial tvp work well too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.214210 | 2011-07-11T12:37:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16077",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Beach",
"Sherry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6727",
"lofidevops",
"mary B",
"matt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16119 | How can I make a homemade latte taste like a restaurant one?
At the moment I prepare lattes at home as follows:
1/3 cup water + 1T ground coffee in Krups espresso machine (looks a bit like this one)
2/3 cup microwave-heated milk (the milk steamer on the machine doesn't work)
5 drops honey
It tastes nice, but not like a restaurant latte, and not just because there's no foam. What is needed to make coffee taste as good as restaurant coffee? This machine doesn't work properly so I'm prepared to buy some new equipment but obviously on a home budget not a restaurant one.
Machine: better to get one that grinds beans?
Ratio of ingredients: does it need to change?
Coffee form: beans / ground coffee?
Coffee strength: experimentation has settled on strong and milky, I don't think this needs to change
Milk: does it have to be steamed? do you get hand steamers?
Fat content of milk: fat free / 2% / full cream?
Container: surely not, restaurant stuff tastes better even in a takeaway paper cup! :)
Other variables?
Are you sure about the container? I found, that the coffee from our office coffee maker (a supposedly high-end model) tasted much worse than the takeaway coffee from the next restaurant. I then prepared coffee with the office machine into a used takeaway cup and the taste was much improved! This could be a placebo effect, but I think, you could try to use one of these paper cups with your home made coffee to see if it makes a difference.
All restaurants are definitely not created equal. Many if not most restaurant cappuccinos and lattes I've had are sub-par, if not outright bad; any chance you could be more specific about what seems to be lacking? "Good" doesn't really narrow the field.
Amazing recipe. If you can't make the froth like restaurants then don't buy heavy and expensive machines, use a blender with froth maker bottom instead (normal one also works)_ froth maker bottom is like a circular disc.
To answer your question with a straightforward solution, my key recommendation would be to buy a new machine for two reasons: better espresso and milk.
Before all, if you are not willing to invest more than $100 (USD) in a machine (more like $350, but I'm sure you can scrounge for a decent entry-level machine to get the job done), you can stop reading as my suggestion relies on a better machine. That said, quickly browsing Amazon I found a Cuisinart unit with tepid reviews (205 averaging 3.5 stars) on sale for about $80.
Here is what is going wrong with your latte:
Machine: If you have a Krups it's pressure probably isn't rated. This is a bad sign as it indicates how well it will "pull" (brew, make) the espresso. My guess for most units: Unrated = won't pull. Buy a machine with a rated pressure, 15-bar is what to expect. (I don't mean to sound snobby; I got by with a $60 Coffeemate for awhile, but they won't get you the results you're asking for)
Bean: Lattes are made with espresso, not coffee (U.S.). You're using coffee. So start by buying espresso beans instead of dark roast coffee or Folgers. While you're at it, if you want it to taste like restaurant quality, buy them from a local roaster (I'd imagine you can get some mad fresh beans in Africa) and grind them fresh (just prior to brewing). I prefer a coarser grind to my espresso, you will also need to press the grinds ("pack") in the gruppa (metal basket of machine).
Milk: While you're at it, don't necessarily use whatever comes out of the fridge. Here and here have the dirt on milk and frothing. Basically fuller body for the drink use milk with more fat, if not use less fat. If you have a favorite place in mind for your exemplar latte, go ask them where they get their milk and follow suit. There's a degree of preference in which milk you use, go with the one you know you prefer and perfect your technique.
Frothing/Steaming: You aren't frothing your milk. Buy a machine with a working wand, froth the milk. Actually, frothing the milk is fun and it tastes great all on its own. Note: you do want to get foam on top, this indicates you have properly steamed the milk below (remember to hold back the foam, and pour only the steamed milk into your latte, then depending on your region's definition adding a bit of foam on top).
Container: Add some dignity to life whenever you can. Use ceramic; you're at home.
Those are the key differences that are causing problems for the latte you want to amp up. Now you can skip the consumer espresso machine advice and get a stove-top setup (espresso pot and use a normal, smallish pot with a whisk for the milk), but that takes a smidge more effort in terms of getting it right. Either way, following these guidelines should get that latte much closer to where you want it to be. Basically, the only advantage the shop will have over yours is a bigger machine, overworked employees who might not have the time to care about your coffee at this time, and paper cups.
It actually turned out the (unrated) machine was faulty, so it is being replaced. In my case it was definitely equipment, equipment, equipment. Thanks for the thorough answer, though, in case someone else has the same question with a brand new machine (like me when mine arrives ;)
I find that the milk/foam is the thing that makes all the difference. Most of the domestic coffee machines make a poor job of frothing the milk for Lattes and cappuccinos. I use a steel milk frothing pan like this one:
http://www.saltandpepper.co.uk/cook_shop/brand/Judge/Milk+Preparation,195/2507
I bought mine in Italy 10 years or so ago but I have seen them on our high street since then. It goes on your hob where the milk, UHT or Semi skimmed seems to give the best foam, is heated till it is hot but not boiling and then you use the hand pump to force air through the hot milk and make it thick and foamy, this takes about 15 seconds. I then sugar my black espresso and pour it through the milk to make latte.
This works really well for foaming milk (although, allow me to be picky, Italian caffelatte does NOT have foamed milk in it, only cappuccino does)
You are absolutely correct. I remember being surprised in Italy when my wife's latte arrived and it seemed to comprise a shot of espresso topped up with hot milk. Here in the UK most places seem to use steamed(foamed) milk to which they add a shot to make what they call a latte but which should more accurately be referred to as a latte macchiatto.
@nico caffelatte does not have foamed milk? I remember it differently, and the Italian Wikipedia redirects caffelatte to latte macchiato, which has more foam than a cappuccino. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffelatte
@rumtscho: well, in Italy caffelatte is something you mostly drink at home for breakfast. Essentially coffee made with a stovetop moka with some warm milk poured in it. Outside of Italy caffelatte is known as latte (Italian for milk) and is usually done with foamed milk. In Italy if you want foamed milk you'll have to order a cappuccino. PS: although the wikipedia page redirects to latte macchiato the text says that it is an alternative drink to caffelatte, not an alternative name!
@nico thank you for clearing that up. BTW, in Germany, a Latte is understood to be the short form of Latte Macchiato, not a normal coffee with unfoamed milk. So latte for caffelatte isn't a worldwide standard. But I can imagine that it is used somewhere.
@rumtscho: sorry, rereading my comment above I see it is a bit unclear. I just meant that outside of Italy if you order a latte you get it with foamed milk. Then, if it is short for caffelatte o latte macchiato... well I'm not sure. Wikipedia seems to hint to caffelatte.
You didn't say in what way your coffee didn't taste the same, however, here are some of my thoughts.
Is this the same brand and type of coffee as at the shop. Different beans can have distinct different tastes.
How fresh is the grind? Coffee loses some flavour if stored ground.
How coarse is the grind? When you bought your coffee, did you tell the shop what machine you were using? Different preparation methods use a different coarseness of grind. Obviously, buying a machine that grinds itself will solve this as well as point 2 above.
How good is your machine? Some machines just make a better cup than others. If you can borrow a friends machine and try your coffee/method with their machine and see if that makes a difference or not.
Container. Some containers do make a difference. Personally I can't stand Styrofoam cups for coffee.
although my core problem turned out to be equipment, we reverted to a plunger using the same brand and type as our favourite local coffee, and lo and behold it was tasty and familiar! that part seems to be key to the overall solution
Simple, you get a high end domestic machine and learn how to use it. These simply contain similar hardware to your dual or triple group head cafe machines.
The cheapest machine that you can get - you mentioned lattes so you need to froth your milk - is the Rancillio Silvia. This is quite popular so you should have no trouble sourcing one. Also very important is your grinder. Ground beans go stale quickly so you need to G.O.D. Grind on demand.
Expect to part with $1000+ to get started.
So why does this differ from your Krups which kinda has similar looking parts? First the espresso shot. We are grinding coffee fresh, to a finer grind, using more of it (approx 7 grams for a single shot) and extracting under pressure. Extraction is probably less than 30 seconds. What we are trying to achieve is to extract only the good bits and leave the bad bits.
Once you have perfected that you have to steam your milk. With a good machine, you'll be able to create micro-foam which is tiny imperceptible bubbles mixed into the milk. This is easiest to achieve with full cream milk. The texture of the milk will be like cream. This is kinda like CO2 in fizzy drinks. It changes the mouth feel and makes the milk taste a bit sweeter.
These bubbles will start to separate eventually. So done correctly, you should be able to pour the milk straight into your cup and after a few seconds the bubbles separate to give you your distinctive layer.
You'll be able to get a great result with a plastic cup to take with you, but when at home, warm your cups on the top of the machine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.214967 | 2011-07-13T06:40:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16119",
"authors": [
"A E",
"Aaronut",
"Amelse Etomer",
"Chenny",
"Elle H",
"Eric",
"John Childers",
"Stephen Sadler",
"Wesley Hinkle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89457",
"lofidevops",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user89457"
],
"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
} |
85778 | Can I pastuerize eggs for eggnog without sous vide?
I would like to safely make eggnog with raw egg. The options I have read about are buying pasteurized eggs (can't find any locally) and sous vide (I don't have specialised equipment).
Is there any other way to pasteurize the eggs without special equipment, and without compromising the texture of the eggnog? I do have a blender :)
A simpler option (recommended by the FDA food safety website) is to use a cooked egg base:
Combine eggs and half the milk as indicated in the recipe. (Other ingredients, such as sugar may be added at this step.)
Cook the mixture gently to an internal temperature of 160 °F, stirring constantly. The cooking will destroy Salmonella, if present. At this temperature, the mixture will firmly coat a metal spoon (but please don’t lick the spoon if the custard is not fully cooked!).
After cooking, chill the mixture before adding the rest of the milk and other ingredients.
Cooked nog recipes can be easily found by Googling.
In my family's traditional recipe, the egg whites are whipped separately and then folded into the yolk/cream/sugar mix. This wouldn't really be an option with a cooked egg base, but you can substitute whipped cream (which is far more readily available pasteurized) to get the same texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.215835 | 2017-11-20T18:12:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85778",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16107 | Why are drippings from restaraunt ground beef colored orange?
I've noticed over the years that whenever I cook ground beef from the grocery store, the drippings in the beef are typically clear in color.
When eating out, if I order a particularly greasy ground beef item, the drippings are typically orange in color.
What accounts for this difference in appearance?
For the record, I usually purchase ground beef at either H-E-B or Whole Foods.
This should depend greatly on what the item is. Hamburgers generally run clear, possibly slightly bloody if undercooked. The only example of this I can think of would be the odd orange drippings from "taco meat". The cause of that is soluble coloring agents or spices in the drippings.
Taco Meat is actually what prompted me to ask the question. I had some taco today at a local place, but I've always noticed this at Taco Bell.
If it's Taco beef, then it's the chili powder (dried chilis, cumin, garlic, cinnamon, etc.). My home recipe results in tasty orange drippings.
It could be from some kind of seasoning such as paprika. It depends on the dish really.
This would be my guess. Whenever I make chili recipes which rely on skimming near the end, the fat I skim off is orange. Chili powder and other coloured spices will definitely do this.
I can confirm that I've had unseasoned beef make orange drippings. So it isn't the paprika. But I don't know the reason. It was at home, not in a restaurant.
Had you previously cooked something in the same pan that might have imparted the colour? Non-stick pans can be quite absorbent.
It's paprika or tomato, for sure. The color is impossible to mistake.
No, it can't have been cross-contamination. I remember freaking out the first time it happened, thought that the pan coating has had some chem. reaction - I wouldn't have if there had been such an easy explanation as chilli. And I have never had a color transfer in any of my pans. It had the color of diluted lead tetroxide, not as red as paprika or tomato, and manifested as thick orange blobs underneath the meat. I can't reproduce it, because it happens rarely, but I'll snap a picture next time.
The reddish-orange color is almost certainly paprika or another ground chili. This imparts its fiery color to the juice and the oil used in cooking. Oh, and also to any softer plastic you may leave it in, such as tupperware containers.
I noticed the color today with lasagna. The grease coming off the beef was actually orange. When I put some of the beef in boiling water, it came out a natural color and tasted much different, while the water was orange and the pot had an orange-colored scum. I am sure it wasn't from tomatoes. I suspect that the restaurant used cheap hamburger meat and added food coloring because they thought it would look more appetizing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.215979 | 2011-07-12T20:03:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16107",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Bruce ",
"Bruce Alderson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Judylee",
"Migdalia Cruz",
"Vivian River",
"foodchem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6745",
"mblakele",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73976 | How to add creamy taste and consistency to pasta dish with cheese?
I enjoy a plate of pasta every now and then, so yesterday, I made a large pot of pasta combining penne noodles, shrimp, scallops, garden-fresh zuccini squash, cheese, and seasoning.
Everything turned out great, but one thing seemed missing to me. Whenever I have a dish of pasta with cheese in a restaurant, the cheese sauce usually has a very rich, creamy taste and consistency that I found missing in the dish that I prepared.
How can I add a rich, creamy taste and consistency to pasta dishes?
This is going to sound a little facetious, but a good way to add creaminess is... Add cream.
If you want something a little lighter, you can use a few egg yolks, tempered and whisked with hot pasta water and mixed through the pasta with the rest of the ingredients. This, along with plenty of parmesan, is the basic method for carbonara.
This is going to sound a bit facetious, but I'm a novice at cooking and I don't know exactly what sort of cream you refer to.
I think the American term is heavy cream. Pour it in with the rest of your ingredients, then scoop the pasta into the pan and mix through. Allow some of the pasta water to get in there too, which will help create a nice sauce.
@RiceFlourCookies - continuing all the facetiousness, regular dairy cream should work just fine - the stuff sold in stores next to milk, rich with milk solids and butterfat, available just about everywhere, labeled as heavy or light based on percent butterfat, sometimes called whipping cream (err, not "whipped", that's different). Of course, if you wanted to look for more exotic creams - like coconut cream or nut cream or whatever - those would probably also serve the intended purpose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.216237 | 2016-09-15T19:20:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73976",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Megha",
"Vivian River",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6745"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56950 | How to infuse coconut flavor into nuts?
While traveling abroad, I purchased a small bag of salted cashews at a convenience store. I immediately noticed that they have a distinctively different taste from what I'm used to; slightly more sweet than salty.
I took a look at the back of the package and found the ingredients list; to my surprise, it ended with "coconut cream". Thinking of all the coconut-flavored dishes that I've had at home, I immediately recognized that the distinctive taste was from the coconuts.
However, coconut dishes I've had at home usually consist of something cooked in a coconut-based broth. Other than dried coconut chips, I can't think of any "dry" coconut flavor food I've eaten or cooked.
Starting with raw cashews or other nuts, how can I prepare a product of these nuts infused with coconut flavor?
Only thing that comes to mind is the use of coconut oil in frying the cashews.
if the ingredients list ended with coconut cream, it didn't take much. Probably just a coating (after roasting) that is then dried.
I've done something similar, although not with coconut cream. I'd cook the nuts in whatever flavored mixture (with extra salt and sugar) for about 5 min, then leave them soaking for a few hours. After that I'd bake them in the oven with low heat, like 170 C (otherwise you'd burn them very easily). Check every 5 min and toss them around a bit to even up, and depends on how moist they are, take out when brown and crisp in the center.
This is really simple to do. Get a high quality coconut oil that is Hydrogenated. And pour 16oz of nuts into 1-2 tablespoons of oil. Mix around in bowl and let sit for a few hours in the refrigerator. Pour them onto a paper towel or clean cloth and let the excess oil be soaked up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.216408 | 2015-04-26T06:49:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56950",
"authors": [
"Barbra Weaver",
"Bryan Amistadi",
"Ecnerwal",
"Hilary Gorman",
"Mimi Dablorme",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Steve Woods",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84241 | I boiled sliced yellow squash with ravioli, and it turned bluish-green -- why?
Boiled cheese ravioli for 10 minutes. Added sliced yellow squash for the last 3 minutes. Nothing else in the pot but boiling water, not even salt. It looked fine cooking but after I drained everything in the colander, the squash rind stayed yellow but the flesh turned bluish-green on most pieces. Not all pieces though. It tastes the same as usual. The color is freaky. Why did this happen?
possibly related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40616/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/77839/67
Note that it's definitely possible to get at least a little bit of this color just from cooking in a pan, so it's probably not too specific to any particulars of this question.
Do you use iodized salt, and did you salt the pasta water? Iodine reacts to starch and turns blue.
Please add a photo?
Probably the same reason why garlic turns blue sometimes when you cook it.
http://www.foodsafetysite.com/consumers/faq/?m_knowledgebase_article=14
its a reaction with sulfur + copper which can naturally occur in foods.
It's cucumber mosaic virus. It is still edible, just makes the food look less desirable and therefore not as marketable. Producers try to avoid/prevent it for that reason. But it is still fine and edible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.216599 | 2017-09-08T00:33:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84241",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
} |
87614 | Dried fruit and calcium levels
My daughter suffers from lactose intolerance and/or milk protein allergy (this has yet to be confirmed by a paediatrician due to the way the NHS works in the UK).
I tend to bake fruit cakes and mix dried fruit in my cereal. My little lass likes dried fruit, too, including dates, raisins; mixed fruit generally, really.
My wife is quite adamant that she read something somewhere regarding dried fruit 'taking the calcium' from other foods that it's mixed with, or reducing calcium levels in the blood stream.
Can anyone confirm or refute this, as my wife can't remember where she read this? (I'm not looking for personal opinion, here, more hard fact).
(I've tried to tag this question to the best of my ability, but there's no dried-fruit tag).
This is a question about nutrition, which is off topic for this site @Paul. We can tell you all about how to cook with dried fruit if you have a question about preparation or use.
@gdd: Close away.
Consider Health.SE instead.
As I can only speculate I comment. Dried fruit could actually be a medium source of calcium. A very good one if in the fruits we include nuts and seeds. They are, and specifically the latter, recommended for women in menopause and to people with osteoporosis. This I am sure as for plenty of physicians and nutritionists say so. It is a comment just because I can't give you a ref. that discards dried fruits as interference to Calcium absorption. I got the feeling that your wife found a blog with the logic SO2 in fruits acid rains bones..... or something like that. I will be surprised that ..
..... ALL dried fruits behave the same with respect to Ca absorption and/or Ca level in blood.
The only thing of note I've ever taken from commercially available dried fruit is that sulphur dioxide is almost universally used as a preservative. Some people are sensitive to this. There are various limits on how much you are allowed to use, but no outright bans in preservation.
You can buy fruit that has no added sulphur dioxide. This tends to be in the organic section and therefore tends to be that much more expensive.
But remember that dried fruit is essentially concentrated sugar. There's a reason young children like it. So for the same reason you don't let them eat as much chocolate as they'd probably like, I'd encourage some moderation. Perhaps try some fresh fruit in your baking.
In relation to calcium, it's sulphur dioxide that makes "acid rain", which leaches away limestone and other calcium carbonate rock sources. I can't find anything reputable that makes a link here but there's a big pile of "health" blogs out there that seem to think "because acid rain" is an answer enough, who has time to do the science? I'm certainly not saying you should avoid sulphites (unless you medically need to) but they can be avoided.
Dried prunes are apparently well recognised for their benefits to bone health.
My daughter is quite the savoury girl ;-). The acid raid idea is interesting, but the limestone is simply dissolved, basically turned into smaller particles, which reforms elsewhere or runs into the sea. I would suspect that organic dried fruit, not containing sulphur dioxide, would be outside of the argument, though. Thanks for your input.
Forget acid rains and SO2 etc in relation to your question. Even drinking acid rains won't be a reason for bones damage. A chemist with at least a reasonable knowledge and a feeling for internet non sense.
This could use reputable sources. Also, I do not understand what "sensitive to [sulphur dioxide]" means, nor its relation to calcium absorption?
@Alchimista For clarification, I'm not suggesting there is a relationship between dried fruit consumption and bone leaching. I'm suggesting that people might make that link based flimsy reasoning, eg "look, acid rain!".
@Erica SO2 has a recognised impact for some asthmatics. Similar mechanism to an allergic reaction. It has no relation to calcium absorption, which is why I only mention it in passing.
Yes Oli. I wanted to reassure OP. Nor I am a fan of SO2. Perhaps I am too scientific but either we speak of dried fruit or of dried fruits as commercially available , of Calcium sequestration or allergies. ... anyway is the pile of blog that I was concerned of, rather than you:)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.216738 | 2018-02-08T10:48:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87614",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Oli",
"Paul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61654"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117105 | Does 'Non-cold/warm ice-cream' exist?
Is there a food that resembles the texture and consistency of ice cream but is not cold/does not have to be kept cold?
Maybe.
Some substances excite the nerves in the mucosal tissue in a similar way that temperature differences do; "hot" spices are called that for a reason. Some substances elicit a sensation of cold, for example peppermint oil; such "cross-sensations" induced by substances are called chemestesis. Conceivably one could create a cold-feeling dessert with them.
Warm ice cream.
@PeteBecker That stuff doesn't have the consistency of ice-cream, and while they attempted to flavor it like popular ice-cream flavors, the taste was way off as well.
It wouldn't be ice-cream, would it? (badump-bump) ... sorry sorry, resistance was futile.
Much of the distinctive experience of ice cream comes from its temperature, so be prepared for disappointment. However, a set custard like in a crème brûlée or panna cotta is creamy and holds its shape, and can be flavoured as ice cream can be. Alternatively, a mousse has air bubbles incorporated into the mixture so is much lighter, although less creamy.
Because it cannot rely on ice crystals for solidity, it will necessarily be richer than ice cream so you'd want a smaller quantity (I'm imagining an ice cream cone filled with custard and it is way more than I would want to consume).
I'm imagining an ice cream cone filled with custard and I want this in my life.
@JoelMellon I mean you can get pretty close with something like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_horn
In Brazil there are recipe variations for "Sorvete quente" (hot ice cream) which is mostly a mix of a custard made with egg yolks and condensed milk, with egg white meringue folded in.
The consistency is light and airy due to meringue, so not really the same as ice cream but perhaps close enough to get the name.
I would argue for a clear no - it is impossible for such a thing to exist. It is possible to think of dishes that are for some reason "related" to ice cream - but if you serve them to ordinary people, nobody would take a bite and spontaneously say "wow, this is just like eating ice cream, only warm".
The reason behind this is less related to cooking and more to the way people conceptualize the world around them. We tend to lump similar things into categories. And it so happens that we don't categorize ice cream by its texture, but by its iciness. If you look closely, the dishes which we call "ice cream" have a ton of different textures. There are ice creams with eggs and without; sorbets; sherbets; granitas; gelattos; dondurmas; vegan imitations of dairy ice cream; there is the foamy stuff you get in the supermarket, the dense rolls from the insta-cold plate, the gelateria ice cream from the small compressor machines, and the icy sorbet that kinda failed when you tried the ziplock method, but you still keep in the back of the freezer. Specialists may give them different names, but people tend to simply think of them as "ice cream" - because the most salient feature of ice cream is not the texture or the ingredients, but the fact that it is frozen-and-scoopable.
Now, one could argue that there are other important factors for something to be considered ice cream, such as being sweet. And if savory ice cream is readily perceived as ice cream, then warm ice cream should also be perceived as ice cream. There is some logic to this proposition, but it doesn't hold in reality. People are very accustomed to having sweet, scoopable, but not frozen desserts (some of which are listed in the other answers), and they just don't associate them with ice cream. I have even had ice cream recipes where the base is not liquid, but firm enough to be scoopable - and yet, it was clearly a "cream" (in the texture sense, not the dairy sense) but not an ice cream. To have something recognized as "ice cream", it really has to be icy cold.
Mashed potatoes!
It is food.
Resembles the texture and consistency of ice cream.
It is not cold and/or does not requires to be cold.
Anecdote: my father told me (coloured) mashed potatoes was used instead of ice-cream when doing food photography.
Now you have me wondering what mashed potato with sugar added would be like.... BBS
@Criggie keep us informed
@Criggie https://www.cooks.com/recipe/y60co2wl/pennsylvania-dutch-potato-candy.html
It's subjective of course, but one could say that fudge has something like the texture and mouth feel of ice cream. Some kinds of cake icing could be said to have a similar texture and consistency as well.
I conjecture that this is because the texture of ice cream comes from tiny ice crystals, while these foods have a texture that comes from tiny sugar crystals. In both cases the crystals melt in your mouth after you take a bite.
"...these foods have a texture that comes from tiny sugar crystals" - and fat!
Oven baked sweet potatoes/yams comes to mind. Possibly mashed/bruised/scooped in some way after baking to reduce the resemblance of a potato :)
Yes, it is possible - using techniques from molecular gastronomy
Heston Blumental claims to have managed to create a hot ice cream in 2007, but there are no further details on that I can find. For a demonstration of his hot sorbet though, which would presumably be made using similar techniques, check out this youtube video.
Broadly, the technique involves creating a 'fluid gel' using hydrocolloids known as gellan, which remain stable under heat. Alternatively, it can be made using methylcellose, which has the added amusing property that it will "melt" as it cools.
Disclaimer: I have not tried to recreate these recipes in my own kitchen, nor have I tasted the results on them so cannot comment on how closely they mimic the mouthfeel and/or taste of icecream.
This is not an answer to the question, but a long comment about a thing that might get tangentially related and someone might think about.
Although not for ice cream, there is "Hot Ice" [Wikipedia]
Hot ice, or a supersaturated mixture of sodium acetate with water [youtube] , is a liquid, that, when touched rapidly crystallizes and releases heat and creates an effect similar to ice.
It is also with noting that sodium acetate is used in food processing with acetic acid as E262 to give potato chips "salt and vinegar flavour". I highly doubt it would be good for ice cream, though. :)
Cannoli filling has a texture and consistency similar to ice cream. Though the filling is usually chilled, I've eaten my share of room-temperature cannoli. I've even seen it with chocolate chips or pistachio nuts.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.217097 | 2021-09-06T05:01:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117105",
"authors": [
"CGCampbell",
"Criggie",
"Dave",
"Joel Mellon",
"John Dvorak",
"Pete Becker",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Trang Oul",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89650",
"rtaft"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125568 | Best way to deal with drying dishware to minimize hazards?
I have a glass/ceramic bowl. I've used the bowl so now I gotta wash it; instead of using a dish cleaner I manually wash it with soap and rinse it off with hot steamy water for about 1 minute. I pour the water out. There is some residual water inside the bowl and outside it. The bowl also comes with a lid (silicone).
Onto the drying part, should I...
close the bowl with the lid and call it a day?
not close the bowl and let it air dry?
wipe the residual off with a clean dishcloth?
I've thought of some counter-arguments for each but I don't know how true and valid they are:
lid is not hermetic, but can seal off most bacteria from forming... Or not?
there might be bacteria, but it might dry along with the air/sun... Or not?
the dishcloth might also have contaminants even if it's coming from the drying machine... Or not?
You're over-thinking this. Just... dry the bowl and then put it away. Even simpler, put it upside down on the dish rack to air dry.
Rinsing for a minute sounds excessive. Just get rid of the soap.
Sound like @Xyd lives in a hot/humid country where lingering and collected moisture could pose a health issue. Here in the UK, I just wash in soapy (detergent) water, rinse if covered in lots of suds and air-dry the pieces separately. Never had a problem.
For what it's worth, food safety codes typically require that you air-dry (never towel dry) dishes in a commercial kitchen
The problem with towel drying is that over time the towel picks up material from the items being dried while also retaining moisture, making the towel itself a potential source of contaminants. The longer the towel is used, the greater the risk. The risk is low in a home setting, but in a professional kitchen, the risk is a lot higher because dishes are being done all day long.
The only important part here is to not seal water in the container.
You can either let it air dry, or use a clean cloth to dry it.
If you have a problem with your dishes and glasses having a white residue if they air dry, then I would use a cloth, otherwise, just leave it overnight to dry and then store it.
If you suspect that your dish cloth is contaminated, wash it and get a clean one. Even if there is a little bit of remnants of something on the cloth (from your hands? Although you hopefully washed those), it shouldn’t be able to replicate on a dry dish
I’m a bit concerned about the OP’s supposition that closing the lid might “prevent most bacteria from forming". I wonder if it might help to clarify here that airborne bacteria and mold will actually be sealed inside if the lid is closed and the real concern in a kitchen is bacteria and mold growing, as opposed to "forming".
I'd also add that I never store anything [empty] with a sealed lid with the lid on. There's a [very] small chance that when you put it away it was still very slightly damp. Lid off, it will dry. Lid on, it won't.. & there's your potential petri dish.
Bacteria and molds need 3 things in the right amount to thrive:
nutrients
water
temperature
If you don't let water go away from the surface, you are just relying on the lack of nutrients, which won't last long.
If you instead dry the surface, either by evaporation or wiping, it will take more time for both water and nutrients to be at the right level.
The time it takes for a little water to evaporate is normally not enough for enough nutrients to accumulate, unless the dishware is in a super moist environment, where evaporation takes longer.
Frame challenge:
It sounds like you expect hazardous bacteria or other contaminants to form on your dishes if you expose the inside of the glass bowl to the environment (like air or a kitchen towel).
The truth is that we are constantly surrounded by bacteria and mold spores in the air, on surfaces like kitchen counters and our own skin. This is our "normal" state of being and our immune system deals with these "contaminants" on a daily basis without you even noticing.
The only possible hazard in washing your dishes is not drying them properly, as other answers already noted. How you dry and store your dishes afterwards has no effect on the food safety unless there's some glaringly obvious problem like storing them in a moist or dirty place.
Even if the dish towel had some food stain in it and transferred it into the bowl, as long as there's not enough moisture for microbes to grow, the bowl with the food stain would not pose any health risk to you.
This rule also has an obvious exception that is toxins. In the absolutely unrealistic scenario that a dish towel was contaminated with a toxic substance, it could contaminate the glass bowl with this toxin as well. But honestly, how would this even happen? As long as you apply the most basic diligence and keep your kitchen free of harmful substances, there's no risk involved in drying dishes either way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.217605 | 2023-10-16T22:37:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125568",
"authors": [
"Greybeard",
"Joel Keene",
"Michael",
"RonJohn",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124055 | Why is refined oil cheaper than cold press oil?
Why is refined oil cheaper than cold press oil?
Most people know that cold press oil is far more nutritious than refined oil. Then why use refined oil in the first place?
If cold pressed oil costs X, refined oils should cost X+Y, due to additional steps requiring labour and chemicals. Then why is it cheaper?
Do people really just like to buy refined oils because they "look" better and cleaner? Or is there any other reason to choose refined oil despite its potentially lower nutritional value?
About "why use refined oil...?" I think you already answered that in your title where you point out it's cheaper.
@ThePhoton I didn't. I just stated a fact that refined oil is cheaper. Why is it cheaper even after refining, was my primary question. Also, I believed cost couldn't be the only reason why some people prefer refined oil over cold press. I was interested to know other legitimate reasons.
"If cold pressed oil costs X, refined oils should cost X+Y, due to additional steps requiring labour and chemicals. Then why is it cheaper?" Baby carrots are cheaper than carrots, even though they require the additional step of shaving down an ugly carrot to a smaller shape. Simply put, ugly carrots are cheaper than the ones that get sold as they are. Your assertion that refined oils should cost more because it requires an extra step assumes that all materials being used are of the exact same cost and therefore quality. Are they?
@jerrymouse, your question presumes refined oil is cheaper (otherwise, why ask why it is cheaper?). If it's cheaper, then that's a reason in itself to use it when the benefits of cold pressed oil aren't required.
@jerrymouse question your beliefs if you can't believe that cost makes people choose A over B.
"Most people know that cold press oil is far more nutritious than refined oil." - Do they? I didn't!
Your assumption is unfortunately too simplified. There are a lot of factors at play that you haven't considered so far:
Let’s look at unrefined oils first:
For them to be marketable, they must be free of off-flavors and overall of a higher quality than what goes into the production of refined oils. The yield is typically lower and production processes (e.g. cold press) can be more complicated and thus more expensive. Their shelf life is significantly shorter, which is also a cost factor, as producers and resellers can store their stock for only a limited time.
Refined oils may be "less nutritious", but for many applications that’s irrelevant or even counter-indicative. Refined oils typically have a significantly higher smoke point (which is a use case where your "good" unrefined oils turn "bad" very quickly), so they are more suitable for high-heat uses like frying. While the refining is an extra step in the production process, you can make refined oils with a higher yield, faster processing and higher tolerance with regards to the input, which overall is typically cheaper. The resulting relatively neutral flavor makes refined oils way more versatile (your probably don’t want your fries to taste like coconut) for those applications where you need an oil, but not a prominent flavor.
In short, you want probably both kinds in your kitchen - the refined as the workhorse for frying and cooking, robust, cheap and heat-tolerant, the unrefined to add flavor to your dishes either during gentle cooking or added at the end, some oils are specifically used more like a flavor garnish, e.g. pumpkin seed oil.
Now i'm curious to try coconut fries.
Supplimental answer:
Refined oils are often made from materials that couldn't or wouldn't be used in cold pressed oils, which leads to lower input costs and increased yields.
For example, refined olive oil will contain olive pomace oil (the additional oil from the pits and skins), as well as cheap nut oils and even soybean oil that has been filtered, deoderized, and treated to look like olive oil. The cheapness of the ingredients far outweighs the cost of the chemical processing.
The same is true of vegetable oils, to a lesser degree. Yes, refined rapeseed oil requires more processing, but the yield from the same crop is four or more times greater.
There are a few oils, such as sunflower, where "pure refined" versions are available. That is, high-quality cold-pressed oil is filtered to remove impurities and raise the smoke point. You'll find that these oils are not cheaper than their unrefined counterparts.
unrefined rapeseed oil pretty much isn't a thing (maybe use a different example for this), primarily because it would taste really bad
@Hobbamok Much of the rapeseed oil 菜籽油 càizǐ yóu from Sichuan Province in southwestern China is generally sold unrefined, although the seeds are toasted first. The strong flavour is part of its appeal!
"cheap nut oils and even soybean oil that has been filtered, deoderized, and treated to look like olive oil" but this is not refined olive oil, it's a fraud
@Hobbamok it is definitely a thing. Just because it's not popular in the US or Germany doesn't mean it's not elsewhere. I have some that I use for Chinese recipes that call for it, and here in the US it's become a thing with health food enthusiasts.
@gboffi and being a fraud makes it cheaper. That's the whole point of the answer.
Some countries don't allow for non olive oil being marketed as olive oil. Still then, refined oil can be made from the sub-products of making cold-pressed oil.
@Pere many countries don't allow it on paper. But the reality is that they do allow it. This book will open your eyes: http://www.tommueller.co/extravirginigy
@gboffi it's not, it's only a fraud if it's not disclosed (in some places a certain percentage of the final product may need to be the one whose name is listed as the product name, but percentages of other products cut in are usually acceptable. For some, like for example virgin olive oil (and only virgin) it MUST be 100% olive oil, but for lower quality olive oil such a requirement doesn't generally exist.
@Michaelyus thanks for the examples, I literally never heard of it (and kinda thought that refinement was necessary since the canola plant itself is very toxic), but I think I'll have a look at the nearest Asian specialty store
@Pere yeah, but the EU (generally known for food safety regulations and stuff like that) still refuses to actually test for mixed-in non-olive oils so this food fraud is incredibly widespread ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil_regulation_and_adulteration ) and the tests that EU officials legally can deploy do not detect most forms of dilution ( a known loophole)
depends on the oil. See 3)
wrong idea. The chemical processes involved allow a lot more oil to be extracted from the same amount of raw materials. Often they also include adding cheaper ingredients (like cutting in other, lower cost, oils), further reducing the cost of the final product.
price, availability, and at times flavour, taste, or smoke point (cutting in other oils can and does change all of those)
personally, I prefer cold pressed "virgin" oils because they're pure, no contamination with other products (I have rather serious food allergies for many seed oils, virgin oils tend to have a legal requirement to not contain those as additives). The stronger flavour and generally lower smoke point however limit their usefulness in some situations, restricting my choices of food preparation method.
Speaking of olive oil (what I know :-), refined oil is cheaper because it's a sub-product of cold pressed oil.
After you get your EVOO, in the presses you have what in Italy is called "sansa": skins, broken kernels, smashed pulp.
Sansa is processed first with steam to extract a first fraction of residual oil ("olio di sansa", that is regulated by law) that requires refining, because the more aggressive extraction process brings in extraneous, annoying flavors, then with chemical solvents to extract the remaining fraction (usually sold as lighting oil, not allowed for human consumption); alternatively, the 3rd phase material can be used to improve animal food.
I think that similar procedures are applied to different oil types if the cold press variety has a pronounced market appeal, otherwise all the oil produced is of the refined type, as the yield is much higher when you extract using heat and/or solvents, not just mechanical procedures.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.218132 | 2023-05-01T08:47:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124055",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Flater",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hobbamok",
"Michaelyus",
"Pere",
"The Photon",
"bracco23",
"gboffi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95702",
"jerrymouse",
"jwenting",
"preferred_anon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84614 | Baking Sirloin in Oven on Pizza?
Ordinarily when we make pizzas we throw all of our toppings on and then put raw chicken right on the pizza. Put it in the oven at 425 for about 30 minutes and it's good to go.
This week, the supermarket was out of the chicken we normally buy, so we decided to mix it up and try sirloin.
If we try the same thing with the sirloin (putting it on the pizza raw and cooking it at 425 for 30 minutes) will it be safe to eat? Will it get tough and flavorless being in that long? Would it be a better idea to pan-fry the sirloin and then put it on the pizza after we pull it out of the oven?
EDIT
Took Navajo Dreamchild's advice. Ended up using a marinade with pineapple and soy sauce (who says pineapple's not allowed on pizza). Sauteed the sirloin to just about medium rare and then threw it onto the almost done pizza with a little more cheese before putting it back in the oven to finish.
I wish I'd taken a picture to post here, but it was all gone before we knew it. Absolutely delicious--thank you for the help!
I would think that if you were using fresh sirloin and the pieces were small enough you would be alright using the method you mentioned. I would think that if you were to pre-cook your sirloin and then cook it on top of the pizza for that long you might get tough sirloin. I would suggest cooking the sirloin until just about done, while the pizza is cooking then putting the sirloin on the pizza (I would add a little more cheese at this point- but that's just me), and giving it 2-3 minutes under the broiler to melt the cheese and cook the sirloin the rest of the way.
To avoid losing the flavor of the meat, you should marinade it for at least 30 minutes and season well before you precook or put on your pizza(use a meat tenderizer in your marinade to avoid tough meat- vinegar or pineapple juice works well.) Good Luck- I hope it turns out delicious.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.218771 | 2017-09-25T23:33:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84614",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107335 | What is the best way to rehydrate dried cherries for a sauce if it has absorbed surrounding flavors?
I tried making a cherry sauce for meatballs with dried morello cherries, but the final sauce had a weird taste despite the dried cherries being nice and tarty, but the water/sugar mixture from the cherries after rehydrating it wasn't as tasty. I added a stick of cinnamon to the boiling mixture and boiled the cherries in them. How much flavor do the dried cherries add to the syrup? The packaging says its 100% organic Morello cherries so I don't think its been treated with anything. Any suggestions?
I am missing a bit of context here. If you give the recipe and the sauce's intention (is it meant o be poured over a cake? Or to marinade meat in it? Or something else?) it is more likely that you will get good answers. Possibly also the answer that your chosen type of sauce is not doable with dried cherries - but that remains to be seen.
@rumtscho marinade meat
@rumtscho I altered the question so that it might be more helpful for others, any thoughts?
I now find your question more confusing. Have you made this sauce before with dehydrated cherries and it has performed better? Have you held the cherries close to something else strong-smelling and now notice the same strong smell in the sauce? If not, why do you think that it has adsorbed surrounding flavours? Did you just take a recipe which is intended for fresh cherries and use dehydrated? There are even more open questions here, and without clarity, I have difficulty imagining how one could guess the answer.
@rumtscho I am trying to replicate cherry kebab that I had at a restaurant. Recipes for that use fresh cherries and I only have access to dried ones that are sour. As I have never tasted fresh morello cherries from Uzbekistan I can't determine what accounts for the varied taste. The alteration is meant to help situations in which dried fruit are stored with other spices in the room as is often in spice shops, and how to remove that smell. I can't ascertain if that is the case however. Does that make more sense?
We can't speak to you perception of any off flavors, but the best way to re-hydrate (and perhaps is obvious) is to soak in water or liquid.
Is there any difference in result between soaking and boiling it in water for a cherry sauce?
Using warm or boiling water to soak usually speeds the process. Actually boiling them, will, of course, further cook them.
I cooked them again with powdered spices instead of the a cinnamon stick they came out pretty well, I guess it is just the weird taste of these morello cherries, they don't taste like the cherries I had in Lebanon, which are probably from Aleppo. I guess it is just the variety of the cherry that accounts for the different taste.
I believe the most likely cause for the weird taste is the variety of cherries that is being used; in this case it is sourced from Uzbekistan, of the Morello variety. Cherries from Aleepo or Lebanon will have different flavors, depending on the orchard as well. Also, dried fruit has a tendency to absorb surrounding smells over time, so the way it is stored might impact the flavor of the cherries once they are re-hydrated. A different brand of cherries will probably have a different flavor.
If this were the case, wouldn't the cherries themselves also taste wrong?
Wrong depends on the flavor you expect from the cherries, so it is a relative term. I think this just shows that if ingredients are sourced differently the final result will most likely taste different, I think that is why restaurants struggle to maintain quality when the ingredients are no longer available, substitution often impacts flavor significantly.
@Sneftel forgot to tag you
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.218950 | 2020-04-06T12:03:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107335",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104027 | Why is my white bread with poolish dough very loose?
I previously asked a question about the White Bread with Poolish from Ken Forkish's book Flour Water Salt Yeast. My first attempt with a flour that had 10% protein resulted in dough that hold its shape, but the poolish didn't expand enough so flavor wasn't as great. So, I decided to use flour from my bakery and asked for baguette flour. I don't know anything about its protein content, but I imagine its bread flour. When using this flour, my dough gets good elasticity when I am folding it and a poolish that nearly triples in size, but after the bulk fermentation it's no longer as elastic which makes it impossible to shape. I know bread flour absorbs more water so if that is the case then shouldn't it be firmer and more elastic. I measured everything by weight. Should I go for a poolish with bread flour and try the rest with all purpose? But, it doesn't make sense why would it be less elastic. I imagine the only explanation would be that the "bread flour" has less than 10% of protein. Any thoughts? The hydration level of the bread is 75%. The bread tastes good in the end, it's just a hard crust. Anyone else done this recipe?
Update: the bread rose perfectly and the crust was thin, but I still have no idea how to shape it. It looks good for a non-shaped loaf.
The protein content of your flour may have something to do with it, but it may also be the fermentation of your poolish. The more fermentation a dough goes through, the more the yeast turn starches into acid. Acids can denature gluten and gluten-forming proteins, leading to a less elastic dough. When you're adding your poolish to the rest of the ingredients, you're also adding its acid. The poolish is always going to be goopy and loose, so switching to bread flour for the poolish may not have the effect you desire.
Unfortunately, I'm more or less in the same boat. Like you mentioned, a higher protein content may help. That said (if I remember correctly), Forkish recommends AP flour for all of his recipes. Perhaps a shorter poolish ferment, or shorter bulk ferment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.219249 | 2019-12-10T16:48:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104027",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85338 | How does altering the fat-to-flour ratio affect the pastry?
Typical pastry recipes(pate sucre and pate brisee) follow the 2:1 ratio for flour and butter, other recipes (American pie crust, German shortcrust) can have a lower ratio (1.5, 1.29). How does the higher fat content affect the finished product?
Basically, more fat = crumblier, less fat has more structure.
@GdD Why didn't you just put that as an answer? That's exactly what I was looking for.
@greedyscholars answer is better because it explains the why, I wouldn't be able to add anything more than that besides that short and pithy summary.
@GdD Fair enough haha. If the pastry has more flour, then kneading will become necessary otherwise how is the structure going to form. American pie crust recipes do not have any kneading, yet you get those flaky structures.
@GdD I think the layers of coated fat provide the structure, but preparation wise- the other pastries are very similar especially when done in the food processor, you always start with the same breadcrumbs and then its either enough water or egg to bind.
@GdD, thank you for your summary! Indeed I wrote a lot but did not give a punchline.
Go ahead and steal it @greedyscholars, it it works it works.
@user29568, I don't know if you have tried but it is possible to make pastries with gluten-free options like rice or buckwheat flour (which are basically pure starch). Even with fat the dough doesn't come together and crumbles completely. For this reason, recipes recommend putting eggs (protein). You still have a hard time opening the pastry without breaking, but after cooking coagulation of the egg helps to hold everything together. The big hero responsible for elasticity is the gluten.
Flour (+ water, either directly or from other ingredients such as egg white) gives the pastry structure. As you knead the flour, the gluten network develops and results in elasticity. When cooked, water evaporates from the dough leaving a rigid gluten skeleton.
Fat does not mix with water and thus stay in blobs in between the gluten network. This weakens the gluten structure, making the pastry crumble.
For this reason, you often see in recipes for shortcrust to avoid overmixing the fat. Buttery biscuits such as shortbread crumble more than crackers, which have more water. The same rationale applies to puff pastry. The thin fat layers are impermeable, so water steam gets trapped and exercise pressure upwards, lifting the pastry up.
Quoting @GdD in the comments, the punchline is:
more fat = crumblier, less fat has more structure.
Can you clarify why overmixing the fat is a problem.
@mroll, I would not say it is a problem. It all depends on the result you seek. Typically in a shortcrust pastry one is looking to stay on the limit between a pastry that holds itself (structure) and that crumbles under shear. The more you mix the fat, the smaller are going to be the blobs of fat in between the gluten and starch and therefore the less crumbly the pastry is going to be.
Thanks for your answer! I was asking it because I was wondering why there are so many recipes out there, with different ratios. I wanted to try my own ratio's. Now, I know a bit more on how to alter the recipe to reach pastry that I like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.219442 | 2017-10-30T18:25:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85338",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"greedyscholars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62537",
"mroll",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107692 | What is the least amount of vinegar needed to fully curdle milk for cottage cheese?
I found a recipe that states to use around 1/2 tsp of vinegar for 1 quart of milk(0.5% vinegar to milk by weight) and another recipe that says 1/2 cup of vinegar for 3L of milk(3.7% vinegar to milk). That is around 7 times more vinegar. I want to make cottage cheese with the least amount of "vinegary" taste as possible, so how much vinegar do I need to use to effectively curdle the milk and produce cottage cheese. I am using distilled malt vinegar (which has a stronger taste than white vinegar) which I don't like, but that is the only available one in the UK.
There are many different types of vinegar available in the UK.
@GdD Distilled vinegar? The only type I can find is from malt vinegar.
I've found distilled white vinegar in stores here, you need a bigger grocery store though.
@GdD Which store? Perhaps I can find it
Any big chain really.
@GdD Waitrose and Tesco both have distilled vinegar but it is is distilled malt vinegar.
Why not keep adding slowly and stir until it's enough?
Don't use vinegar at all. Use citric acid, which you should be able to get from a brewing or cheesemaking store, or get it online.
Not only does it have a "cleaner" flavor than vinegar, it also allows you to control the pH of the solution more precisely. A given quantity of citric acid diluted in distilled water always has the exact same acidity, which is not true of vinegar.
If you really can't get citric acid, lemon juice is going to have a less pronounced flavor than malt vinegar.
In terms of using the least acid necessary, that's an interactive process of adding a little acid, then watching what happens. Per Modern Farmer:
Many cheese recipes call for a specific amount of curdling agent – the juice of one large lemon, a quarter cup of vinegar, or one teaspoon of citric acid per gallon of milk is typical for farmer’s cheese – but the exact amount needed varies considerably based on the unique properties of each batch of milk (especially with non-homogenized, farm-fresh milk). It’s advantageous to use the least amount of acid possible to avoid an excessively tangy flavor. As soon as the curds form, stop adding the curdling agent.
I'll also add it's beneficial to use the minimum quantity of acid in order to get the softest curd texture.
Happy cheesemaking!
Malt vinegar really isn't going to work. It's going to add a lot of flavor to anything you make with it.
If you really can't find white vinegar for sale, there are several other options. I personally use citric acid powder, which is generally harder to find in the USA than white vinegar, but if you have a health food / natural food store near you, try that. I believe you can also use tartaric acid (cream of tartar) but I've never tried it.
If you're in a pinch, you can also use lemon juice or try the vinegar out of a jar / jars of pickled peppers; I've use it from pickled sliced pepperoncinis particularly.
In any case, if you're not sure of the pH of what you're using, you may need to try a couple of times to get it right.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.219732 | 2020-04-18T15:32:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107692",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"user29568",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103806 | How much should a poolish increase in size?
I am making a bread recipe(White Flour with Poolish), according to Ken Forkish's Flour Water Salt Yeast. In the recipe, he indicates that the poolish should "triple in volume." When I tried making it the poolish increased in volume but not three-fold,; it is bubbly. Is there something wrong? What could possibly be causing this? I am using white wheat flour that has a 10% protein content, should I go for one higher?
The poolish recipe I am using is: 250g white flour, 250g water(27C), and 0.2g instant yeast. It has a 12 hour fermentation period.
At what temperature? Temperature is a significant variable in bread proofing.
@moscafj Room temperature is 23-24C.
A few things that could be going on:
0.2 grams of instant yeast is a pretty small amount. Even a little variation in measurement could make a difference in how fast it rises. Also, whether this small amount was well-distributed throughout the flour at the outset could affect the timing of the rise.
Is the yeast fresh/good? Older yeast can be sluggish.
How are you measuring whether it "tripled" in volume? Many people put dough in bowls that get wider toward the top, so it can be difficult to measure exactly when something "triples" in volume. Unless you're using a straight-sided beaker or something, or have measurement marks on your bowl, it's possible that something "tripled" in volume while not rising to three times the height.
Have you monitored the poolish? Did it simply stop rising at some point, or was it still rising at 12 hours? With high-rising preferments, it is also possible that a poolish might rise higher and then fall after some point, collapsing under its own weight. If you weren't monitoring this, you might see evidence like streaks higher on the side of the bowl if this happened.
If it simply stopped rising at some point, the question of protein content in the flour may be useful to think about. If the flour doesn't have enough protein, it won't hold up a very high structure in a wet preferment. Eventually the bubbles will get large enough that they will simply rise to the top and burst, rather than staying within the dough structure. It's also important to note that higher protein flours can sometimes absorb water better, so if the recipe was designed for "bread flour" or flour with a higher protein content, the moisture level in your poolish could be high enough that it is producing large bursting bubbles rather than holding the air in the dough.
In any case, if the preferment at least doubled in size and/or is very bubbly, I doubt there's anything truly "wrong" and you should go ahead and bake the bread, which will likely turn out fine.
I did bake it in the end, it was pretty good though I expected a more complicated flavor profile. I think it must be the flour, might change that next time around. Thanks for your pointers, they were very helpful!
I am curious if bread flour absorbs water better, and I am using the same weight measurements doesn't that mean that the bread flour poolish would be less "wet" since the flour absorbed it all, instead of it just remaining there unabsorbed. I imagine that bubbles pass more easily through something that is less viscous so if it were absorbed more efficiently due to the bread flour it is harder for the bubbles to burst. No?
@user29568 - If you have further questions, I'd encourage you to ask them separately, rather than in comments (so they can be found by future people with similar questions). But yes, generally bread flour does tend to absorb more water, and the combination of higher gluten and increased viscosity would generally make a poolish rise higher without as many bubbles bursting.
I just got confused when you said "moisture level," because if the flour absorbs the water, moisture level doesn't change but rather the viscosity- the former depending on how much water was added. Thanks again though, I will do some more testing :) I find handling sticky dough a bit challenging, so I want to work on that.
Sorry for the confusion - I was trying to use a less technical term with "moisture level," but what I really meant was hydration, which is the term generally used by bakers to refer to the ratio of water to flour by weight (in the case of your poolish, it would be 100%). When working with bread flour, recipes often can use a higher hydration than with all-purpose flour. If you use a hydration intended for bread flour but with a lower protein flour, it can result in a stickier dough and in the case of a poolish, perhaps more bubbling out. At least that's what I intended to say.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.219973 | 2019-11-30T09:48:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103806",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"moscafj",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
113025 | Help identifying a tea
I was given a tea that my understanding is came from China (so I can't go to the store and get more). I am interested in getting more, but don't know who sells it (if I can buy it online) or even what type of tea it is.
The tea comes in a metal box, with a pressure-fit lid under the decorative one.
I can't identify the tea from the actual leaves, but the can doesn't give much away either - it says Hangzhou Specialities Company, a city most famous for its green longjing tea, but the leaves aren't the colour of longjing.
For me it´s also impossible to get any details from the pictures alone. Can you tell from tasting what kind of tea it is? I would guess it´s a black or oolong tea.
The term "China Famous Tea" relates to a defined list of 10 tea specialities. http://teapedia.org/en/China_Famous_Tea But it´s hard to tell if your tea is one of them. The only black tea of this list is Qi Men Red.
Also note that there is a incredibly vast amount of different tea varieties available. Even the difference between a first flush and an autumnal from the same tea garden will be quite big. So if you do not have a chance to ask the person who gave you the tea where you could source more of it, it´s probably your best chance to check a good tea store and look for something that comes closest to your current sort.
I have a few imported tins that look similar (but aren't identical) that I bought locally, so I'd also suggest trying to find local Asian markets and look around. Try to talk to the owner or manager if it's a small enough place - for the most part they'll be motivated to help you since you could become a repeat customer. And in my many trips for Vietnamese ground coffee, I usually get recommendations (and occasionally free samples) of something else the owner likes. (I know it's a pandemic, but when it becomes reasonable...)
instead of an Asian market, see if you have a specialized tea store in your area.
For more information, maybe you could also brew the tea, take a photo of the tea color and the brewed leaves, and add a description of the tea taste?
This container is awfully ambiguous, as are the tea leaves. What I can say is tentative, but I am confident enough to post an answer: it's probably black longjing-style tea, made from lower grade material. Finding a direct comparison image is not likely to happen.
What follows is why I think I'm right. But bear in mind - I am not as knowledgeable about longjing, and I could be wrong.
The tea is from Hangzhou, which is commonly known for its longjing tea. Longjing is a very particular style of tea, in which the leaves are flattened significantly, and processed in larger pieces. High-grade longjing comprises whole leaves that have been flattened and pan-roasted, of consistent color, of consistent size, and are free of sticks, twigs, and smaller bits of leaf. It looks something like this, though can be even greener:
However.
Longjing also comes less commonly as a black tea, in which the leaves have been oxidized as a part of production. This changes the color of the leaves significantly. Overall, this strikes me as pretty unusual, but this is out of my domain of knowledge for tea, so it's difficult for me to say precisely.
When longjing is made as a black tea, it instead looks something like this:
What makes me feel fairly confident in this assessment is that your leaves are flat, like I'd expect a longjing to be (and it would be the right region), as opposed to full or curled. They're also the wrong color for a green tea, but they're the right color for a moderately to fully oxidized tea, which makes them likely a black tea.
The second thing to pay attention to is grade. I'd normally expect a high-grade longjing to be more consistent in color, leaf shape, and size across the sample. The color is a subtle giveaway - the inconsistency across the sample implies that the processing wasn't super delicate and the grade of the starting material would not be high. However, the dead giveaway is that higher grade longjing contains no sticks. Yours does. That makes it quite consistent with what I'd expect from a low to mid grade longjing.
The verdict? I would assess this tea to be most likely a black longjing tea, made during bulk processing from mid-grade material. (If I had to grade it by eye, I'd guess it to be somewhere in the mid-grade, likely around 3 or 4, but I'm not as familiar with how longjing teas are graded and you should take this with a heavy grain of salt.)
(I also want to say, while the grading is a useful ruler by which to measure whether a tea matches a specific type or style, it's not as much a judgment of taste. I'm only using it to gauge what I'd expect it to look like, were it the grade I think it is. The best cup of tea is the one you like.)
Unfortunately, black longjing teas can be somewhat hard to find if you don't live in a place with easy access to them. While longjing is one of China's famous teas, access to specific varietals or less well known processing methods is likely to be less fruitful. Poke around, though - maybe you'll find something that makes sense.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.220445 | 2020-12-06T20:50:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113025",
"authors": [
"J. Mueller",
"Max",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"kitukwfyer",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88892 | What methods can be used to cook Skipjack tuna other than frying it in oil?
First of all I must say that I'm not a fish person but a red meat person. However I'm currently on a diet and as such I've been looking for different ways to properly cook Tuna with low fat.
I know there are my recipes out there, I'm not looking for an specific one but rather a short summary of the methods used to cook fish without requiring much expertise and can be done quick and without much equipment. Therefore is there anyone who can help me with this?
Please don't say just boiling it in water or putting in the oven for who knows how long. I must add that I do not have access to an oven so the suggestion which would help me the most is one which does refrain from using it.
Maybe this can work but is not what I'm looking for. I'm aiming at something which has proved over the time to be easy to do and use little or almost no oil.
Roasting/baking is one of the simplest and leanest ways of cooking fish... can you explain why this isn't an option? Why isn't it what you're looking for?
@Catija Well I do not have an oven that I can use. Also the temperature involved in baking wouldn't it tarnish or deplete the healthy aspects of the fish?.
Well, saying that you don't have access to an oven is an important caveat for your question, so I suggest you [edit] that in. As to the "health" aspects, this site specifically doesn't get into that but you can absolutely bake at lower temperatures... most ovens can be set as low as 200 F, if not lower. Plus, this type of fish is often served pretty rare, the way beef is (if that's your preference).
@Catija Alright changed that, but again my major concern about baking is that due the nature of the fish or maybe any meat is that during baking there is a risk of carbonization. Even if the temperature is set to the range you indicated I am having the impresion of could or would happen this, therefore Is there any other way to avoid the protein becomes crunchy in texture or feeling?
Unless you extremely overcook fish at 200F to the point that it dries out and becomes black... you're not going to carbonize it.. There's also methods like foil pack cooking that keep moist air around the fish, essentially steaming it... but if you don't have an oven or a toaster oven, it's immaterial.
Choosing a "better" method is completely subjective, so nobody can really give you a method which is best for you, we would be limited to listing different methods from which you would have to choose one. And we don't do big-list questions here. You might want to just search the Internet for "tuna recipes" or similar, or search some recipe database by ingredient, and see what you like.
@rumtscho I recently edited this question, I do hope that at the way it is now it complies with what this site is for.
@ChrisSteinbeckBell thank you for editing, I have reopened.
A few suggestions:
Raw. If your fish is great quality and very fresh, and you have a good sharp knife (just look up the way to cut it for the nicest texture)
Ceviche. This cooks (denatures) the fish with acid, rather than heat. Lots of recipes out there for great marinades, some with no added oil at all.
Seared. You only need to add rub enough oil into the surface of the fish to prevent it from sticking, to a hot griddle or flat pan.
Steamed. Often with aromatics. In a bowl to catch the juices, or wrapped in a loose but well-sealed package of foil or greaseproof paper (en papillote).
Gently poached in good oil is very nice, but I don't think that would meet your dietary requirements!
En papillote Is often done in quite a hot oven: the package enforces steaming inside; the fish isn't exposed to fierce heat.
All of these methods will be enhanced by your choice of recipe for dipping sauces, dressings, marinades, sides, etc. There's no difficult technique in most of them. The lucky thing about good fish is.. the less you do to it, the better it is. (Almost). Look up the methods, and you'll find the recipes.
The only real danger is overcooking. You'll have to get to know your preferred doneness.
I'd think I'd pass on raw. I know the fish can be eaten raw but is not for me. I think seared is the way to go but it seems to dissuade me a bit the fact that it needs touches of oil. Steamed probably is the best choice but it doesn't mention on how this is made, perhaps a link with a video would help.
@ChrisSteinbeckBell You're on the internet... I assure you "steamed tuna recipe" will give you thousands of results. We're not a recipe sharing site.
@Catija I was aware about that. Therefore I tried to make a question without being specific into that but rather on methods. However what my goal was to know what should I take consideration to avoid overcooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.221097 | 2018-04-04T19:14:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88892",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Steinbeck Bell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63576",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86601 | What does it mean when powdered ingredients get thin strings?
I have found some strange strings in powdered ingredients in my kitchen. First time I noticed it in my instant coffee jar and I thought it maybe some kind of worm so I discarded the jar.
Today I was very surprised to find the same type of thin string in my very small paprika jar (powdered paprika).
What can cause this? Am I right to assume its worms? What else could it be? How do I deal with a situation like that?
Image of what I mean:
Hello, and welcome to Cooking SE. A picture of the threads would be really helpful here.
@DanielGriscom I added an image!
Thanks. What's the stuff on the bottom of the lid? More webs? (If so, then it's another vote for "you have insects".)
That looks more like a piece of pepper stem that made it through the powdering process complete than any pest problem. Bugs and molds do not usually do straight lines, while pepper stems contain some pretty tough fibres.
@WayfaringStranger shouldn't the stem be kind of stiff? This feels exactly like a string, when I lifted it with the fork.
@user1721135 Depends on the exact tissue the fiber came from and how it was milled to a powder. Try rinsing all the paprika powder off a string to see what it looks like under all that red. I wouldn't expect a bug casting, or mold to hold up to that, while cellulose, or lignin, should.
@WayfaringStranger unfortunately I already tossed it, but I remember it being kind of strong, I was able to lift it as in the image without breaking the line.
Sounds a lot more like an unwanted plant part that made it through the milling and sifting than a bug or fungus.
The photo is far too fuzzy to identify anything, but of course rampant speculation abounds.
I think you are right to figure it is some kind of insect. Little thin threads of cocoonish material in containers of stored food are a pretty clear sign. The strings make themselves noticeable by catching the dust particles from the food. Although it might seem strange to find insect activity in instant coffee, there are tons of different kinds of insects, each one with its own set of tastes. I have found little tiny crawly beige bugs in baking soda even, really.
When this happens, you need to go through everything, discard every infestation you find, and completely re-do your pantry storage system. Lots of advice available on this site and elsewhere on how to rid yourself of these pests.E.g.:
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/search?q=How+to+get+rid+of+weevils%3F ,
and many others. Even though your bugs may not match the exact insect species addressed (maybe they aren't really weevils for example), bugs are bugs, and you don't need a precise id to get some good advice on extermination.
Thank you that makes sense, I added an image to my question. I didn't find any worm inside, only the strings.
moths, or similar is what I was going to say.
I would pull all your dry good items to the counter and wipe down your shelves to see if you see signs of insects (crawling & flying).
Purge anything that is suspect, old are not used. Take that trash outside when done. Take close look at any bulk cereals, flour, imported dry goods, opened spices & herbs.
Inspect the food items that are already open or are in cardboard with no sealed bag and put them into a sealed container (tupperware style or ziplock bags). Place these in the freezer for a couple of days to try and kill off anything you can't see.
Look at using sealable containers for any bulk items - mason jars, ziplock bags, nifty storage containers, etc. You can find large plastic bins or buckets with airtight lids for bigger items like flour, rice, beans, etc.
Here is a link to the common "pantry moth" that might be the source of your infestation: https://www.pantrymothtrap.com/pantry-moths-lifecycle/
I had these tiny web-like strings in my coffee jar and after a little research, I found out that its not an insects web or mold or etc but rather than crystals formed from the caffeine itself.
Here you can watch it in youtube where this guy did check the strings under the microscope.
https://youtu.be/R4e21AQlEBA?si=LyeaB-M0KJmQ9mfe
While that may be true for coffee, I seriously doubt that “caffeine” is the explanation for the phenomenon in paprika powder.
To be fair, the OP mentioned that they also have strands in their coffee, even though they only uploaded a photo of their paprika. So while this may not be the correct explanation, I don't think we should consider it a not-an-answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.221515 | 2017-12-21T19:13:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86601",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Escoce",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94239",
"kreemoweet",
"rumtscho",
"user1721135"
],
"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
} |
96801 | Won't fresh pasta sheets in lasagna overcook?
Most lasagna recipes require 30-45min of baking. Fresh pasta however only requires 2-4min of cooking. If I use fresh pasta in lasagne, will it not overcook?
Edit: The linked duplicate question is about a very different, even the opposite topic: how not to undercook pasta. I am talking about overcooking it.
Possible duplicate of Can Fresh unboiled egg pasta be used for lasagna?
The linked question and many other similar questions revolve around the opposite: how or if to preboil pasta.
It doesn't overcook exactly, but it results in a much different product than that made with commercially produced dried pasta.
@Joe would you say the result is better? I am just worried, that the pasta will be mushy and not aldente. Or perhaps the sheets are still thick enough to prevent it becoming mushy?
@user1721135 : 'better' is subjective. It's not what I think of as al dente. I've never had fresh pasta that truly was. And it's not typical in casseroles in general unless you start from uncooked. Think of the texture that you get with fresh ravioli ... it's more tender like that.
Lasagna, using freshly made pasta, can be constructed by (a) pre-boiling the noodles, then building the lasagna, then baking, or (b) layering the lasagna with uncooked noodles, then baking. Both methods result in a good final product, though you may need a bit more liquid (sauce, for example) in the version that is not pre-cooked. I've tried both and prefer to cook my noodles first, then bake. In either case, the noodles do not "over cook". They should be soft (except perhaps the edges, which I like crispy). It might seem counter-intuitive, but noodles in lasagna hold up just fine. By the way, I prefer most of my fresh pasta cooked longer than 2 - 3 minutes, especially more hearty types, but I get your point.
So because the pasta is not completely submerged, but in between sauces it is not cooked as quickly and can withstand 40min of baking? I am just worried, that the pasta would be mushy. If you boiled pasta for 40min, especially fresh pasta, it would probably completely disintegrate. Guess I'll have to try.
Fresh raw pasta works fine in lasagna pasta ; I have made the filling a little wetter than usual. The pasta is submerged more or less ( under cheese topping in mine) so has no problem with overcooking ( or undercooking ).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.221896 | 2019-03-08T07:31:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96801",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72042",
"spodger",
"user1721135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99043 | Is rapid cooling and thawing worth it?
I have researched a bit about the topic of "large crystal prevention" when freezing and thawing food. So far I have learned, that in order to prevent the formation of large crystals, which is what damages the texture of food, you need to minimize the time the food spends around 0°C. Which means you need to freeze it to -18°C as fast as possible and when thawing bring it to room temperature as fast as possible. I am talking about a home context here, not commercial.
I have come up with the following routine, which seems to incorporate most home tricks, in order to optimize for few large crystals:
When freezing:
vacuum seal the food in a sous vide bag, as flat as possible
put it in an ice bath
circulate the water in the ice bath with a sous vide stick
After say 20min put it in the freezer
When thawing:
Figure out the max temperature you need the food to be (say the temperature, at which it is going to be served, or if it is going to be cooked, below the target temperature)
Put the vacuum bag in a preheated water bath and circulate the water at this temperature
However, I would like to know, how much of this effort is actually worth it? Is vacuum sealing much better than zip bags? Is ice bath much better than simply putting the food in the freezer at room temperature? Is the additional step of using a circulator (which apparently does reduce the time greatly) really worth it?
Are there any case studies or side by side experiments on this subject? Is it possible to taste the difference?
I know that freeze burn is bad, so I do avoid standard zip bags already in favor of vacuum seal bags, but I am not so sure about the other stuff?
Edit:
It seems the claim, that defreezing quickly is as important as freezing quickly is not universally accepted, I base my belief in this on the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5-akBNZouM
the longer something takes to freeze and defrost, the bigger the ice
crystals...
at 0:23
As best I know, rapid thawing is a food safety issue, not related to the issue of damage caused from freezing. And there are other alternatives to what you're doing ... eg, put it in the fridge before you freeze it.
@Joe good point about the fridge. But aren't ice crystals formed around a certain temperature? So it wouldn't matter "in which direction" you are going, when you cross it? That's how I understood it, but it did surprise me.
What is your goal? There is quite a bit of real science on this subject. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662221/
@moscafj just trying to figure out, if the methods mentioned make sense or if it is a waste of time. Often times science says that something makes sense, but the home implementation of it is not good enough in order to achieve any result.
@user1721135 : no, because ice crystals only grow as you're freezing, not as you're thawing. (unless something is really wrong with how you're thawing). We want to avoid large ice crystals, and they'll grow if we freeze slowly. (fast freezing will result in more, finer ice crystals). To compare, you might want to try making ice cream without stirring/dashing, and compare the graininess.
I am basing my claim on videos like this one, from serious eats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5-akBNZouM note how it says "time to freeze and defreeze". There is another video from Jamie Oliver, where he mentions defreezing speed as well.
@user1721135 In addition to the initial freezing, ice crystal growth can increase over time in the freeze with temperature fluctuations. You may rapidly freeze the item to minimize the issue, then leave it there for month putting warm items in and letting in warm air and undo your careful initial freezing.
@dlb that's a good point. My freezer display always shows -18°C, don't notice any fluctuations, but over a longer period of time it is probably bound to happen at some point
This sounds like a lot of time and effort, that, for home use, might not be worth it. Freezing as quickly as possible is generally recommended, but even with an ice bath first, you are not going to be able to freeze quickly enough to make that much of an impact using a home freezer. At home we have more control over how a product is thawed. For example, see this question/answer. I would say that rapid thawing is probably where you lose quality, though I will admit that I often use the circulator to thaw meat that I forgot to remove from the freezer a day in advance. Would I notice quality difference in a side-by-side comparison? Maybe, but sometimes convenience outweighs a slight difference in the final product.
My understanding is, that quick thawing is actually better, as mentioned in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5-akBNZouM or it least, that's how I understand it.
@user1721135 I didn't see where Kenji said that quick thawing is "better"...only more convenient. I will also point out that "quick" thawing on the counter (using Kenji's method) is also different from "quick" thawing in, say, a microwave, which is probably worse for quality.
"the longer something takes to freeze and defrost, the bigger the ice crystals..." at 0:23 . If you think about it, if it is about a particular temperature, near the freezing point causing the problems, why would it matter in which direction you are going when crossing that line? The point is to cross it quickly either way. But I am not 100% on this, love to see other sources on this.
@user1721135 https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92738/why-slow-thawing-is-the-best-way-to-defrost-a-chicken-flavor-wise
Yes, that seems to contradict what Kenji said. I wonder what he meant and why he said it.
Kenji is about most convenient, with least impact on quality and safety. The science is about an objective discovery of phenomena. I don't disagree with Kenji's method. I do think there is a point where you can defrost too quickly, and that will impact quality. As I mentioned above, in a microwave, for example.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.222114 | 2019-05-17T08:47:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99043",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"user1721135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98751 | How to achieve "fall off the bone" in a leg of lamb using sous vide?
I have recently experimented with leg of lamb, following the popular recipe on chefsteps . Both times I cooked the meat, with bone, for 24h at 57°C (134°F).
While the result was generally good, I received a comment, that the meat didn't fall of the bone, and that perhaps next time, I should increase the temperature. However, I think, that I need to increase the time instead.
What is the solution for this situation? Is it even possible to achieve fall of the bone, cooking at low temperatures?
I have read, that for the fall of the bone effect to occur, connective tissue must break up, which happens at 145°F (62°C), which is obviously quite a bit more temperature, than my setup.
For the record, the meat was quite tender, but it had structure, it was not mushy and it also didn't fall of the bone.
Relevant, perhaps a duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86511/time-and-temperature-for-converting-collagen-to-gelatin-in-chuck-roast-cooked-so
Meat "falling off the bone" is overcooked unless you're going to be pulling/shredding it, and I don't think I've ever made anything of that consistency in a sous vide. Sous vide meat in my experience is firm yet tender, not separating.
I’m guessing the aim is for something like braised lamb shank?
Ribs and legs are "done" when they are 145°F internal temp, but they may still be tough. If you take them up to 190 to 203°F, the collagens and fats melt at this temp and make the meat more tender and juicy.
Alot of people prefer caramelized and easy to eat meat. Altough I would not call this sous vide.
A longer cooking time would not melt the fats and collagens, but tenderize the meat more.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.222553 | 2019-04-30T23:03:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98751",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"RFlack",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96145 | Does salt prevent water from absorbing nutrients and falvours from food?
A long time ago, I read somewhere, that there is a very specific reason, why we put salt in the water for cooking pasta: The point is to hinder the water from absorbing flavor and nutrients from the pasta. With soup its the other way around: We want to absorb the flavors into the water, which is why we salt it only at the end.
The explanation was, that salt "ionizes" water, which somehow makes it less likely to absorb things.
Is there any truth to this theory?
Source:
https://www.finecooking.com/article/the-science-of-salt
Quote:
Because pure water draws salts and other soluble nutrients from the
interior of vegetables, salting vegetable cooking water also minimizes
nutrient loss.
LOL - So if salt draws out all the flavor why do you salt a country ham? You're just mixing up multiple ways of using salt trying to find one answer.
As a chemist, I'd say that you have it all wrong.
You add salt to pasta water to have the salt infuse into the pasta. So as the dry pasta absorbs water, salt comes into the pasta too. Salted pasta tastes better than unsalted pasta.
Salted soup tastes better than unsalted soup. Salt enhances our perception of the flavors in the soup, but it does not extract the flavors.
But wouldn't salt in theory saturize the water and prevent it from taking in more stuff?
hmmm, thought that's what I wrote....
Water can dissolve a lot of salt before it becomes saturated. A boiling, saturated saltwater solution is 28% salt by weight. A gallon of water weighs about 8.3 pounds, so you would need to dissolve about 2.3 pounds of salt to saturate it. Basically, pasta water is never saturated with salt.
Osmosis has space in this discussion , though it just influences water and sodium in/out movement. Boiling in very salty water could prevent zucchini to absorb even more water than what they have (I am inventing here :) . Still interstitial water might be then to salty. I am just pointing to a phenomenon at work, I.e. osmosis.
I think I did my math wrong. The weight of the salt is 28% of the total, not 28% of the water's weight - so if the weight of the water is 72% of the total, then it's about 3.2 pounds of salt in a gallon of water.
This theory is news to me. I would be curious of its origins. From what I know, salt is added to pasta water to make pasta taste good... works for soup too! The reason to add salt at the end when making soups and sauces, is that evaporation occurs when using longer cooking times. If you add salt at the beginning, the end product could end up being over-salted due to evaporation and concentration of flavors.
By the way, dissolving salt in water does not make its atoms ionize (your salt is probably already ionized), and tap water also likely already contains ionized atoms from naturally occurring mineral salts.
While I linked the explanation for "ionized water" above, I will point out that there is some controversy, and not much science, supporting the health benefits of ionized alkaline water...or whether "ionized water" really has any meaning at all. Perhaps this is related to the origin of your theory.
Your concepts of ionization are just wrong. // Water that contains ions, eg sodium cations and chloride anions, isn't ionized. The ions are what is ionized, not the water. // water does ionize into H+ and OH- ions, but that is an entirely different matter.
I think I found the link: https://www.finecooking.com/article/the-science-of-salt Quote: "Because pure water draws salts and other soluble nutrients from the interior of vegetables, salting vegetable cooking water also minimizes nutrient loss."
@MaxW edited to reflect your clarification.
@user1721135 thanks...would sure like to see the science. Which nutrients? How much minimization? Is it meaningful?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.222725 | 2019-02-04T20:06:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96145",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"MaxW",
"Tom Smilack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"moscafj",
"user1721135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96774 | Why do some meats get tougher with higher temperatures, while others become more tender?
I am looking for example at a sous vide recipe for goat on the joule app. The tenderness seems to increase with the temperature, while with beef steak it's the other way around. Is that true and why is that? Which meats get more tender with higher temperature, and which get firmer?
This is a product of the cut more than of the animal. You're comparing shank with steak, which are two very different cuts. In general, to get a tender cut with high temperature cooking you want a cut with lots of fat and connective tissue to render. Leaner cuts will become dry and tough.
The shank is a cut you could also get from a cow, so you could just as easily be working with beef (or veal) shank, in which case you would follow the same principle of higher temp = more tender. This is due to the large amount of connective tissue (and fat, to a lesser extent) in the shank, as well as the fact that its a harder working part of the animal. Cooking to a high temperature breaks down the connective tissue in the meat, leading to a moister, more tender finish.
A steak, however, has less connective tissue, so overcooking it just makes it dry and tough. You don't necessarily want it too rare though-- while for leaner steaks many people would say the rarer the better, for very heavily marbled and fatty cuts (like ribeyes) leaving them too rare fails to render the fat, which remains in tough, white streaks and interferes with the texture of the steak. It should be noted that you could theoretically get a goat steak and the same principles that apply to beef would apply to it as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.223123 | 2019-03-06T21:02:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96774",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103425 | What are the 3 vents / weights on this Chinese pressure canner?
I bought a pressure canner of Amazon, unfortunately the manual is entirely in Chinese.
It doesn't look like the two types of pressure canners I have learned about, which are "weighted gauge" and "dial gauge".
It has 3...things on the lid and I am not exactly sure how to operate it. Is this basically dial gauge pressure canner? What are the 3 things? Vents?
The product was fairly expensive and looks well build and judging by the temperature gauge it can reach very high pressures, so I assume, that it can be used for canning, but I am not sure how to find information on it.
It looks like this:
Top:
Top from the side:
From the top:
From the bottom:
Close Up of one of the holes:
Part of the manual:
Full manual: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Tw3X3beWptUEGTLG6
Edit:
After scanning part of the manual with an OCR scanner and using google translate I learned the following: The middle valve is a safety valve. The right one is for manual release. The left one with the pins sticking out is an automatic release, possibly adjustable.
There are a number of unusual things about this pressure canner. Do you have a link to the Amazon page, to put it in context?
Its this one: https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B07RP92FFY/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
This seems to be an "autoclave" for laboratories. One of these things, the one in the middle is a safety vents, the other two are vents you can open and close by manipulating the little lever. Is this right? Why does it need two vents?
Ask your dentist. They or someone in the practise will be familiar with autoclaves. [I'm not kidding, dentists use these things every day… though it's unlikely anyone ever tried canning in one]
The safety valve uses a thin metal foil which blow open when pressure is too high. It's not involved in normal operation so no worries on that. The "automatic pressure release valve" (left, gauge facing you) I guess is the pressure regulator. The "manual pressure release valve" (right, gauge facing you) is what you use to manually release pressure after done cooking? Maybe it has something to do with the pipe. You are advised to use the valve with the pipe to release pressure to avoid shooting out hot liquid, maybe?
So why does the left valve have a lever. What are you supposed to do with it?
@user1721135 If you post the user manual I may read it for you?
@user3528438 That would be awesome. I added a picture of the manual to my question and I also uploaded the full manual here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Tw3X3beWptUEGTLG6 If you do read it, please make sure to make an answer so I may accept it.
user35, you should post that as an answer.
Also, both of y'all should maybe set actual user names on your accounts?
Which valve is which?
See labels below:
When to use the auto valve?
According to user manual Page 6, Section 5.7, you are supposed to move the handle on the auto valve at least twice a week to make sure it doesn't get stuck. Other than that, just leave it alone and let it do its thing. It will automatically maintain your pressure and temperature. I guess the auto valve is a calibrated device and they don't want you to touch it too often which would wear out the spring, so they give you the manual valve for routine pressure release.
Additionally, if you see pressure rises to 0.175MPa but no steam comes out of the auto valve, then it's considered a malfunction and you should have the auto valve checked and repaired(5.6, Page 6).
When to use the manual valve?
Page 4, Section 4.3 and 4.4 says you are supposed to bend the tube down and slide it into the slot on the pot. And you should let the manual valve open until 1 minute after steam comes out of it, to purge the air. This is why you can not use the auto valve for this job: it doesn't have the tube so can not efficiently purge air from the bottom of the pot.
Page 5, Section 4.7 recommends you don't open the manual valve until 2 minutes after pressure fully drops to avoid shooting hot water out of it. Also, rapid change in pressure and temperature can cause damage to the contents in the pot. However, if you don't want to wait, you can release the pressure immediately after cutting the power, just be careful(4.6, Page 5).
When to use the safety valve?
The manual didn't mention anything except you should have it checked every 6 months. So just leave it alone and hope you never have to activate it.
(This thing is actually a medical sterilizer. As is any electric medical devices the user manual actually includes a full EMC test standards(GB/T 17626) and results).
So I guess the auto valve can not be set to a different max pressure?
@user1721135 No. It's designed at 0.142MPa and should not exceed 0.165MPa in practice.
I think that's actually perfect for canning most things.
Not a full answer, but I found the video on this page showing how to use a very similar device (no sound that I can see, and text in Chinese) on Alibaba.
It seems that the two valves with sort of rocker style heads are for steam release - you can flip these to release pressure once sterilization is complete - a spoon or fork or something similar will probably work, but it looks like some sort of tool in the video.
I suspect that the front one with what look like nuts is probably so that you can adjust the pressure and hence temperature of sterilization. I don't think the pressure gauge needs much explanation.
My only guess with respect to the hose is that it is intended to get the pressure or temperature at the point of sterilization - this is critical for medical applications; if you underestimate the temperature and your things aren't sterile, it leads to all sorts of trouble.
I watched the video, but they don't explain the vents. I thought maybe the middle vent is a safety vent? Or maybe it also works as max. pressure regulator? And the two vents on the side are slightly different. One has little bolts sticking out of the side. The other one doesn't.
Yes - my thought too - max pressure vent/safety valve. The one with bolts might allow locking for different temperature sterilization - medical sterilization takes place at 121 C/15 atm for wet and 160 C (I think) for dry.
If the middle one is not simply a safety vent, but max pressure vent, that would mean, that I don't need to monitor the pressure much, so it's basically a mix of dial gauge and weight gauge canner? This would be handy. The key ring on the middle one is attached to a spring / weight, I can pull it up slightly.
That's a safety valve for sure - too much pressure will trigger it. The pressure at which it blows might be adjustable by shortening or lengthening the spring. I would guess the other ones will go off at a set pressure too, so as to keep the pressure constant.
OK so I uploaded the manual to an OCR site and google translated the labels. It seems the right one is a manual release, the left one an automatic release and the middle one a safety valve. The automatic release is interesting. Its either hardcoded to 125°C or maybe I can adjust it somehow.
So I was close in my guesses. I think you'll find it is hard-coded, but you might be able to play with it a little. Just note that in general you won't need conditions more than the default autoclave conditions for canning etc.
Yeah it should be fine. I am just thinking it might be too much for some more delicate products, but then I can also adjust the heat and control the pressure that way. Guess Ill try it out tomorrow.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.223294 | 2019-11-12T14:39:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103425",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"user1721135",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95291 | Which pasta should be used for what sauce?
As I understand it, the philosophy of what pasta to choose depends a lot on the sauce. With bolognese, you have a heavy sauce, with fairly large meat particles and tomato parts. This means, that you need to serve pasta, which is going to be able to "carry" this heavy sauce, which means you shouldn't use spaghetti, but rather tagliatelle, pappardelle or another wide pasta variety. You should also not use short pasta like tubes, shells, penne or farfalle for the same reason: none of the heavy meat and sauce is going to stick to the short pasta and it's going to be impossible to eat.
For light sauces (for example Aglio e Olio) other considerations come into play: You want pasta with a small surface because you want to have a higher ratio of sauce:pasta in any given bite. Thin spaghetti is going to be able to carry more of the light sauce.
Is there a reputable, authentic source of set ruleset for when to use which pasta?
Are there general rules, which could help when deciding when to use the different pasta categories like long pasta, wide / thin, tubes, ribbons, fresh vs. dried?
I am mainly interested in how it is being done in Italy generally. I am also interested in the general logic to the rules.
There really aren't rules for this. There are some pasta shapes which are traditional with specific sauces because they work well with them (penne with puttanesca, fettucine with alfredo, etc.) but even those are a matter of opinion.
General rules are hard to be made or at least your question made me surprised that, in spite or knowing or feeling what goes with what, indeed I cannot condense everything in few words or even sentences.
Still I can try to list a few lines
a minimalistic sauce in which the principal fat is oil goes with long dried pasta such as spaghetti or trenette (e.g. aglio e olio; salted anchovies and capers...)
a simple condiment in which the principal fat is butter or cheese goes with short fresh or dried pasta (e.g. penne or maccheroni al burro, cacio e pepe..)
condiments and sauces in which ingredients are cutted into not too small pieces that need emphasis usually go with short formats (penne mozzarella and eggplants, pasta alla norma, ....). I can also say if there are pieces with their own texture and consistency than this requires a solid pasta frame as well, plus comparable size... so short format here. A network of spaghetti would results to loose even if al dente
exceptions to the just above lines exist and one of the more iconic is spaghetti with seafood. I see why no to serve penne ai frutti di mare but I cannot write it down ;)
very creamy sauces goes with long format (spaghetti carbonara, trenette al pesto, ....)
Prevalently tomato or meat base condiments are better discussed in terms of dried no egg versus fresh egg containing pasta while keeping in mind the above "rules":
very red tomatoes sauces containing vegetables and sea ingredients go well with standard pasta, either fresh or dried
reach tomatoes sauces containing meat or high in fats do their best with fresh egg-based pasta.
I am aware that this is just an attempt.
The typical condiment of my town is pesto genovese.
It goes primarily with
Dried trenette, ie a kind of spaghetti with a flattened section
Mandilli (literally tissues, basically lasagna which is cutted down to 4×4 cm or more)
Dumplings.
It is indeed hard to give a rationale to this. Still, if not obliged by shorts of ingredients, I would never serve spaghetti al pesto in spite of the striking resemblance with trenette. I just know it won't be that good.
It might be against the policy but I am curious to see how many contradictory items we could find and edit this answer accordingly.
Or even delete it if it turns out that direct test / experience / feeling are the only things that count.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.223865 | 2019-01-02T17:37:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95291",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"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
} |
95080 | Can poulet noir be prepared as standard chicken, or is there anything special to consider?
I got "poulet noir" or "black feathered chicken" for Christmas, but I couldn't find much information about it or how to prepare it.
Is it safe to assume, that it can be prepared like any other chicken, or are there considerations to take into account for this particular race of chicken?
The only information I found about this chicken is, that it is low in fat, lives semi-wild, whatever that means and is maybe gamier than normal chicken.
Should I just follow standard chicken recipes?
Depending on how much fitness it did space it had to run around in, this type of chicken is best used in a stew, so depending on your personal chicken recipes, yes, use the standard ones but do not:
BBQ
Fry
Roast
Bake it in an open container (A closed closed container with moisture-releasing veggies is still OK)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
hmmm... I planned to actually roast it, as a goose replacement. Wouldn't it perform similarly to a duck or a goose in that regard? What is the downside? If roasting, definitely close? Maybe even butter it inside the skin, like a turkey? Stuff with onions and a lemon for added moisture?
Well... If you were planning on doing that, you should have asked that instead! ;-) But no: it's not as fat as a goose or duck, so you'd have to smear some duck or goose fat all over and in it and then encase it in aluminium foil which is the same as using a closed container. If you would have a Römertopf handy that would be ideal...
Actually, I did buy a römertopf for this occasion. Thanks for the tips!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.224161 | 2018-12-23T17:15:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95080",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"user1721135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86830 | Extracting the flavour of single vegetables for the purpose of sauce
I am interested in making vegetable sauces that are concentrates of a particular vegetable. So a concentrated sauce that has just the flavour of a chosen vegetable.
Which vegetables would be suitable to make such concentrated sauces?
What methods are possible to make a refined vegetable sauce?
EDIT: I want to attempt this with either: Carrot, Broccoli, Celery
I will steam the vegetable till softened but not mushy, then puree. I want the result to be a thick puree that I can place a 1/4 teaspoon (or the less the better) on a piece of Sashimi. Should I reduce the puree over low heat?
I am afraid that the result will be too flavourless, Is there a better method to reach the result? Can you detail any mistakes to avoid in the process? (i am not an experienced cook, it is a hobby i am getting into)
Could you describe your idea a bit more in detail?
For example? Why not just puree and reduce?
Thomas, can you drop by and look at the below answers? As you did not specify whether alcohol was allowed or not, there is some discussion going on...
Ok iv'e added details Stephie
Any vegetable can work. Cook vegetable (let's say carrot, for example), puree, pass through tami...you have a sauce. As @Stephie suggests above, better advice will depend on your plan. Vegetables can be juiced...that juice can be clarified (more like the result of the distillation process mentioned by @Fabby).
The easy way:
Just:
cut the veggies up in small cubes
add twice as much water as veggies,
boil in a pot with the lid on top on low heat until half the water is gone
Throw away the veggies
filter the extract
The following might be illegal in your country:
(though most countries allow either small batches or batches for personal use. If you don't know, check)
If you want to make an edible, highly concentrated extract of any vegetable/fruit/flower/...:
cut the vegetables (fruit, flowers, ...) in very small cubes
add vodka
boil them on very low heat (78.37°C) in a distillation apparatus:
the essence can now be kept for multiple years
if you want to get rid of most of the alcohol before using it:
add the essence into a cup
flame it
The second option would be illegal in many countries, and also will have a strong alcohol taste, which is not really what the OP wanted. The not-faint-of-heart cooks use rotary evaporation instead (they also have deep pockets!)
@rumtscho There are many places where it is illegal to distill in order to produce consumable alcohol, however, it is not illegal to distill for the purposes of flavor extraction or concentration. Depending on the set up, the result is not always alcoholic. The problem is, it is an expensive set of equipment and it requires some specific know-how.
Flaming will affect the vegetable flavor too though, won't it? Also, if I remember right, it only removes something like 1/4 of the alcohol.
@Jefromi: correct, that's why I mentioned most of the alcohol. :-)
There are exceptions for very small stills (eg, sub-500ml IIRC IANAL in Germany) in some countries.... Also, any alcohol involved (unless you bought illegal vodka) would already have been taxed correctly?
@rackandboneman: correct on both counts... :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.224320 | 2018-01-01T10:56:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86830",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fabby",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64126",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"tomas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93697 | What does soffritto do to minestrone?
I have read some recipes for minestrone where it calls for making a soffritto before adding water. What would happen if you omitted this step and just added raw onion, carrot and celery to the boiling water, as you would do with the rest of the vegetables?
The vegetables don't need to be browned, hence it appears to me that shallow frying them is not necessary if it is followed by boiling either way.
A soffritto is the Italian cousin of the French mirepoix. Both consist of small cubes of root vegetables and onions.
The gentle “sweating” in fat enhances the sweetness of the vegetables and brings out the “umami”, an almost meaty flavor. In the onions it also breaks down the sharp pungency. The process will form a flavor base that brings a certain “heartiness” to stews and sauces.
You can skip the step - many soups will use the raw, coarser chopped vegetables - but the results would not have the properties listed above.
Adding to this answer that if you do not fry eggplants they will be bitter even after being cooked in an oven. (One alternative solution is to leave veggies in saltwater for a day but that still leaves some bitterness in them.)
What properties of shallow frying -- that are missing from boiling -- make this possible? Do you need a temperature above 100 Celsius? Is it the presence of oil rather than water as a cooking medium? Or something else?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.224583 | 2018-11-07T18:07:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93697",
"authors": [
"Anastasia",
"John Hamilton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64230"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126181 | When a recipe call for 2 part of table salt plus 1 part of lawry’s seasoned salt how much salt is that
2 part of table salt plus 1 part of lawry’s seasoned salt. How much salt is that.
The quote alone says nothing at all about the total volume, just the ratio of the two components. Hopefully there's more context somewhere
The question is unclear. As pointed out above, is this parts by volume? or mass / weight? is your confusion about the meaning of the word "part" in this context"? or are you asking about the final sodium / salt content of whatever recipe you are making? Where did this come from? What recipe are you citing?
Assuming you mean Lawry's seasoned salt the ratio of salt to "other ingredients" (i.e. "seasoning" - sugar, spices, etc.) appears to give a total (with 2 parts salt) of about 2.67 parts salt by volume, depending which particular "plain table salt" nutrition label you look at (they vary more than I expected.)
By weight, 2.83 parts
I'm using sodium content as a proxy for salt.
Image Source no affiliation
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.224728 | 2023-12-23T16:23:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126181",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87190 | How to prevent homemade butter from melting/separating under hot conditions
Please, I'm making homemade butter that will be kept and served at an outdoor event. What process/additive/ingredient can I add to preparation that will prevent the butter from separating or melting in the outdoor heat(or under direct sunlight). Thanks.
Bought butter will do this too, though possibly be a bit more forgiving. The only solution is to keep it cool.
You can't.
fat is fat and will melt under hot conditions.
Keep it cool, put it over some ice.
Well, there's sort of a caveat, the structure of butter is more complicated than just fat - notably, more fat crystals and less fat globules and free fat means firmer butter, and this is affected by the post-churning stages of buttermaking. It's probably difficult for the OP to do too much in that regard, though, and it can only get so firm anyway. A hot sunny day will probably always melt it.
I don't think there is a process that will change the melting point.
Some materials you can heat to a certain temperature then cool to effect physical properties but butter is not one.
You might be able to hydrogenate. It works with margarine but not sure it will work with butter. I don't think butter has double bonds to break. If it worked with butter it seems like we would see it in the market.
If you add something it is not really butter any more. But you could add edible paraffin wax. I just don't think it would taste very good.
Could you put out small dishes at a time with thick ceramic walls to hold cold?
Thanks, I'll try out the edible paraffin wax. If that doesn't work, I'll use ice to keep it cool and a butter crock when serving.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.224846 | 2018-01-20T14:56:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87190",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"felix_o",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87436 | Dough blender vs dough cutter?
I'm regularly baking pies again and I might want to get into pastry a bit more and looking for tools to help me out.
I have seen about a dozen videos about creating the perfect pastry dough and I cannot decide between the Dough Blender and the Dough Cutter/Scraper. The dough cutter seems more versatile white the blender should do it's job of blending the butter with the flour the best. However, the people using the cutter made it look easier then the people with the blender where the dough and butter mixture stuck between the blades and you still had to push it out with your hands or another tool. Whereas holding two cutters you can clean them by simply scraping them against each other and to shove the blend together with one scraper and chopping with the other looked very efficient.
So I am very much leaning towards buying two good sturdy cutters. But every pro makes his tools look so easy to work with. I am just going to make a dough two times a week at the most and I am looking for the right choice.
-edit-
I understand my question is a bit hard to answer. The short question is:
Do I need to be a Japanese ninja to blend my butter and flour with 2 scrapers/cutters?
I'm confused about the choices here - you seem to be considering buying two cutters, but not a cutter and a blender? Is the actual question just about what tool(s) to use to cut butter into flour?
I just use my Cuisinart... :/ No special tools needed... well... assuming you have a food processor.
@Cascabel My question indeed is what tool is best. Let's reiterate, in this video that guy shows how good the scrapers/cutters handle the blending of the dough. So why do I need a blender if a blender can only blend and I still get all the butter and flour stuck in between the blades.
@Catija Food processors tend to warm up to dough which is considered bad by the experts. I actually got a MagiMix XL but why use it and clean it again when you can blend it with a hand tool in like 5 minutes.
FWIW I've always found the blenders a pain because you soon end up pushing the butter back together with it (my technique may be at fault i suppose) and I've never seen anyone using dough scrapers for pastry (I can't watch you linked vid now, but will later). I've eventually come to the conclusion that much as I find it tedious, my best option is to cut the fat into small pieces as I drop it into the bowl of flour and try to coat those pieces with flour as I go, then just get in there with my fingers to rub the fat and flour together.
@Spagirl Well, my hand are really to hot for this. On a average moment if I hold M&M's for like 10 seconds I got a rainbow drawn on the inside of my hand. And they tell me they don't meld in your hand :). You should watch the video when you can, it looks very easy and I have seen another video using the same technique but cannot find it anymore.
While mrog's answer is excellent, I'm going to make an opinionated and firm recommendation based on personal experience: you want a dough blender. Specifically, you want this type of dough blender, rather than the one you linked to.
Here's the reasons why this is superior to other options:
"wire" design for the cutters makes it easy to "knock off" stuck dough/butter using a spatula or butter knife, and often to not have to knock off at all;
Thumb rest provides better leverage for rapid butter-cutting (I can do a pie crust dough in under 3 minutes with one of these), and time is your enemy when working with cold butter;
Dough blenders allow you to do your cutting in a mixing bowl, instead of the flat surface that bench scrapers* require, saving on cleanup.
Of course, as mrog notes, YMMV.
(* the thing you link to as a "dough cutter" was known as a "bench scraper" back when I was a pastry chef)
I completely agree with using a wire blender, just not the exact one in the picture you shared. I used to have one a lot like it, and the handle would spin around whenever I used much pressure. I really like this design: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00004OCNK/
Thank you, but whats up with the keeping clean just before you make it a mess anyway. Is it a inside joke or something? A couple video's I have seen give these handy tips and a minute later they mess it up anyway and it makes me smile each time. Anyway, I will follow your and @mrog advice and get the type of blender you recommend.
@mrog yeah, the handle is better on that one but I really find that having the thumb rest makes a huge difference in leverage and speed.
@Madmenyo I don't quite understand what you're asking.
also, please select a response as "the answer", either @mrog's or mine, if you've accepted one.
It's really a matter of personal preference. I like using a pastry blender, but not all pastry blenders are worth using. It needs to be sturdy. And you really don't want a handle that might rotate when you push down on the dough, so pay attention to how the handle is fastened to the blender. When the dough starts to build up in the blender, just use your other hand to knock most of it back into the bowl.
The other method I was taught was to use two butter knives, one in each hand, and slide them against each other while cutting through the dough. This method works, but it takes longer.
I haven't tried using a pair of dough cutters. It should work, but it's going to require a flat work surface. The other two options (blender and knives) work well in a mixing bowl.
Regardless of which method you choose, it's going to be a bit awkward until you get some practice. Anyone with near-average dexterity should be able to master any of them with time.
Yeah, my tendency is to say "use a blender, because it means you can do your butter cutting in a bowl, which really saves on cleanup". Also, for dough stuck between the blades of the blender, it's really easy to knock it loose using either a spatula or a butter knife.
Mind you, when I was a professional baker, we used a robot-coupe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.225013 | 2018-01-31T20:47:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87436",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"FuzzyChef",
"Madmenyo",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16164 | looking for edible paper
At some point I came across some edible paper. I don't know which company makes it or where to find it? I think I recall that it was possible to write on it. I encountered it back in the '80's. The texture was semi-flexible, nothing like the little round cracker-like paper given in church.
Can you share how you came across it? Just curious cause if it was an asian food application or something else it might help people come up with the best answer for you.
In Belgium, we have something that is called 'candy paper' and a package looks like this.
It's a thin sheet of paper, about the size of a bill. It's thinner than the outer part of this, but it has a similar texture.
There are multiple manufacturers and you can buy it here in almost every supermarket/candy shop.
I don't know if you can write on it, I think so, but I don't see why you would like to eat ink.
I believe you're talking about edible rice paper. I know it is used in popular Asian candys, such as the White Rabbit Creamy Candy which was a childhood favorite of mine and I've also used rice paper while making a candy dessert called Turrones de casuy, a Filipino nougat candy which is wrapped in rice paper sheet. You can order from Amazon or here for variety.
Vietnamese egg rolls (Chả giò) are traditionally made with rice paper. You might also try filo dough, if you're not wholly into the paper thing. It's not paper, but it's paper-like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.225603 | 2011-07-14T21:10:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16164",
"authors": [
"Satanicpuppy",
"eronisko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"psdsph"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104242 | Help making multigrain bread for first time
Just bought a home bread-maker and I would like to try baking a multigrain bread which recipe is included in the machine booklet. The ingredients of the recipe, which include 3 kinds of flour, are written below:
Flour (240 g).
Strong whole wheat bread flour (140 g)
Graham flour (40 g).
Butter (20 g).
Salt (1 3/4 tsp).
Linseeds (2 tbsp).
Quinoa, wash in water (3 tbsp).
Water (280 ml).
Dry yeast (2 tsp).
Sunflower seeds (60 g).
I went with the recipe to a bio-shop and after discussing it with someone there they told me that:
Strong whole wheat bread flour refers to "type 150" wheat flour. I bought it.
Plain "flour" they suspected that it refers to just white flour. They do not sell white flour (since it was a bio shop) but offered me "type 75" wheat flour instead, which I bought.
They did not know what is Graham flour. Apparently this is not easy to find where I leave (Belgium) and nobody seems to know what is this about.
So my questions before starting my first bread making experiment are:
Is correct the assumption that in my recipe plain flour should be just white flour? If that is the case I would like to replace it if possible since to the best of my understanding white flour is not very good for health. Is a good idea to replace it by the "type 75" wheat flour I got (the actual name written on the product (in french) is: "Farine de froment 75%")? Or maybe another alternative is better ?
What is the best replacement for the Graham flour that seems to be difficult to find in Belgium ?
Thanks.
Is correct the assumption that in my recipe plain flour should be just white flour?
It's tough to know without context, but given that "flour" is contrasted in your recipe with "strong whole wheat bread flour" and "graham flour," it's reasonable to assume that "flour" likely just means a standard white flour.
If that is the case I would like to replace it if possible since to the best of my understanding white flour is not very good for health.
Nutrition is off-topic here. I would merely note that it's probably more accurate to say that whole-grain flours tend to have a larger amount of beneficial nutrients and fiber. What may be "healthy" for you is a matter for you and your doctor.
Is a good idea to replace it by the "type 75" wheat flour I got (the actual name written on the product (in french) is: "Farine de froment 75%")? Or maybe another alternative is better ?
I'm assuming the numbers here are referring to the French system, which measures ash content in the flour. Type 75 flour in that case is still a somewhat "white flour," though that latter term can mean different things in different countries and to different people. To some, "white flour" implies bleaching. A Type 75 flour will be unbleached and therefore not quite as white as a very "white flour," and it will typically have a higher extraction rate (meaning some bran/germ is retained compared to typical white flour). But for your purposes, a Type 75 flour is probably also better than standard "white flour" because it will have a higher protein content, which will likely allow a heavy multigrain bread to rise better.
So yes, you can use your Type 75 flour as a substitute, though you might need to add a bit more liquid to the dough as it may absorb more than a standard white flour would. If you want to move toward even greater whole grain, you could use a higher number wheat flour, but likely at the expense of lightness in your bread loaf. A completely whole-grain bread will typically be a bit denser.
I'd also note that the question specifies "multigrain" bread, but all the flours listed are wheat. Should we assume that the recipe also includes other grains? [EDIT: OP added complete recipe to clarify, and it does.] If so, the regular (white) flour is likely there partly to provide loft and to lighten the flavor from the various (whole) grains. A Type 75 flour seems a good substitute if there are other added grains too, and you want to produce a bread that is not very heavy and dense. (If you don't mind heavy and dense, perhaps try more whole wheat in the mix.)
What is the best replacement for the Graham flour that seems to be difficult to find in Belgium ?
Graham flour means different things to different companies these days. Traditionally, it would have been a whole-grain wheat flour (sort of like your Type 150 flour), perhaps ground a bit more coarsely. In the U.S., graham flour is often separated into bran, germ, and endosperm (as white flour would be), some or all of the germ may be removed (to allow a longer shelf life) and the bran and some germ will be added back to the milled white flour to create graham flour. But the process and exact composition may vary.
Anyhow, I'd probably just use some more of your Type 150 flour in place of the graham flour. (I'm honestly not certain why the recipe would request those two separate types of whole-wheat flours in the first place, as they are alike enough that it doesn't seem to make much difference, and the specific differences that do exist are unlikely to be that consistent even between different mills. I'm guessing that the graham flour is meant to give a bit more coarseness from its coarser grind, resulting in a more rustic texture.)
Dear @Athanasius, thanks for your very complete answer! I included the full list of ingredients in my question. You recommend me to add a bit more of liquid if I use "type 75" flour instead of the white one. Could you give me a hint on how much more? The recipe requires me to add 280 ml of water.
Finally, taste wise, do you think is a good idea to replace the liquid with a mixture of beaten eggs + water instead of just water?
@Sergio: You'll have to gauge the moisture level yourself: you might try the bread once as written and see how it turns out. But I'd guess no more than 20-30ml additional. As for eggs, that's really your preference. That will add a different flavor and will likely soften the crumb a bit.
@RayButterworth: OP originally didn't include the complete recipe. I answered the question based on the info provided at the time (before it was edited).
True, I edited my question for completeness after the answer mentioning that the full recipe was not included. Thanks again @Athanasius!
Athanasius' answer is a good analysis of your current situation. Here some information to help you shop next time (I am using French system flour names here, I hope that's what Beldgium uses):
Strong white flour is not sold in continental Europe and is not the same thing as Type 150 flour. You can obtain strong white flour by taking normal white flour (type 55) and adding 2.5% vital wheat gluten to it. You will probably have to purchase the gluten online, I haven't seen it in stores.
Plain flour would be flour type 55.
For "graham flour", search for whole wheat flour, preferably of a slightly coarser grind (but not so coarse as to be semolina). Some health food stores will have a self-service grinder - you can buy a package of wheat from them and put it through the grinder yourself. However, don't use that option too early in your breadmaking days, as this kind of rough flour makes it quite difficult to work with the dough, it basically cuts the gluten strands and you have very little raise in the bread. If you can't find information on grind coarseness, just buy something labeled "whole wheat flour", maybe with a preference for health store brands (less likelihood of being refined in some way).
Following these steps will give you maximum closeness to the original recipe. If you can't, or don't want to, get all these types of flour, don't worry. Most types of flour will give you an edible bread with this recipe. You will just get a different taste and texture with each, and won't be too close to the original.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.225745 | 2019-12-21T22:57:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104242",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Sergio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64923"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87670 | Microwave steaming - venting/holes optional?
I see a lot of cooking videos where vegetables like carrots are steamed in the microwave, and the bowl is covered with what looks like a pretty tight lid without any vents/holes. For instance this one. I have always been afraid of doing this because I think that the pressure from the steam created would force the lid out with disastrous consequences. Am I correct? If so, how do the people in these videos not end up with a mess?
Define disastrous. Do you fear damaging the microwave or just cleanup?
Both. In my mind, it would sort of blast open, spraying the hot - whatever is inside, and possibly leave a mess and damage the interior of the appliance (also electric short etc?)
I think you overestimate the power of the blast.
ask any emergency doctor what they have seen regarding microwave steam/explosion injuries. Typically to the eyes
It won't explode. If you don't have a lid, try it with tightly secured cling wrap. Just don't put a ton of water in there, follow the instructions. It's a nice way to quickly steam veggies. Even if it does explode, the worst that will happen is steam will escape into your microwave and your veggies might dry out. Nothing crazy!
suggest waiting until 'tent' looks slightly deflated before removing film or other precautions
I've used the ones with the tight lid, and had salmon explode all over the inside of my oven !!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.226302 | 2018-02-10T20:26:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87670",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"Vasan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"paparazzo"
],
"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
} |
88553 | Issue getting Atta bread right
I am from india and a beginner baker. I have been trying really hard for quite some time to make decent 100% whole wheat bread from freshly milled chakki atta.
I have tried pre-packaged ones available in grocery stores and am able to make decent bread loaf with small/medium crumb texture but not able to replicate that with freshly milled atta
I follow variations of this recipe -
250 gms atta flour
180-200 gms water
4-5 gms salt
10-15gms sugar
10-15 gms fresh yeast.
roughly 1-2 tsp of oil.
The above is based on this recipe.
I sometimes substitute a portion of water with milk (maximum around 50%), replace 20-30 gms water with one medium egg, or use unsalted butter instead of oil (12-18gms). The hydration varies from 72-80%.
I generally knead for 200-250 passes, the dough is generally somewhat elastic and surface is somewhat smooth after that
Typically I let the dough be until it double in size ( typically 45 - 1 hour ) and then bake it or punch it down and do the second rising.
Over the last few times, based on this discussion, I ensure that the internal temperature gets to 190° F - 205° F. This, and at least 15 mins of resting ensures that the bread is cooked evenly.
In India we have quite a few types of wheat, and I have tried so far 4 kinds of wheat -
Sharbati (aestivum)
Sihori (aestivum?)
Khapli ( Emmer/dicoccum)- I came to know about this in this discussion and so far this has given the best results
I am not sure if its supposed to work, but I tried making my own active gluten by washing away the starch from a bowl of kneaded dough until only the gluten is left behind, and using that gluten in the bread dough. I didn't see any improvement.
This is the typical structure of bread I bake. As its evident, there is no crumb structure, and can tend to be a bit soggy on the inside. The below one was baked until the internal temperature was about 205deg F and then allowed to cool on a rack for 15-20 mins. Its somewhat dense ( although it was baked when the proofed volume was more than twice the size)
I would like to be able to make fluffier breads with hopefully well defined crumb structure.
Does any one see any fault in my process?
Any recommendation on how to get a decently defined crumb and relatively fluffy.
UPDATE 25/3
After going through @GdD's answer, I made a couple of batches incorporating the suggestions made there. Made sure the dough is as smooth as possible before letting it to rest covered in a warm place. Didn't put water in the oven as I dont mind how the crust is as of now. Since the crust was't hard as is, there shouldn't be any problem if there is an oven spring.
Ingredients
Dough - 250 GMS
Water - 175 GMS - 120 deg F
Yeast - 11 GMS - Fresh Compressed
Salt - 4.5 GMS
Kneaded slowly about 12 minutes. Then shaped it into a log and transferred into the loaf pan. Let it rest for 2 hours. The results are marginally better.
Here are a few observations -
The dough breaks apart almost immediately when stretched. ( is this
because of poor gluten content/development )
The dough is significantly stiffer compared to 70% hydration dough that I see
online. Every second fold would break it at the seams while kneading
It proofed to be double in size in about 45 mins and then would rise
no more. Although I am sure yeast was working (you can take the pan
near to your ear and hear a tiny fizzy sound), it would rise no more :(
There was no oven spring.
Its super frustrating :( Can anyone help me figure out what alterations are required to get a decent loaf of bread from just chakki atta, salt, yeast and water?
SOLVED
85% hydration for chakki atta is equivalent to 60% hydration for all purpose flour.
This is
250 gms chakki atta,
85% water
2% salt
3% active wheat gluten
3% fresh yeast.
Needs significant kneading, end result will be a smooth dough.
Moderate raising dough at sweltering Indian summer (30 °C). Single raise of 75 mins. The dough more than doubled in size.
10 mins in 210° C with boiling water, 15 mins covered in 190°C.
Bread is soft, although there are no large crumbs.
Thanks everyone for suggestions.
Welcome to the site @SwayamSiddha. What are the problems you have with the result? We can't answer this because you aren't saying what isn't right.
@GdD thank you. I am sorry i wasn't clear. I have edited the question. Hope it is now.
A small suggestion, make sure the loaf is fully cooled before slicing (I've found 15-20 min can still be quite warm). The insides of a loaf cut warm tend to be a bit more squashed and damp, and so feel denser, than a bread cut when fully cool. Won't make a huge difference in the loaf structures, etc, but can help make the most of what crumb you do have.
@Megha If you go through my question, you'd notice that I have mentioned that I am already cooling the bread on a rack for atleast 15 minutes. This, and at least 15 mins of resting ensures that the bread is cooked evenly.
As an outsider who experimented with western style yeast breads made from flours meant for chapati etc.: Yes, they do give a denser texture compared to western flours, everything else unchanged.
‘Freshly killed’ might be the issue. Most commercial ‘whole wheat’ flour in the US is actually white flour that has germ and bran mixed back in so it’s always consistent (for that brand). You may also not get as fine of a grind (larger bits of bran will cut gluten strands) or have a consistent moisture level. I would recommend specifically looking for recipes from people who grind their own flour, and see if they mention any notes or tips on how it’s different
Atta has a high gluten content, it doesn't sound like you need to do any extra work on gluten development. From your description of your method and your picture of your result I think you are under-kneading and under-proofing. Also, it sounds like you are knocking out what rise you do have. You should have a very elastic and smooth dough after kneading. If your gluten is not developed enough it won't have the elasticity you need or be able to trap the air needed for expansion.
You are adding sugar, oil and sometimes eggs and into your dough, all that is going to slow down the action of the yeast. Enriched dough takes significantly longer to proof (rise), 45 minutes for an enriched dough typically isn't enough. In any case you should be working to a result, not a time. A high hydration dough like yours should at least triple in size, if not quadruple before you move onto the next step.
You say you sometimes bake right after a first rise, you can do this if you proof it in the container you want but you have to make sure you don't lose any air. If you do a first rise and then move it to a tin you need to do a second rise to get the air back in it.
If you want a really airy dough don't knock it back, you lose all that hard work the yeast has done. Treat it as gently as you can when moving it to your tin or baking sheet and handle it as little as possible. Then let it rise again until it's the right size, then bake.
Something else that might be happening is that the crust may be hardening before you get full oven spring. In high hydration dough you get a lot of oven spring from the vaporization of water in the dough, the expansion of the air trapped in it and the yeast going crazy before dying. If your crust forms too quickly then the bread can't expand and it all gets trapped. Try putting a tray of hot water in the oven about 10 minutes before you bake the bread, it will create a moist environment that will keep the crust from hardening completely. Once the bread has sprung (about 20 minutes) you can remove the tray of water and let the crust harden up. Also, don't forget to score the dough on top with a sharp knife, that will allow expansion as well.
Thanks, I have tried most of your suggestions in a couple of batches. Although there is improvement, we are nowhere near the desired result :( Please check updates in my question for details about the latest attempt.
I have been using Aashirvard atta Select for making whole wheat bread for cost reason and my bread is almost like store-bought.
Atta's gluten is not the anything like the normal whole wheat flour. Using atta alone will not give you the airy crumb.
For 250gm of atta, take out 28gm and replace with the same amount of wheat gluten of preferably 85% protein.
I will. Just ordered gluten online :) Ill update you
The method I am using is Peter Reinhart's 100% whole wheat bread recipe. Google for it. Alternatively, you can use this : http://www.geniuskitchen.com/recipe/100-whole-grain-wheat-bread-181106. It involves scalding the flour, akin to the Tangzhong method.
A google search shows that Aarshirvard Atta Select flour has 10.1g of protein per 100g: this is typical of AP white flour. Wholewheat flour and strong bread flour typically has 13g or more of protein. So it seems reasonable to replace some flour with vital white gluten.
The atta milling process destroys its gluten, so it behaves like cake flour, giving no lift to yeast bread.
I'd be checking the amount of gluten in your Atta flour. FSSAI only requires a minimum of 6% gluten, which leaves a considerable gap to what would be used as a bread flour (~11% to 12% gluten)
If your expecting a decent rise from your yeast, I'd recommend using bread flour. Theres also other additives you can add to increase the rise and improve the crumb (Diastatic Malt and Bakers Dry Milk)
I have been using 100% atta flour for yeasted breads; I have recently started to work with sourdough and made a loaf with atta including sourdough discards (I am using atta to make the sourdough culture).
Various food photos; scroll to the end for recent atta flour breads
Culinary Photos
Here are the bread formulas I have been using:
Bread Formulas
Please don't post link only answers. Edit the relevant information into your answer to prevent link rot.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.226487 | 2018-03-23T10:50:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88553",
"authors": [
"Backyard Chef",
"Community",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"Megha",
"Swayam Siddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"rackandboneman",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.