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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
90890 | Custard-like cake
I would like to cook finger food for my one year old. I am looking for a recipe for a soft cake-- something like a loose cheesecake or set custard in terms of consistency. I did make a bread pudding serving the middle portion to him, but I would like to avoid using so much bread or flour. I would adapt the recipe to accommodate savory vegetables or do a low sugar, or no sugar, option when using it for fruits. Anyone know the name of a bread/cake/tart that would come close to what I am after?
We're not a recipe sharing site, but maybe someone can identify a type of cake that would fit the bill, which you could adapt.
I don't have it in front of me but one of our baby cookbooks included something called (IIRC) soufflé muffins. They're egg-based and cooked in muffin tins, savoury or neutral so you can add veg or fruit. I'll try to remember to find the book tonight
Surely omlettes and other egg receipes (quiche-like dishes) are what your paleo one year old needs!
You cannot simply leave out the sugar in a cake or pudding recipe, as it is quite important for the setting and the final texture. If you are looking for something which is made out of custard, has vegetables, and can be held in the fingers, you are describing a quiche. It can be made as mini-quiches too, for less messy eating.
Tamagoyaki might fit the bill...no bread or flour. It is a Japanese omelette. Here are some pics.
That's a great suggestion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.227291 | 2018-07-08T21:34:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90890",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Fattie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107202 | What is the guideline sourdough to flour to water ratio for 24-hour feeding?
I have a batch of sourdough that I've been maintaining and feeding for months, and currently trying to save from spoiling after repetitive periods of laziness, where I left the batch unfed for more than two days. It leavens the bread dough just fine and the bread dough smells nice after 12 hours of fermenting, but the sourdough starter itself smells a little off, or I simply haven't liked its smell as of lately. I noticed that with regular feeding and care, though, that undesirable smell is weakening and it's starting to smell more acceptable as time goes by. My hope is that this is the good guys slowly overtaking any bad guys (the ones responsible for the off smell) as the weeks go by, and that sourdough starter can be saved after periods of irresponsibility toward the lovely pets. =)
Now, with that introduction out of the way, my question is: What is the sourdough to flour to water ratio that I should use if I only want to feed my sourdough once a day, or every 24 hours, instead of twice daily or every 12 hours, and still have it stay healthy?
For example, should I be adding 200 g fresh flour and 200 g water (for a total of 400 g) to 200 g of sourdough once a day? Or is it better to use a 2:2:1 ratio of 240 g fresh flour and 240 g water to 120 g of sourdough when one's feeding every 24 hours?
Thanks for any help or tips with this.
I am using as little as 10-20 % old starter, e.g. 100g flour, 100g water and a teaspoon old starter, which is somewhere around 15g, plus/minus. To be honest, I usually eyeball the ratios, aiming for the just-right consistency of the flour/water mix, then add the starter. A few percent deviation is ok.
Don’t forget that the growth in your starter is roughly exponential, so if you want to double the time to maturity, you need significantly less than half of what you would use otherwise. And the environment also plays a role, during summer heat or near the radiator a starter will grow and collapse way faster than on the counter on a cool spring or autumn day.
If you need longer phases between feeding, I suggest parking your sourdough in the fridge and feeding it only once a week.
Thank you for your answer. Just to be absolutely sure, the 15 g sourdough to 100 g flour and 100 g water is about your sourdough-starter maintenance or feeding, [not] the mix you leave to ferment then put into the oven later to bake bread, right? I ask because I'm just not used to such a huge amount of "food" for the sourdough starter. The recipe I used months ago to start growing a sourdough starter said to take 50% for baking, and top-up that 50% with fresh flour & water. So its sourdough:flour:water ratio was basically 2:1:1! Yours is about 1.5:10:10!
Yep, I have a small “permanent” jar of starter separately, which I use to make a (slightly) larger amount for baking. Unfortunately I don’t have the time of daily baking, so this works best for me. And yes, I know that the ratio is different from the typical “use half, top up” method many e.g. American sources favor.
What I understood is that perhaps that jar is in the fridge or so, but when you "feed" that jar, for example, do you still give it about 20 times its weight of an equally split mix of water and flour? Or 10 times its weight in fresh flour, and 10 times its weight in water, roughly speaking? I mean, that's how you maintain your sourdough starter batches generally?
Exactly. I always use that ratio. I have one batch that gets fed regularly (daily, if I have time to bake or fear it may get “sluggish”, once a week if parked in the fridge, sometimes not even that often). And for baking, I take a spoonful of that and add it to what later goes into the dough. The benefit is that I can play with the flours for the bread and still keep a stable starter.
Thank you. This is very helpful. However, if you're adding 200 g of a fresh mix to about 15 g of sourdough, then after 24 hours, you have about 215 g of sourdough. Does that mean that you take 200 g of that the next day (or after a week) to bake with? And you top up the remaining 15 g with a fresh mix of 200 g, and so on? And if so, then out of curiosity about your baking, how much fresh flour and water do you add to that 200 g of sourdough to prepare some dough for bread?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.227692 | 2020-04-01T16:35:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107202",
"authors": [
"Rok",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68031"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105557 | Questions about the how and when of baking homemade sourdough bread
First, an important introduction with potentially relevant details: I've been maintaining some sourdough at home for several months now, initially made from organic white bread flour, then from half organic barley flour (I think it's white but it's significantly courser than the wheat or bread flour) and half organic white bread flour.
Almost all the recipes I checked online would instruct to take half of the dough for baking after 24 hours, then top up the sourdough with the same total weight of equal weights of water and flour. And in the beginning, I took that literally, so I'd take out half of the dough, add some salt and a dash of olive oil to it and mix, then bake it after heating the oven for a while. However, because of mixing the oil and salt with the dough, all the bubbles would be gone, and the bread was never fluffy.
After a few months, I did some testing and noticed that the dough stops rising after about 5 hours. So I changed the way I do things and started to top up the dough with new water and flour first, then take out some of that half-fresh dough for baking, salt it and leave it in the baking tray for about 4 hours, then put it in the oven. And that indeed started to produce softer, fluffier bread.
However, this means that about half of the bread I eat is made from dough that hasn't fermented for 24 hours. So now I find myself wondering ...
How do bakeries produce such soft, fluffy sourdough bread that tastes wholly like sourdough bread? And how can I do the same if my dough literally stops rising after roughly just 5 hours? How do I "take out half of the sourdough for baking" exactly? How do I add salt and a dash of oil to it without doing away with all the bubbles that constitute the fluffiness?
Thank you for any tips and help.
EDIT & UPDATE: I've waited long enough to pick an answer and feel forced now to just do it. I was waiting for two things: the results of my own experimentation with some of my findings from the comments and answers here, and to see whether the upvotes can help me pick an answer (it's really hard for me). Unfortunately, the votes are all equal on 3 answers at the time of this update, so it falls solely to me to pick an answer at this point. However, regardless of what I pick, I want to share part of the answer as my own findings, and I'm nowhere near cheeky enough to answer my own question as the newbie I am in this field:
I found out that, indeed, an important concept to understand is to treat the sourdough as the starter or leavening agent of the bread recipe that one bakes. And perhaps to never make the sourdough more than 50% of the total weight of the bread dough that one will bake.
I also realized that most "proper" sourdough bread recipes add significantly more flour than water. In other words, the ratio of flour to water is usually significantly higher than 1:1.
And I found out that, for whatever reason, I simply couldn't bake bread that was soft and fluffy enough in the inside by using such ratios that really favor the flour. The bread that such recipes produced for me was "meaty", or it was very filling, but it also wasn't as soft and fluffy as I wanted.
I found out that I find more success producing the bread I want by keeping the ratio of flour to water close to 1:1 but I'm still playing around with ratios of flour to water around 1.1:1. I'm still decreasing the flour to a ratio of 1.05 and increasing it to 1.15 to keep experimenting until I hit the perfect spot for my liking one day, hopefully.
Keeping the weight of the flour close to the weight of the water this way also has the added benefit of enabling me to use a normal, cheap hand mixer to "knead" the dough, instead of being forced to knead by hand or buy a very expensive kitchen dough mixer.
And by way of that, I found out that you really have to knead the dough long enough for it to turn glue or gum-like in order for it to reach the right structure that allows it to hold its bubbles well, and also to feel soft and smooth in the inside after baking. And this is where a ratio of 1.1 flour to 1 water, enabling the use of a hand mixer, really shines for me.
Finally, I thank all those who helped me reach those conclusions and understandings by comments and answers here.
When you write "the dough" do you mean the starter, or the final bread dough that the starter is added to?
@moscafj Hmm. My understanding of the word "starter" is that it's like a small amount of a culture to help start the fermentation process of larger amounts; something one would buy in a small packet once in the beginning and never use again. I currently don't use anything that I would personally call a starter. I just have some sourdough, which is equal weights of water and flour, and tiny amounts of which have been fermenting for months. I take almost daily from that amount to bake and top up what remains with fresh water and flour. So the dough is the sourdough, I guess?
@moscafj In other words, there's no separation in my mind between a starter and dough; it's all one mix. I don't mix some fresh dough that's made up of fresh flour and water separately; I add fresh flour and water to the existing sourdough, if that makes sense.
Is your goal just to make your loaf more sour tasting while still being light and fluffy? You can achieve this by: feeding your starter whole wheat; doing your rises in the fridge for an extended period of time; changing the ratio of flour/water you're feeding your starter to make it drier; adding an acid like apple cider vinegar to your bread.
Perhaps it would be helpful to think of the starter as the leavening, like a packet of yeast that you purchase is the store is a leavening. In the case of the starter, you need to keep that "alive" and in balance. This is done by removing some of the starter and replenishing it with fresh flour and water. This feeds the micro organisms and keeps the pH in check. The a dough is made with a portion of the starter. This way, it is easier to predict and control the leavening. Salt, for example, will certainly influence yeast and bacterial action, as will too much acidity.
Can you clarify, when you take some dough add oil and salt and bake... that’s all you add, no more flour or water?
Um, normally you add a bunch more flour and a little water to the sourdough starter. You don't just take out half and bake it.
Somewhat off-topic, but if you have Netflix, their series 'The Chef Show' had an episode in Season 3 that went over sourdough bread making with Sam Raimi.
@Spagirl That's what I [used] to do, yes, take out half of the sourdough that's been fermenting for 24 hours, add oil and salt to it and mix it, then bake it. However, all the bubbles would be gone doing that because of the mixing. A lot of bubbles go away even from the simple act of pouring the sourdough into the baking tray. So now what I do is that I add fresh flour and water to the sourdough first, then I take half of that, mix oil and water with it, then add it to the baking tray and let it sit for a few hours (but not 24 hours), and I bake it.
@FuzzyChef That's what I do now as I mention in my reply to Spagirl, but the problem now is that the bread doesn't quite taste like sourdough bread that's been fermenting for 24 hours. And I'm just improvising all this in spite of the perhaps confusing recipe directions on the web. And I'm trying to understand if there's a better way of doing all that to produce fluffy [and] sour bread.
@UnhandledExcepSean Thank you. That can help indeed. I'll keep an eye open for that episode.
Rok, it doesn't sound like you have a reliable recipe for sourdough bread. Where are you getting your instructions?
@FuzzyChef I believe I got the recipe from https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-your-own-sourdough-starter-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-47337 but I remember that I had checked a second source that didn't say very different things.
So that's just the starter recipe. Kitchn.com has 4 different sourdough bread recipes. Like, this one looks nice and fluffy: https://www.thekitchn.com/recipe-beginner-sourdough-sandwich-loaf-recipes-from-the-kitchn-48192 Have you tried any of the actual bread recipes?
@FuzzyChef Thank you for showing me that recipe. I definitely don't want to use commercial yeast, and would rather just rely solely on natural fermentation using wild yeast. However, regardless of that, does that recipe mean that I should try to use 1 part sourdough or starter for every 2 parts fresh flour? And that the final water to flour ratio after everything is mixed is 0.5 to 1?
Check their other bread recipes, there's four. Lemme turn this into an answer.
Here is how I maintain my sourdough and use it for bread making:
I take out 50g sourdough from my culture, add 80g flour, 50g water - mix it, put it into a clean jar and leave it on the kitchen counter for the night (c.a. 10h) then put it in the fridge
I use the rest (c.a. 130g) of the sourdough for bread. I add the sourdough to mixed water and flour (autolyzed) mix it, then add the salt. I leave it in the fridge overnight and get it out in the next morning. Leave it on the kitchen counter for 6-10 hours then begin folding the dough.
Sourdough is made of naturally occuring yeast and lactobacilli. If they get O2, they are starting to reproduce (I think partly that is why we have to knead the dough, to aereate it). If they are out of oxygen, they stop reproducing and start to produce alcohols, lactic acid and some aromatic stuff, which gives the sourdough and the bread the sour flavour.
In the meantime they use up the starch and the gluten in the flour, which would give the structure of the bread. So if you have an overfermented dough, it is not able to contain the CO2, because the structure is missing, your bread is going to be flat. Your sourdough culture is usually overfermented (because the culture goes through the nutrition very fast), use it only to start the fermentation in the dough, not as the "main" part of the dough.
You can influence fluffiness with multiple things, e.g. amount of water, fermentation time, fermentation temperature, type of flour or autolyzation. Also, fat content (e.g. oil) can reduce fluffiness, as far as I know.
How much fresh water and flour do you add the 130 g of sourdough to?
It's usually 350-360g flour (mixed, 2 different types of wheat bread flour, sometimes also rye) and 250g-280g of water. If I want the bread to be more fluffy, I add more water. The recipe also calls for 2 teaspoons salt.
It sounds like you have a sourdough starter recipe, but you haven't been using a bread recipe. What follows are a list of sourdough bread recipes from the internet that can get you started:
https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-sourdough-bread-224367
https://www.theclevercarrot.com/2014/01/sourdough-bread-a-beginners-guide/
https://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/basic-sourdough-bread-recipe
If you try out one of these, and you still can't get a good rise in your bread, The Kitchn has a troubleshooting guide, as well as other supporting articles on myth and chemistry.
To spell out the informaiton which has been implicit in other answers and comments:
Sourdough is not bread dough, it is an ingredient for bread dough (one of many). If you bake it on your own, it is no wonder you are getting undesirable results.
To bake bread, you have to follow a recipe for bread dough. You have the choice between different styles. Some use sourdough as a bulk ingredient (sometimes over 50%), others use a tiny amount just as a leavener or even use commercial yeast as the leavener and only add a small amount of sourdough as a kind of flavoring. You can explore different recipes and decide which type you like for yourself. A small warning, the ones which get a loaf fully leavened with only a small percentage of sourdough will only work if you have a well established, vigorous colony with good leavening action. So you might only want to go into these after you have tried the easier ones (high percentage of sourdough, or sourdough-as-flavor).
In any case, you will be adding your sourdough to flour, water and other ingredients to make dough to bake. You should also follow the steps given for proper kneading and proofing, else you won't get good results. Also, sourdoughs are more "individualistic" than commercial yeast, so it is worth trying out different recipes of the same time and find out for which one your colony performs best.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.228161 | 2020-02-27T16:33:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105557",
"authors": [
"Dugan ",
"FuzzyChef",
"G. B.",
"Rok",
"Spagirl",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91424 | What kind of sauce did I "invent"?
One day I had an idea for a special "sauce" to use on (chicken) burgers. The basic idea was to give it some sort of "salad dressing" like taste.
The basic ingredients are cream cheese, mustard, vinegar and freshly ground black pepper. Plus a bit of salt and maybe some herbs I had lying around (mainly tarragon).
Now, I know I probably didn't invent something completely new, so my question is, what kind of sauce have I created? Are there similar widely known (named) ones?
Welcome to the site @HasAnIdea. Your question in confusing, and cannot be answered as it is. You made a sauce, which you already figured out, but you ask what you've created. You are asking ways to improve it, which is subjective as you haven't said what you'd like to improve.
@GdD, HadAnIdea has made a chicken sauce, and since he feels it is delicious, it cannot be his own invention, but must be a rediscovery of someone else's excellent sauce. He just wants to know the name of it. However considering its ingredients, I believe it may very well be his own original invention, and I think he should have the privilege of naming it. Also ... not sure it can be improved upon.
I guess it is a kind of cream cheese dip?
In some ways, it's like a mock sour cream .... creamy from the cream cheese, but thinned out and made sour from the vinegar. Mustard and herbs starts to get us closer to one of the early recipes for beef Stroganoff.
Assuming you didn't over-use the vinegar, and mainteined the spreadable consistency of the cream-cheese, I think what you've invented is also known as a sandwich spread.
When in doubt how to name anything, revert to the go-to language of cuisine: French and I would say:
Marriage de fromage, moutarde et herbes
(Marriage of cheese, mustard and herbs just sounds so much more sexy in French and black pepper is kind of a herb and you're not giving away the full recipe)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I see the drive-by downvotes but don't see any other solutions... :P
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.229142 | 2018-08-04T04:45:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91424",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91718 | How to identify CTC tea?
The Harney and Sons Guide to Tea has the following to say about CTC tea:
Today, both Flowery and Broken teas are also called “Orthodox” teas, to distinguish them from “CTC” teas. “CTC” teas (so called for the “Crush, Tear, and Curl” steps of the production process) were introduced into the market in 1931, when Sir William McKercher invented the a machine that would “crush, tear, and curl” the fresh tea leaves in one fell swoop. This technique, the apogee of British tea innovation, revolutionized the world of tea production. Essentially a massive sieve, the machine extruded fresh leaves as tiny bright green pellets, then sent them on a conveyor belt beneath powerful blowers. This machine so hastened oxidation that the pellets turned dark brown within one hundred yards, in just under an hour. The result of this near instantaneous oxidation was a tea with extraordinary briskness and consistency. CTC teas have much less of the sort of internal variation that pure whole-leaf teas can provide, the kind of magical alteration that happens when one sips a fine tea or wine. CTC teas are so much cheaper and easier to produce, however, that they have almost entirely supplanted Orthodox teas. Today, CTC teas make up at least 95 percent of the worldwide tea market and are the primary ingredient in teabags. But because they are so blunt, I include only one CTC in this book. All the other British Legacy Teas here are Orthodox, and of those, almost all are Flowery.
I've searched for images of CTC tea, as this one; but in real life, I've not encountered a tea that looks like in those images.
For example, the following is an image (on 0.5 cm paper grid) of an exceptionally cheap (3.50 € for 500 g) Ceylon tea I bought.
Obviously, even this tea doesn't look remotely like the linked image of CTC tea.
Question: How can one unambiguously differentiate CTC tea from orthodox tea by looking at the dry leaves?
Because of the process of producing CTC teas, they leaves have a hard, balled, granular appearance like the ones in the picture you linked. The primary place to find such tea leaves is inside tea bags; pick up some Lipton sometime. I've also found that orange pekoe teas tend to be frequently processed this way, even in higher grades.
This comparison of Sri Lanka Pekoe Grades lays it out more distinctly than anywhere else I can find; you can see there the same leaves, both processed orthodox, and via CTC. The CTC has a "gravel" appearance that's hard to mistake for anything else.
Contrary to Harney & Sons marketing copy, CTC teas are not generally considered superior to Orthodox teas, but instead inferior. The primary advantage of CTC teas for the drinker is a faster steep to produce a dark cup of tea (and hence why they are suited to tea bags). However, the process is expected to prevent tasting any of the subtler flavors in a tea blend.
1.) I now inserted the full quote, so it doesn't feel like Harney and Sons state CTC are superior. 2.) So the tea in the picture in my post (on grid paper) is really orthodox? Broken orange pekoe?
Correct, it's orthodox.
To recognize CTC tea, two things are important:
The leaves are crushed very fine;
they are consistent in size.
The latter is very important, as CTC can sometimes be confused with 'tea fannings' or 'tea dust' which are leftovers of high end tea. Fannings and dust can be consist of parts that appear less consistent in size.
To make things more confusing sometimes tea fannings are used to produce CTC.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.229345 | 2018-08-15T17:10:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91718",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"viuser"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94584 | Tea leaf grades and plucking standards
How do the plucking standards of tea (imperial pluck,
fine pluck, …) actually relate to the leaf grades?
PG Tips claims “we pick the top two leaves and a bud known as the tips”, so that would be called ‘fine pluck’ in the following diagram:
But going by the following diagram, we wouldn't get an orange pekoe with a fine pluck – that doesn't feel right.
So how do they relate? Or does it differ from region to region? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems in Nilgiri even expensive teas are designated with less “colorful grades”.
@aris what about this? “Orange Pekoe” refers to the leaves as on the tea plant from which the product originates, not its dry leaves.
The importance of leaf grade differs mainly between tea types and to a lesser extend between regions. For green tea picking is the most important. And the finer the pluck the more expensive it is. Anything between just a bud up to one bud and two leaves are considered premium.
However, for oolong and pu erh tea this is less important. For example with pu erh, you sometimes buy very expensive tea that consists of very large leaves, yet they may be expensive as they're from old arbor trees from famous regions. There's a grading system for pu erh though when it comes to blends. For more info you can read this post: pu erh tea grading system. Still, the higher the grade of the raw leaves, doesn't mean that the is better or more expensive. In fact, many prefer pu erh teas made from bigger leaves. When such leaves go through fermentation, it results in a sweeter flavour, while small leaves and buds result in more complexity. The latter is less durable though when it comes to the amount of brews.
As for oolong, I rarely see oolong teas made from just one bud one leaf, as it's far from optimal for the taste (this is due to a more intensive processing methodology applied relative to green tea).
At last, for white tea and yellow tea the grade of the leaves become a more important determining factor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.229635 | 2018-12-08T13:52:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94584",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68724",
"viuser"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93208 | Mixing Ghee with Other Ingredients
I was mixing wet ingredients together for a muffin recipe, and I prepared the eggs, water and vanilla extract. I melted Ghee butter in the microwave, and tried to cool it down some. I then combined the eggs/water/vanilla and melted ghee together, and that is where I have been having problems. Some of what I did:
1) Parts of the Ghee started to harden, causing chunks
2) The eggs did come out of the fridge; the water was roughly room temperature, maybe a bit below
I don't know if that would happen if I used normal butter instead of Ghee, but is there an optimal way to melt Ghee, and not have it harden and have everything mix together well?
Combined which two together?
Butter melts at about 90 F. I'd assume that ghee would actually melt at a bit higher temperature. So adding eggs cold from the fridge would also certainly drop the temperature enough to solidify the ghee.
Why are you using ghee? Is that what the recipe calls for?
Ghee is a very unusual thing to use for a muffin recipe. Are you sure the recipe calls for Ghee? Generally Ghee will almost always start to harden into chunks when cooled.
@GdD the recipe calls for butter - I was trying to use Ghee as a replacement.
@EssKay the recipe calls for butter - I was trying to use Ghee to replace it, and that would make sense. I wasn't sure if I was doing something wrong, or if it was simply working with Ghee. Thanks.
@FuzzyChef updated the question: basically mixed water/eggs/vanilla into the melted ghee
There's two methods for this, which can also be combined.
The first, as several people have mentioned, is to make sure that the eggs and water are slightly above room temperature. At 27C/80F ghee (and, for that matter, butter) is liquid, so if you can ensure that the rest of the batter is that temperature, it will stay liquid when mixed. The easiest way to do this is to heat the water (to, say, 35C). Make sure to let the ghee cool a bit before adding, though, otherwise you may cook the eggs.
The second method is the one used for French sweet crepes, where you must add melted butter to a cold batter. In this method, you rapidly agitate the batter (using a whisk or a blender) while pouring the butter in, in a thin stream. The butter still solidifies, but it hardens into tiny pieces which are well distributed in the batter.
If the ghee was too hot, the eggs would cook on contact with it, so you can simply increase the temperature. Melting it in a heavy bowl (ceramic or Pyrex) would hold a bit more heat, even at sensibly low temperature, so that might help. You may have let it cool too much - it will drop to just above it's melting point, then the addition of cold stuff will take up the latent heat required for it to solidify.
Allowing the eggs to come up to room temperature would help, but the easiest thing might be to take the chill off the water - using near-boiling water for about one part in three or four with the rest cold is a common way to do this in breadmaking, for example. Many muffin recipes use milk, and that can be warmed just a little in the microwave.
I would still advise to use room temperature eggs, that creates much tastier baking goods, even if you don't have to do it to avoid clupms.
@rumtscho as my eggs are always at room temperature, I've never had the chance to compare, but I believe you
A quick hit on Google suggests using half Ghee and half water/milk (preferrably warmed as Chris said) though not recommended to replace butter with Ghee due to different textures.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.229827 | 2018-10-25T00:43:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93208",
"authors": [
"Brian Mains",
"Chris H",
"Ess Kay",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93940 | Can you freeze caramel sauce?
As caramel sauce makes everything better from cakes to brownies, cookies even enhances the flavor of popcorn. I am thinking to make caramel sauce and freeze it, so it can be used as and when required. So can caramel sauce be
frozen? How long does caramel sauce last in the fridge?
In the title you say freeze, in the body you say refrigerate. Which are you asking about?
Edited question
Caramel sauce being mostly sugar, which resists spoilage, I'm guessing will last for a very long time just in the fridge. And since it's like two bucks of ingredients if you're using butter and 20 minutes for a large batch that lasts several months, I'd personally just make what I guess I can use, if it goes bad on me toss it, make less next time.
You can also make toasted sugar / dry caramel, which should likely last for as long as you'll need it to in a sealed container: https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2016/05/dry-toasted-sugar-granulated-caramel-recipe.html
It is however a lot more time and bother than regular caramel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.230158 | 2018-11-15T12:48:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93940",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Laila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69542",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93287 | Softened butter vs over softened butter
Many baking recipes call for “softened” butter. What is meant by term "over softened", as in many places it is written that " over softening causes flat cookies or hard dough" etc. Isn't softening mean to put the cold butter in the microwave for 10 to 20 seconds. If so, then what do the recipe mean when it says that we have over softened butter? I am confused between these two terms as I was going through some baking recipes, and ways to trouble shoot baking issues. I now am confused. Am I mixing these two terms or "over softening" refers to melting butter.
Can you give some examples of references to ‘over softened butter’? I’ve tried an online search and get pages of advice on how to rescue or avoid over softened butter but no recipes calling for it.
Sorry for wrong info. I've edited my question. If still there is any mistake feel free to edit or ask.
"Softened" butter will flex if you try to bend the unwrapped stick. You can actually get the ends to 90 degrees to each other when you have it just right.
"Over softened" is when you can't even pick it up to try to flex it. This actually happens before it fully melts.
The problem is that you need the butter to be at the right consistency when you're creaming in the sugar. "Creaming" is really about cutting little holes into the butter to get air into it. If it's too stiff, the butter just stays as a lump or maybe crumbles into pieces, but the butter never really gets any air into it. If it's too soft, the bubbles won't stay in the butter after the sugar cuts it in.
Microwaving doesn't really help as you end up with an over-softened outside, while the middle is too firm. You really have to leave it out at room temperature for a few hours, but if you're in a rush, you can slice it up so there's more surface area so it warms up more quickly. (but there's the problem that "room temperature" is a cultural thing, and seasonal, so one area's "room temperature" might be too warm or too cold either all year or for some part of the year)
In the microwaves I've used, it's more likely to end up with an over-softened middle and a too-firm outside.
" over softening causes flat cookies or hard dough" - this is also what happens if you substitute oil for butter. So I agree with you that over-softening probably refers to letting the butter totally melt. You want the butter to soften just enough to be a soft solid so that it mixes properly with the flour and other ingredients to make a soft dough.
Might also refer to partially melted, or even just shy of melting when it gets really soft and loose - to run with your oil analogy it would be the texture equivalent of having subbed part of the butter for oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.230375 | 2018-10-27T08:31:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93287",
"authors": [
"Laila",
"Marti",
"Megha",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69542"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92949 | how do you fix burnt gravy?
If you are making gravy and accidentally burn it,than how can you fix that burnt gravy?
Just an aside.. 'gravy' means different things in different places.. e.g. in the US, a roux-based sauce, with the flour browned to varying degrees, in the UK, primarily meat juices, which may be thickened using flour cooked out in some of the meat fat.. and so on.. perhaps it would be better to specify.
If it's just scorched on the bottom of the pan, and you haven't mixed the burnt material into the rest of the gravy, you can try just pouring the good gravy into another pan.
If you've tried to stir it and scrape the burnt stuff off the bottom, there's not much you can do. The human palette can detect very small quantities of burnt flavours, so you won't be able to mask it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.230604 | 2018-10-16T09:34:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92949",
"authors": [
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92542 | Mayonnaise advise
I am making vegan garlic mayonnaise at home using soy milk as an egg alternative. The taste is good on the day I make and bottle a batch. For some reason, however, after two days the mayo breaks up into curd in one bottle, and another bottle is bursting out and the mayo is fizzy. I'm not sure what could have gone wrong. Does anyone have any experience or knowledge on what happened, and how to fix it?
The ingredient I use: soy milk (slightly sweetened), Sunflower Oil, garlic, mustard, malt vinegar, agave syrup, pepper, salt, lemon juice, and a thickener (xantham gum).
Welcome lamp Stand! Where are you storing the mayonnaise?
Are you refrigerating this after you make it?
No I am leaving out side for atleast 2 days..
@lampstand : the 'leave it out for a while before refrigerating' in many mayo recipes is so any bacteria in the raw eggs don't go dormant before the acid has a chance to kill it. I don't know if a necessary or even advisable step when you're not using eggs.
The fizzing is a warning sign: There is unwanted life in your mayonnaise. The fizz indicates microbes - bacteria and/or yeasts - growing in your bottles. The fizz is likely CO2, a byproduct of their digestive activities.
Any food with signs of unplanned and unknown fermentation processes is not safe and should be discarded.
You don’t mention any “sterilizing” or other preservation step and as you are using various raw ingredients, this was to be expected. Refrigeration can slow down the process, but won’t prevent it. A few days if refrigerated is the upper limit for a safe storage, but only if there are no signs of spoilage.
That said, I want to mention a second, rare but potentially lethal risk that your mayonnaise may contain: Botulism. Your ingredient list contains garlic and you are using it in an potentially anaerobic environment. (Your ingredient list doesn’t mention oil - that would create the classic “garlic in oil” scenario - but it’s almost certainly not acidic enough to be safe.) The danger of botulism is that it’s virtually unnoticeable for us humans. Unlike many spoilage processes, there is no smell or taste to warn us. And you won’t be cooking your mayonnaise, which could destroy the toxin. For garlic oil - and you can simply apply the same guideline in your case - the max storage time is a week in the refrigerator.
thank you! , I am using sunflower oil. and I am sterlizing my bottles. Thinking of using an acid regulator what is your suggestion ?
Are you using raw garlic, @lampstand ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayonnaise#Nutritional_information- Mayo recipes shoot for a Ph of 3.6-4.0. Much lower than the 4.6 that b. clostridium needs to grow. Botulism is only a risk if you are ignorantly inventing your own recipe.
@Stephie using smoked Garlic
@Sobachatina I have followed the recipes online.
I did a search for a few vegan soy milk mayo recipes and the first three I found did not include the regular mayo rest period.
When making mayo with eggs, the acidic, fresh, mayo is allowed to sit at room temperature for a few hours to kill off some potential bacteria before refrigeration shuts everything down.
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/33331
First of all, the recommended period for this rest is around 8 hours not two days. Secondly, your risk of harmful bacteria is much lower as you are using processed ingredients instead of raw eggs. I would leave out the rest period altogether.
As for your results- As Stephie wrote, the bottle that was fizzing needs to be promptly discarded. Evidence of active bacterial action, unless you are intentionally fermenting, is a very very bad sign. Don't mess with it.
As for the other. Soy milk is fairly fragile; acidity and more so calcium can cause it to curdle into tofu. I wouldn't expect the acidity of the mayo itself to curdle the milk because there isn't that much milk and it is emulsified and thickened with gum. However, your curdled mayo is actually another sign of spoilage and you should throw it out.
In the future, to prevent this happening again, I would recommend simply not giving your mayo a chance to spoil and refrigerating it immediately. You might also experiment with using silken tofu instead of soy milk which, I've read, produces better results.
thank you. Will try withe siken tofu and see how it behaves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.230710 | 2018-09-30T14:52:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92542",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69549",
"lampstand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93022 | Is my chicken stock still safe to eat? Left on stove on low-medium heat, partially uncovered +9 hours so it reduced
My boyfriend and I are new to cooking and might have made a few errors while making our chicken stock overnight. This is what happened, can someone tell me if our broth is still safe to eat? We started this pot at night, around 8pm.
We stuck a whole chicken in a huge pot of water with some veggies added for aromatics and brought it a strong boil and then simmered for maybe 1 hr and 20 min.
At this point, we turn off the stove and take the chicken out to break down all the meat and put the bone carcass back in the pot.
We turn back on the stove and decide to let the bone broth keep going overnight. It's probably 9pm and I'm already upstairs and he turns back on the stock but doesn't close the lid all the way, leaving it 25% exposed all night.
I wake up at 5:30am and find the pot of stock is gently bubbling and has completely reduced, with maybe 3.5 inches of concentrated broth in a large pot, with all the bones exposed and maybe halfway covered in water.
I fill up the pot again with room temperature water and close the lid, not adjusting the heat. Maybe 20 minutes later I decide I probably should bring it to a boil to be safe, and at this time I fish out all the veggies since I don't want them to break down more. The carrots and celery stalks are all still intact, just really soft. Onions were still somewhat intact but I think a lot of them turned to mush in the pot overnight.
Now we are just going to let it simmer for a tiny bit more to get everything reconstituted.
After doing research I'm not sure if this pot of stock is salvageable and safe to eat, can someone advise me on whether to dump this or if it's okay to use this stock to make soup?
Thank you so much for your help :)!
Hi Carmen! Food safety is based on a few simple rules which are to be applied without exceptions. We have stopped answering questions which would mean simply applying the rules since the answer is always the same. For users like you who don't know these rules, I suggest that you read our writeup https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info and apply them literally. That is, if you can prove that your stock was over 60C for the whole time, it is safe. If you have no proof, it is not. All the backstory doesn't matter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.231060 | 2018-10-18T13:32:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93022",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93540 | Substitute for calcium oxide (lime) to keep pumpkin from falling apart
The recipe for this pumpkin dessert from Mexico says I should leave the pumpkin pieces submerged in water with calcium oxide (lime) for 3 hours, so that the pumpkin doesn't just become puree when I boil it in a later step.
I read on the internet that lime sold for construction work can contain harmful adhesives and, since I'm not currently in Mexico, I don't know where to buy lime that is safe for the kitchen.
Is there another method to keep the pumpkin from turning into goop?
Your problem is that you're looking for the wrong kind of lime.
Calcium oxide, or Quicklime, is indeed only used for building and chemical purposes. You want Calcium Hydroxide, otherwise known as Pickling Lime. You can but it online, or from any store that sells pickling supplies.
And it's a good thing you didn't try the calcium oxide, there's a good chance you'd have blown up the stew. It heats up when hydrated.
I guess this needs to be made even more clear: Construction grade quicklime is not safe for food preparation, period!
Horticultural lime is usually a mixture of calcium and magnesium hydroxides. It's probably not too late to pick up some pickling lime in the canning section of your grocery store. That's CaOH. Besides Hispanic grocers, east Asian and Chinese groceries usually carry it. If you find Betel nuts, there is bound to be powdered lime in the same store
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.231256 | 2018-11-03T11:04:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93540",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93168 | Is there a replacement for cheese on pizza?
How can I make pizza without cheese? Isn't cheese the most important thing on pizza? It allows pizza toppings to stay in place. I tried without cheese, and on bread, but the toppings did not stay in place.
The part about "topping not staying intact" is a duplicate of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93061/making-pizza-toppings-stay-intact-without-using-cheese?rq=1.
Is it the taste of the cheese or the texture of melted cheese which your mom objects to (or both)?
Possible duplicate of Making pizza toppings stay intact without using cheese
Some suggestions in comments on this question
Depending on how much she doesn't like cheese, and what she doesn't like about it, you have a few options. You may even be able to preserve the appearance of pizza.
Ricotta is sometimes used (even without tomato sauce and with a green vegetable); while technically cheese it doesn't have the texture or the taste you'd normally think of as cheese, but will help things adhere.
Some of the vegan cheese substitutes now melt like cheese, and some taste like cheese, but few do both - a careful reading of reviews may find one that fails to match cheese in the way she doesn't like.
But assuming they don't go far enough, you'll have to get more creative. Folding over the edges of the dough will help stop things falling off. A much thicker sauce is also useful; with some (e.g. corn) starch in it, it will thicken further around the topping as it cooks. Mixing the toppings into the sauce will help stop them overcooking. Flatter toppings like sliced tomato/sausage, or bacon cut from rashers rather than cubes, will also stick better than round things. Or go cross-cultural, and use refried beans under salsa for a "Mexican pizza" that's neither Mexican nor pizza.
A fairly thinly topped base with more on the side than you'd normally expect would be a practical way to serve it, if you're still worried about things staying put.
There are plenty of ideas for pizza without cheese. Most are vegan, but you can adapt them assuming you're not.
Maybe try some whisked up eggs, like an egg wash to hold your ingredients down.
You could also try a bechamel sauce if you're okay with dairy.
Egg whisked with a bit of salt and black pepper used to be a very common substitute for cheese on top of "pizza" in the city I grew up, mostly because cheese was quite expensive. Technically it was more like an egg pizza but using whisked egg and no cheese.
You could always serve her buttered garlic breadsticks with lots of dipping sauce. (I put anchovies in mine, almost better than pizza!) Add a salad and she won't even notice the pizza at the table.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.231388 | 2018-10-23T16:05:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93168",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"Luciano",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120561 | How does the folding make the dough stronger?
Folding the dough (coil fold, stretch and fold) is a typical step that is found in many homemade bread recipes. The motivation for this step is that it contributes to make the dough stronger. What does it mean? How does this action make the dough stronger? What is the impact on the final result?
If by folding you mean kneading, does this answer your question? Kneading causing gluten
It's not clear what you are asking? Are you talking about kneading, or using a stretch and fold technique as part of a no-knead recipe?
Seems pretty clear to me...not sure it's a duplicate, but I could be convinced.
I am talking about coil fold and stretch and fold, not kneading
The answer of the question is not different between the terms "stretch and fold" and "kneading"; stretch and fold is just a type of kneading. So this seems to be mostly a linguistic question, since not everybody knows that "strong" dough is the same as dough with developed gluten.
Can you distinguish "How does this action make the dough stronger?" from "What is the impact on the final result?" Broadly, "… the impact on the final result" is "to make the dough stronger". Does that not suggest the Question might be refined? Folding dough is broadly the same as folding steel in sword blades, or squidging Blu tack… it strengthens the bonds inside the material, while forcing out unwanted air bubbles, and whatever you think the like might be.
A "strong" dough is a dough which holds together well. Bread doughs and pasta doughs, when compared to other doughs, are strong in the sense that they are not crumbly, but very cohesive.
Within the spectrum of bread dough, a strong dough is a dough that feels like play-doh. Right after kneading, it sticks little or not at all, it is elastic (wants to return to its original shape after deformation), and when it rises, it is capable of trapping lots of gas.
This is caused by the internal structure of the dough. It is held together by an elastic mesh of a protein called gluten, and when bakers say "strong dough" they mean a dough in which the gluten mesh is stronger than in the weak dough. The mesh is denser and holds together better.
The way kneading (including stretch and fold) makes dough stronger is by creating gluten. Flour contains the precursors of gluten, glutenin and gliadin; when they meet each other in the presence of water, they stick together. When enough of their molecules stick together, they form the mesh, in which the starch and other dough substances stay embedded. The physical action of the kneading makes these molecules meet each other and stick together, creating the gluten structure.
The stretch and fold technique is used mostly in very wet bread doughs, where traditional kneading doesn't work well. It creates a better-aligned gluten than traditional kneading, because you are always working in the same direction. But I wouldn't call the stretch-and-folded dough stronger than traditionally kneaded dough.
Maybe two clarifications....dough isn't at full strength right after stretch and fold....time is often a factor necessary for structural development, and kneading might not be part of that process. Second, neither stretch and fold, nor kneading actually create gluten. Gluten is present in the wheat flour, it is activated by water, it is aligned into a network by working it.
@moscafj strictly seen, gluten is not present in flour. What is present are glutenin and gliadin - they have to be combined in the presence of water to get gluten. It is a fine point many sources gloss over, because it doesn't have much practical importance - for making bread, you have to knead, and then you have gluten, and for allergies, you don't want to consume raw glutenin or gliadin any more than you want gluten. But in an explanation of how gluten gets formed during kneading, it is worth mentioning. The alignment you mention happens during the formation of gluten.
And you are certainly right that you can get gluten without kneading, or that it is frequently best to combine kneading with resting. I restricted my answer to kneading only, because that's the focus of the question.
Gluten in wheat forms strands when it comes in contact with water. Whether kneading or stretching and folding, this process process aligns and strengthens those strands. That is how the dough becomes stronger. The strength of these strands is important for the formation of the crumb.
How does this action make the dough stronger? What is the impact on the final result?
rumtscho and moscafj have nice explained how kneading works, so I'll limit my contribution to folding that happens after that point.
With some breads, after you knead the dough and let it rise once, you turn it out of the bowl, stretch it out into a rectangle, and fold it over on itself a few times. While this stretching might help further develop the gluten a little bit, the main purpose is to gently deflate the dough a bit, and to move the dough around so that the yeast cells are redistributed and get access to fresh food, leading to a strong second rising.
After the dough has risen and you're ready to shape it into a loaf, you follow a similar process of stretching the dough out a bit and rolling or folding it in on itself. The idea here is to stretch the outside layer a bit so that it forms a smooth surface over the loaf that contains the loaf and defines its shape.
I would say the two things - task and technique - are orthogonal. The task you describe (deflation after the first rise) can be done with any type of kneading (or even without proper kneading, with real punching), and the other task (initial kneading) can also be done with either stretch and fold, or with kneading in the round. The shaping is maybe the more interesting part, since here you don't get the same results if you don't stretch.
I agree with the other answers but want to add one point about the stretching of the gluten frame as it interacts with the yeast. Think of the difference between a stack of ten bricks and a stack of ten sheets of plywood. The plywood is thinner. When you stretch and fold and again and again, you move the dough away from the brick paradigm toward a paradigm of thinner walls of gluten (and more of them). Those will then interact with the yeast and produce gas, which is trapped by the gluten walls, producing the magic that is bread. Baguettes or ciabatta with big bubbles in the dough tend to correspond to more stretching-and-folding.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.231624 | 2022-05-09T17:12:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120561",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"dbmag9",
"firion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110429 | Is it possible to treat dairy with lactase to make it lactose free at home?
Part of my unending series of ice cream related questions: I’m mildly lactose intolerant and usually don’t have a lot of upset from a small amount of ice cream. (Especially since cream is naturally lower in lactose.) While lactose-free milk is widely available here, LF anything else is harder to find and/or overpriced. In particular regarding ice cream making, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk aren’t available LF, and due to what they are have whopping amounts of lactose.
Can these or the cooked base be pre-treated using the lactase pills I keep around to make them lactose free? And how would I go about this re: heating or time required?
(I suppose a possible hack would be using a matching flavour of whey isolate powder, the stuff used for protein shakes after workouts, but I’m still curious about breaking up the lactose in regular dairy.)
Is coconut milk available where you are? I've had some very good coconut milk sorbet. (Ciao Bella was the most memorable, but that might've been because they were the first one I had ... but they also published a cookbook)
I’m familiar with the workarounds; and there’s nothing stopping me from just taking the pill except forgetfulness. But you can’t make dulce de leche from coconut milk, or say fior di latte gelato. (Me and a friend wanted to visit a touristy organic dairy farm so I figured I might grab some high end milk and cream and make something highlighting the flavour of dairy specifically.) And it’d definitely be more convenient to have the peace of mind that the ice cream in the freezer is safe as-is.
I will however look at coconut milk sorbet to pair with jasmine tea sorbet at least. Although looking at the recipes it looks like I’ll be posting my umpteenth question about stabilizers.
Not quite an answer, but lactose-free milk tastes quite different from regular milk - because the lactase converts the lactose into glucose and galactose, it's considerably sweeter. I've attempted to make various milk-based recipes with lactose-free milk with mixed results. Pudding, for instance, is fine. Béchamel was pretty bad.
NileRed tried this on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYyqZWWU9GU Seemed fine to him
@Cam.Davidson.Pilon huh, didn’t figure “dump it in and wait” would be the answer. (And “use up soon” but I never keep any open dairy around for more than a few days.)
Ways to make lactose-free dairy at home
Grind your lactase pills into powder, dissolve them in warm water, and dump the solution into your milk. Wait 24-48 hours.
More convenient is to add 7 drops of liquid Lactase. Wait 24-48 hours and 70% of the lactose is gone.
More economical is to buy bulk lactase powder. Dissolve it in warm water and pour it into your milk. Wait 24-48 hours.
Another economical option is half-making yogurt. The yogurt bacteria (Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactobacillus acidophilus) eat the lactose. I pour a gallon of milk into a pot inside another pot of water. Heat the milk to 185°F for 30 minutes. Then cool the pot of milk to 110° in cold water in the kitchen sink. Pitch the milk with 2-3 Tbsp. of plain fresh yogurt with "active cultures" and pour the milk back into the milk jug. Put the jug of milk into a food dehydrator (or anything else with good temperature control) and incubate at 104° for 3-4 hours. At that point you'll have slightly thickened milk. Shake it and use like normal. After 7 hours incubation you'll have yogurt. Strain off the whey and you'll have greek yogurt. Both have whey less lactose in them.
All these techniques will dramatically reduce the lactose in milk.
Fun Tips
Adjust the flavor of the milk-gurt by playing with the temperature. Lactobacillus bulgaricus prefers 110° and the other two prefer 99°. The different resulting acids (lactic, folic, formic) affect the flavor.
Yogurt bacteria break down lactose into acids. You can test the acidity to roughly determine how much lactose has been consumed.
The higher the acidity, the longer the treated milk will last.
You can mix-n-match, half-making yogurt and then adding lactase to the result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.232134 | 2020-08-26T14:14:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110429",
"authors": [
"Cam.Davidson.Pilon",
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74038",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94046 | Too much Baking Soda in Banana Bread
I accidentally put in banana bread 1 1/2 tsp of baking soda instead of 3/4 tsp of baking soda. Is it going to be edible?
It is in the oven right now. I did not realize until after the fact. This is for my son's class and I fear I really screwed this up. Will it taste bad?
It also has chocolate chips in it so who knows what that will do to it. We will see. Thank you
Edible, yes. The best banana bread you've ever had? Probably not.
Over-leavened quick breads tend to just get uneven in texture - you may get an uneven loaf with one section that's a little too dense and other sections that are a little too airy, or the whole thing may end up coarse and a little flatter than you'd prefer. But these breads are often rich enough that they're still perfectly tasty.
There's a little risk of the extra baking soda introducing an off flavor, but in practice, I've found that most people won't notice it until you're WAY over-leavened. Taste buds vary but I don't think it'll be an issue for you.
It's been an hour since you've posted the question so I'm assuming that we will have the actual answer pretty shortly.
We just made banana bread 1 tsp per three mini loafs. Accidentally used 1 Tablespoon. Oh mg. It has a funny after taste. Bummer. Going to let other people ea it and go back to the drawing board.
I think this does answer the question, if indirectly - it pretty clearly says too much baking soda will taste bad.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.232490 | 2018-11-19T16:02:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94046",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Margot Denaxas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70696"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94105 | Is it ok to Brine a turkey ahead of roasting time
I would like to brine my turkey on Tuesday. Take it out of the brine Wednesday, rinse it and keep it in the refrigerator until I roast it on Thursday. Is this ok?
Welcome -- are you asking if it's food safe, or if it will cook well? :)
Trader Joe's sells pre-brined turkeys which are held refrigerated for 2-3 weeks. I don't see why it should be a problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.232727 | 2018-11-20T19:46:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94105",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3667 | Homemade taffy turned out too thick and hard
I had found a recipe to make homemade Tootsie Rolls which was essentially just chocolate taffy. I've tried it a few times with the same result; it turns into basically a somewhat chewy hard candy.
I'm not a candy making expert, but I think the problem might lie in either the heating of the mixture (ie- getting it to the right temp for the type of candy it is) or in the pulling.
Does that sound about right? Are there other things that I can check when making taffy that would turn it into a soft rock?
It might take quite a lot of trial and error to approximate a Tootsie Roll at home. The method of making a Tootsie Roll is a closely guarded "trade secret".
@hobo: yes, I understand that. Was more interested in what I did wrong to make just a general taffy turn into a chewy rock...
Temperature is certainly important. If you start out with a hard candy straight from the pot you're gonna be largely out of luck regardless.
But really, the signature taffy texture comes from the continual pulling, folding, pulling that happens after you remove it from the heat. Pulling taffy works lots of air into it and stretches out the strands of sugar crystals into thinner, chewier shapes. So be sure you really work that taffy once you take it off the heat (and before cutting it).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.232792 | 2010-07-29T04:18:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3667",
"authors": [
"Dustin Kendall",
"Pat Sommer",
"dfrankow",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7316",
"squillman",
"user6637"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94025 | How much and what seasoning to should I use in a turkey brine?
Brining at its basic level is about opening the cell structure of the meat with salt and allowing osmotic action to take effect and allow the meat to become a bit juicier and bring a salty flavor to the meat.
Many people have dumped everything but the kitchen sink into brine to add deeper flavor to their meats, only to be disappointed that the flavor barely penetrates the surface.
There is a great question here that helps explain the possible why this occurs (tldr: molecule size):
How deeply will the flavors in a brine penetrate chicken?
It was decided that the only flavor that was detectable to the bone was eugenol.
Eugenol appears in cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, basil and bay leaf.
My question(s): Has anyone used these ingredients exclusively for brining a turkey?
If so, in what quantities? Would I be better off just getting some straight eugenol from a health food store? since a clove taste substantially different from a bay leaf, would those differences make it in to the bird or would it be exclusively the eugenol leaving the other flavors behind?
Before I try to answer some of your core question with my best from the gut answer, I want to address a bit of an issue with the question itself. Since I am the author of the question and answer upon which you base your question, I feel uniquely qualified to suggest that your source could be a lot better.
The single experiment in that Q&A led to results that were interesting enough (to me) to share. Think of it like the start of a medical study. My fuschia chicken was test subject 0001. To call my conclusions in that answer 'conclusions' is to give them delusions of grandeur.
That said, the next time I brine a turkey (which will not be this Thanksgiving), I will make a basic brine of ~50 grams of kosher salt and ~25 grams of sugar per liter of water (a 5% salt brine). To that, I will add pumpkin pie spice (purchased or homemade).
Why pumpkin pie spice?
Well,
Pumpkin pie spice contains a nicely balanced combination of spices I know to be high in eugenol (cinnamon, cloves, and nutmeg plus ginger)
If I'm brining a turkey, the odds are good that I'm also making a pumpkin dessert so I'm likely to be using fresh pumpkin pie spice anyway.
I'm betting that it will be really good and will complement the traditional Thanksgiving dinner beautifully. I absolutely do not expect the turkey to taste like pumpkin pie.
So I'll add perhaps a tablespoon of pumpkin pie spice per liter of water in the brine, adding it when I bring the salt and sugar to a simmer to dissolve. I'll want the spice quite evident in the brine, but not overwhelming.
If you try it, I'd love to hear how it works for you.
UPDATE 2/15/2020: I just heard from an old friend that she came across this post before Thanksgiving 2019 and followed the suggestions for her holiday. She used 62 grams (2 small canisters) of McCormick brand pumpkin pie spice in "enough" brine for her small (12lb/5.5kg) turkey. It was a hit. No one said it tasted like pumpkin pie spice; everyone said that it was the most flavorful turkey they had ever had. So, FWIW, that's one rave review. I love reports like that!
Well the turkey is in the brine as I type this. Unfortunately I hadn't had a chance to read your response before it went for its soak. Forgive me if I elevated your findings a bit, but it is the best explanation I have read thus far on the subject. I ended up using a gallon of water and a gallon of chicken stock. I then added a 1.5 cup of salt (very course - hoping the salt won;t completely dissolve) and .5 cups brown sugar. As for the seasoning I added 2 tbs of ground cloves and 1 tbs mix of nutmeg and cinnamon. I added a few crushed bay leaves for good measure. I will keep you posted
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.232936 | 2018-11-18T19:47:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94025",
"authors": [
"Bill Flippen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107691 | Cleaning out residue from thread of sport mixer base
I am talking about the following accessory:
The problem is that in the thread (i.e. the "cracks" onto which the bottle is screwed on when blending the fruit) some fruit remains got stuck. No amount of scrubbing with dish soap/sponge and rinsing removed them so far (they just get wet, maybe even loosen up a bit then dry out again; maybe it is even worse now, because now it is fruit remains soaked with dish soap, which could end up in the fresh smoothie...).
Although I was able to winkle this residue out partially with the tip of a knife, I am looking for a better solution, because that way is neither effective nor perfect (I think about 40-50% of the residue is still there, and it is a pain to do this process anyway).
Long story short, the problem is that the thread is too tight and too deep to effectively reach and clean out with the usual means.
So I have basically two questions:
is there some effective practice to remove this stuck and dried residue? (I was thinking about soaking it into vinegar, but maybe that would damage the unit too? E.g. make the knife rust, or remove the lubricating oil from the shaft. And I'm not sure it would even remove the residue in the end...)
is there a way to prevent this residue from forming in the first place? (Like soaking the base immediately after use? But again, won't that remove the oil from the shaft?)
I tried to do some research, and I found the suggested way of cleaning out blenders is to put water and some dish soap in it, turn it on, and let it do the rest. But I don't think it would work in this case, because when the blender is running, this thread is theoretically sealed by the bottle which is screwed on. (Which is a good thing by the way, because in this way, in theory, the residue can't get into the fresh smoothie. On the other hand, the question arises how did it get there in the first place then?)
Prevent it from sticking in the first place by putting in a bowl of cold water, or cleaning it right away, if you let it dry on it's a real pain.
Muck in the threads can be extracted using the pointy end of a skewer if it's really stuck on, I find an old toothbrush does a great job as well. Soak it first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.233227 | 2020-04-18T14:37:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107691",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62384 | Optimal stirring technique: I read that stirring liquids in a straight line is better than in a circle, but I can't find any references
I remember reading that some scientific researchers in Japan (I think) discovered that when it came to stirring liquids, moving a spoon back and forth was more efficient at mixing the liquids than if you moved the spoon in circles. I've experienced this to be true. Nevertheless, I would like to find the evidence of this, either in original source material or articles about it and I'm coming up with nothing on Google.
Does anybody remember this or have links to the research?
If you don't get a response here, this might be a valid physics question. (I assume it would have to do with making vortices in the liquid, much like the baffles or square corners in a blender)
I heard that a figure eight pattern is best. I'd like to know if that's true or not.
Well, this does not surprise me. If you move the spoon in circles, you create a shearing action between the faster moving spoon and the slower liquid. This is where you create a force that makes the two different liquids mix. If you move it back and forth, you still have the shearing action between the spoon and the liquid and it is the same as before, as it only depends on the size of the spoon and speed and length of movement, but also the action of the liquids knocking into each other. This is a stronger force than by going in circles as the molecules crash into each other, instead of side-by-side.
Of course, the difference in technique depends a lot on how much force the liquids need to mix in the first place. So, you should be able to easily verify this if you use water and oil and try to mix them by stirring in circles and going back and forth. The difference should be noticeable, while the difference for water and ink should not be detectable.
I don't know the Japanese research, but Harold McGees 'On Food and Cooking' confirms this in the section about whipped cream, how this force allows the fat globules to destabilize (and finally end up as whipped cream).
If I get exceedingly bored later, I might try dyeing 2 different liquids and trying this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.233435 | 2015-10-08T15:26:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62384",
"authors": [
"Carcigenicate",
"George Abdelnour",
"Joe",
"Joe Dowdell",
"Tracy Wade",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jims earthborn",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27612 | Would cooked quinoa stay overnight?
I cooked quinoa like rice and ate half of it. I am planning to have the other half for breakfast. Is it safe to leave it in room temperature overnight (I don't have a refrigerator)?
There's some good advice here:
http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/blog/advice/food-safety-tips-food-spoilage
In summary, everything goes bad, quinoa is no exception. To be safe, refrigerate when possible. Leaving food at room temp is asking for trouble.
Slightly OT but do you rinse your quinoa first to remove the saponins? I imagine some trace residues could be left behind, however, that could still trigger an allergy. I always wonder how much saponin is left after a vigorous soak.
This is too vague. How does, "everything goes bad" help me? I doubt that our knowledge of how long a cooked grain-like food can remain safely outside of refrigerator is so vague. I would like to test it myself but I don't know how.
In its homecountries of Bolivia and Peru, few people have fridges to keep their cooked quinoa, and having leftovers stay overnight (or longer) is a fact of life. Also facts of life there are foodborne infections, as many tourists visiting there will tell you in graphic detail...
As a cooking instructor I would always advise to use refrigeration, or other aseptic procedures (for example, taking part of the content of a pot while it's still vigorously boiling, closing it with a lid and leaving it sealed constitutes a sort of a pasteurised container that has more chances of being safe overnight in a coldish kitchen than using a contaminated, dirty cup to take a portion of a cold broth and then leaving said broth in a warm kitchen - this later scenario almost assures an infection)
I left cooked quinoa seasoned with veggies overnight. The temperature in my basement home was 7 degrees last night. I found the quinoa not smelling strange and the texture not changed. So I reheated it and had it for lunch.
Well, maybe when temperatures are higher in summer it would be wise to refrigerate cooked quinoa. If animal products have been added to it I would strongly suggest storing leftovers in the fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.233650 | 2012-10-05T01:49:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27612",
"authors": [
"Cajun Girl",
"J oyce",
"Karen Black-Passmore",
"Matthew Jensen",
"Robin Jugao",
"Zeynel",
"abbc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8249",
"laura barnette",
"lemontwist",
"mockgames",
"paul marr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34913 | Nitrogen factor role in calorie calculation
I'm wondering what's the relation between nitrogen factor, protein factor and energy from total protein. i.e
Feta Cheese
Nitrogen Factor: 6.38
Protein Factor: 4.27
Total Protein: 21.3 g
and I know that:
Calories From Protein: 21.3 * 4.27 = 90.95 kcal
But I don't know how nitrogen factor affects calculation and where. I googled it but I didn't find what I was looking for(maybe use of bad keywords), I appreciate recommendation of any articles for my further reading.
Isn't the information you need printed on the label?
The calculated values are printed on the labels, it's raw data upon which nutritionists calculate calories.
Why the close vote? This question asks about facts of certain components in a food, without direct reference to health issues. It seems on topic.
Nitrogen factor appears to be a method of estimating protein content in a specific foodstuff based on the amount of nitrogen (since proteins are nitrogen rich). It is not exact, and there are different factors for different types of foods, to provide better estimates based on the ratios and types of proteins in those foods.
This 1931 USDA document gives an excellent background, even though it is somewhat of a bad scan, and challenging to read.
See also, for example, the FAO Conversion Table showing different factors for different foods.
As proteins are a calorific food, the nitrogen factor correlates with calories from protein because it helps you estimate the amount of protein in a food, and therefore the number of calories from protein based on the fact that protein has about 17 kJ or 4 kcal per gram.
Therefore, if you know you have g grams of a food, with a nitrogen factor of f, the estimated number of calories from protein c is:
c = g * f * 4
I was unable to find a definitive clear meaning of the phrase "protein factor" as it is a common phrase in biochemistry, evidently.
Thanks a lot for answer, but I can't get when there's protein factor to calculate calculate calories from protein why bother using nitrogen factor? I think I should read the challenging document.
I was not able to find a definition of "protein factor" so I cannot speculate on that. Sorry.
I appriciate your help. proetin calories = gram of protein * protein factor. Your formula yeilds to quite different result: 21.36.384=543 while true value is 90.95kcal
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.233866 | 2013-06-24T17:33:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34913",
"authors": [
"Cate",
"IT_User",
"Lin",
"Mien",
"Pam Taft",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"eneepo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8260"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58545 | How can I cook with worcestershire sauce in a pan without leaving an impossible to remove char on the pan?
When I cook hamburgers inside, I do it in a pan on stove top. I usually use worcestershire sauce, but it seems that when I do it gets cooked onto the bottom of the pan. No amount of soaking makes it easier to clean off, I usually just have to use a copper wire pad and it's still rather difficult.
This is in an aluminum pan -- I think. It's not cast iron or non-stick.
Worcestershire sauce is fairly sweet, it's the sugar that's blackening. There's nothing you can do about it - if you add it to your pan it's going to char.
The solution is not to put it in the pan, but put it on afterwards or mix it in with the meat before making patties. You'll get a better result that way as well, you're destroying the flavor of the worcestershire sauce by charring it in the pan like that.
You can add water to the surface of the pan before the Worcestershire cooks down to the point of charring. That can be tricksy, but it's doable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.234067 | 2015-06-26T01:21:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58545",
"authors": [
"Andrew Beechnau",
"Harshika Singh",
"Wanda Wise",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yaira Resto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19701 | Will storing spices on the oven affect flavor or anything?
The back of the oven is raised from the stove top and sits against the wall, forming a small shelf which is a very convenient location to store spices for use when cooking. Sitting there are things such as: garlic powder, paprika, basil, oregano, etc. in various plastic, glass, and metal containers they came in from the grocery store.
So, it turns out this area gets quite warm if the oven has been on for a bit, and I'm wondering if that will affect the spices sitting there?
I would keep them away from that area for 2 reasons - one is the heat, and second is that it's a dangerous location for the spices since the edge of most oven panels is generally very thin and not designed flat to be a shelf making it more likely for your spices to accidentally get knocked off than if you put them elsewhere.
Here is a link to a similar question answered by an expert: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_should_be_the_storage_temperature_for_spices
A quote from the below link for herbs;
"Storing Dried Herbs
1.Store your dried herbs in air tight containers. Zip closing bags will do. I like to use small canning jars.
2.Be sure to label and date your containers.
3.Your herbs will retain more flavor if you store the leaves whole and crush them when you are ready to use them.
4.Discard any dried herbs that show the slightest sign of mold.
5.Place containers in a cool, dry place away from sunlight.
6.Dried herbs are best used within a year. As your herbs lose their color, they are also losing their flavor.
7.Use about 1 teaspoon crumbled dried leaves in place of a tablespoon of fresh"
http://gardening.about.com/od/vegetablepatch/a/DryingHerbs.htm
Once opened, many spices have a fairly short shelf life in any case. Most people keep herbs and spices, and continue to use them, long after their flavour has been lost.
I would suggest buying herbs and spices in very small quantities, such that you would expect to buy more every couple of months or so. It works out more expensive this way, but you know that the spices you are using actually taste of something more than dust.
With that regime in place, it should be OK for the spices to have occasional warm spells from heat escaping from your oven. Do make sure that the shelf is actually a safe surface.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.234514 | 2011-12-16T15:11:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19701",
"authors": [
"Randy",
"Trix up the Glen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42952"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19789 | Is there a way to cook hot dogs in a microwave without them bursting?
Whenever I cook hot dogs in the microwave they invariably split and/or burst open. I've tried shortening the cooking time, but haven't found a happy medium where they are thoroughly cooked, but remain unmutilated.
Is there some trick to cooking them in a microwave without this happening?
Tangentially related: the USDA says, "Although hot dogs are fully cooked, those at increased risk of foodborne illness should reheat hot dogs and luncheon meat until steaming hot before eating, due to the threat of listeriosis." http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/hot_dogs/index.asp
Poke them with a fork in a few places. This will let the steam out in a controlled manner and prevent bursting.
or, even better, skip the microwave and boil them in a pan over the stove.
Good suggestion. However, I think I'll stick to the microwave because I'm not eating a hot-dog if I'm going to the trouble of "cooking". Also, boiled hot dogs always tasted nasty to me.
@JohnFx: Issues of taste aside, I really don't think that boiling water somehow puts a meal into a different tier; I wouldn't call Easy Mac or Ramen noodles cooking but they're both stovetop meals.
When I want a hot dog, I'm not patient enough for water to boil. Otherwise I'd make Ramen or Easy mac instead. =)
You can also try turning down the power level on the microwave, though of course it'll take longer to heat them. Alternatively, put the split side down in the bun :-P
Score them (cut slits in them).
I always cut a shallow incision down the whole shaft, put it in the microwave, and watch until it starts to 'bloom'. Usually 45sec-1min
Seems to me that's the same answer as Bizorke and Cos Callis. Why repeating?
Put hotdogs in a pot of water on the stove and then wait for it to come to a boil. It's not really cooking and the hotdog won't split this way. If you boil the water first you might over cook it. There's really no way to screw up if you use this method.
This answers the more general question of how to cook hot dogs, but the question was specifically about how to cook them in the microwave. I'm not one for down-voting new people who might not be familar with the system here, but there are plenty of others on here who might. Please don't take it personally; they're just marking that your response doesn't answer the question.
I'm going to go ahead and leave this answer, because I think it's a potentially useful suggestion, even though as Joe said you haven't actually answered the question. (It's much faster than boiling the water first, so someone using the microwave purely to save time might still like it.)
When I want a hot dog, I like to split it down the center, place some thin sliced cheese in it
and wrap it with fully cooked bacon, secure with toothpick and set microwave for 30 seconds.
Since the original question states that they want the hot dogs unmutilated, I don't know that this really works as an answer.
Introduce the hot dog in a high glass of water in the microwaves.
Never heard of this - why would it help? (Hot dogs also burst in a pot of boiling water on the stove)
I roll it up in a paper towel for 30sec. It depends on the range though....40 sec will make my dog lose its head.
Try poking holes in them with a fork or a skewer, or otherwise make small openings, so that steam from inside can be released without blowing apart the hot dog.
Or, try boiling it in water over the stove. I personally prefer hot dogs this way.
Just punch some holes before cooking em..and itll be fine.. ;)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Just FYI, you're unlikely to get many upvotes for an answer like this, because several other people have already suggested it. You'll fare better with answers offering something new :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.234746 | 2011-12-20T02:44:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19789",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bogdan",
"Carron Hills-Harrop",
"Cascabel",
"Craig James Kehoe",
"Indigo70",
"Joe",
"JohnFx",
"Nissi",
"Preston",
"Simon Sapiano",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8392",
"maowtm",
"rumtscho",
"user24450"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29719 | Cleaning a tea pot
I have read somewhere (don't remember where, long time ago) that tea enthusiasts clean their tea pots only with water and without soap. Additionally they only rinse it and don't use a scrub to remove the residues.
Is this actually a good practice or simply a quirk?
Consider that I don't always drink the same tea, does this matter?
I sometimes add fresh lemon or ginger to the water, I suppose this might be a reason to thoroughly clean the pot, to prevent spoiling?
If it matters: my pot is made of glass.
Related:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8363/advantages-of-using-a-non-glass-teapot/8383#8383
How, and if, you clean your tea pot depends both on what your tea pot is made out of, and your personal preference.
The only time I've ever seen it recommended that you avoid cleaning agents entirely when cleaning a tea pot is if it is made out of clay. The reason for using only water is because unfinished clay pots, like Yixing / zisha pots, have very porous walls and will absorb both chemicals and the taste/smell of your soap or other cleaning agent. (For these types of pots, it's also generally recommended to brew only one type of tea per pot, for the same reasons.)
For tea pots made out of other materials, it really comes down to a matter of preference. In many cases (like with glass and ceramic), simply rinsing the pot in hot water immediately after use will suffice most of the time. If you let your brewed tea sit for a very long time in the teapot, or if you are using hard water, you might start to see mineral buildup or brown stains (from the tannins in the tea). These aren't harmful, but many people don't like the way it looks. If you're looking to clean the stains / buildup off your tea pot, do not use bleach - I'd avoid using bleach on any kitchenware, but especially something glass or ceramic that has pores that could absorb the bleach. A simple baking soda solution will work (you probably won't even have to scrub at all for the stains to come out - just soak for a few hours). You could follow the baking soda soak with a run through the dishwasher (if your pot is dishwasher safe) or a quick wash with soap and water if you'd like.
Personally, the only time I wash my (glazed ceramic) teapot is if I brew an Indian chai, which has sugar in it. Then I'll wash it with soap and water because I don't want any remnants of sugar sitting in the bottom of my pot, happily feeding bacteria. But for brewing any black, green, or oolong tea and tisanes without any additions, I just rinse before and after brewing with hot water. As long as you don't see any mold growing in your tea pot and you regularly rinse it with hot/boiling water, you'll probably be fine.
I'm not sure where the anti-soap attitude comes from among modern-day tea drinkers. It could be left over from the days before dish soap existed, it would be an overly obsessive concern with any cleaning agent "ruining" the tea's flavor, or it could just be that they're a little lazy, like me. :) (Tea pots are kind of a pain to clean!)
So, to sum up the answer to your question: with a glass pot, it's totally up to you. I'd wash it with soap and water if you've put anything other than tea leaves and water in the pot, but otherwise, a quick rinse with hot or boiling water should be fine.
The boiling water will kill anything that's after you, so it's just flavor you've got to worry about. If you have a clay pot, or don't want to use soap for another reason, a good soak with baking soda and water will absorb some odors. Rinse that with water, and then with white vinegar, which removes the leftover baking soda as well as mineral buildup.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.235102 | 2013-01-04T15:20:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29719",
"authors": [
"Beth Hough ",
"Emmanuel",
"James Totten",
"SolihinT",
"allisonthomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69198",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49377 | What is the best way to add greens to an omelette?
I've started adding various greens (spinach and arugula) to my eggs and omelets. I've only tried a few ways:
Add greens first to a hot pan with olive oil and butter. Add the eggs afterwards.
Cook the eggs, etc. first then add the greens near the end of cooking.
Ideally, I'd like to preserve the freshness of the greens without it being a salad on top of my eggs.
Also, keeping the leaves whole doesn't seem to work out the best. Perhaps I should chop the greens before adding?
I cut up greens for an omelet because I find it much easier to eat the result, and they also seem to be better distributed :)
It depends on the greens; if it is eaten raw, then add at the last moment possible to keep freshness; if usually eaten cooked; then cook it in advance and add to the omelet.
related (but about pizza) : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/36753/67
Well the traditional french way would be that you add spices to eggs before cooking and stuff the omelette right before serving.
I've watched a few youtube videos on the matter and I like how Jacques Pepin explains the process.
Check it here.
Jamie Olivers version is quite similar, he stuff omelette with cheese before he folds it. Check it here.
I've tried all version and I like them all. The main trick about an omelette is that you do not overcook the eggs. Everything else is personal preference I'd say, like whether to chop or no the greens.
+1 for personal preference. You can add the greens any way you like them, there is no right or wrong way.
If you are going to add greens, the best way to cook them is to cook your aromatics (onion, shallot, etc.) in a bit of fat, and when they are almost done you toss in your greens (like spinach). You give it a toss over heat for about 10 seconds, then remove from heat and let it finish. You are basically wilting the greens, rather than cooking them through.
I've been staying at a hotel where they offer made-to-order omelets during breakfast. The omelet maker uses your method #1. Note these are American-style folded omelets.
Add some (melted) butter to the pan.
Add filling ingredients, including whole spinach leaves, but not something like cheese.
Let everything fry for several seconds.
Add the egg and allow to cook.
Briefly flip to cook the top side of the egg, then flip back.
Add final ingredients like cheese, fold, and serve.
Try “massaging” greens w/avocado oil until “silky.” Add to omelette. The oil inhibits production of water from veggies producing a more flavorful, attractive dish.
I use spinach, green onions, red mini bell, fresh ground black pepper and garlic powder.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.235502 | 2014-10-30T12:53:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49377",
"authors": [
"Deborah Mcvay",
"Erica",
"JSM",
"Jo Ann Harris",
"Joe",
"Kayleigh Clayson",
"Max",
"Susan Hyland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ian horne",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97646 | What's the FDA recommended sous vide temperature for in-shell egg pasteurization?
My problem
I am trying to figure out the official FDA guideline for time and temperature of in-shell egg pasteurization process in heated water (sous vide).
What have I tried
Googled this site, including How to pasteurize eggs in a sous vide machine (in the shell)
Googled the FDA site for egg safety, but did not find a concrete answer.
My Question
What are official FDA guidelines for temperatures and times for home egg pasteurization in sous vide?
Why do you think that there are such guidelines? Even assumed that they want to, the technique is relatively new, and it takes time to do the necessary research and agree on guidelines. Also, there is little reason for them to do so. They rarely create guidelines by technique, the topic is already covered by existing technique agnostic guidelines, there is not much political or social interest in creating them, there have been budget cuts and movements towards them creating less regulation... all in all, I find it unlikely.
Here's an answer from the FDA website for pasteurizing whole eggs:
Egg pasteurization uses a water bath and motion to ensure that whole eggs are pasteurized without cooking the eggs.
Egg whites coagulate at 140 °F. Therefore, heating an egg above 140 °F would cook the egg, so processors pasteurize the egg in the shell at 130 °F for 45 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.235775 | 2019-04-23T17:43:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97646",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75534 | Dents in pizza dough
The other day I went to PapaJohns and noticed that they had a roller that had spikes on it and they rolled it on their dough to make some impressions in the dough.
Last weekend I decided to take a fork and try it and I made dents all over my dough.
I don't normally make dents, what are the dents supposed to do?
One of my family members theorized that it might let the heat travel up faster and help with the cooking.
I'm under the impression that the dough was softer once cooked, but I don't know if that's psychosomatic or not.
What does making small dent impressions on pizza dough actually do?
Possible duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22497/why-and-when-do-you-need-to-dock-dough
Not really a duplicate. Docking pastry punches holes all the way through. Putting indentations in bread dough is a bit different.
Bread dough experiences "oven spring". That is, the water in the dough turns to steam and gives some fast, extra lift when the dough is first placed in a hot oven.
For most breads oven spring is a very good thing. For thick, flat breads like focaccia and pizza it is not good thing. The spring, or any other rising, will make the dough no longer a flat bread.
Putting the dents in flat breads is simply to help keep them flat when they bake. Unlike in pastry dough, where the docking pierces the dough and lets steam escape, the docking in bread dough shouldn't cut through layers but simply leave indentations.
Pizza doesn't always need to be docked because the weight of the toppings is sufficient to keep it flat. I don't dock my pizza dough.
The indentations are also nice because they increase surface area for toasting and hold on to toppings, such as the olive oil on focaccia, but I don't believe that is their primary purpose.
I have experience with Domino's, but I've been told the the method's for Papa John's is very similar.
We only used the spiked roller for a specific pizza type (rectangular Artisan) that is no longer made. While it was, on occasion, used on under-proofed dough, it is not something that is needed.
Proper stretching of properly proofed dough prevents large bubbles from forming while in the oven. The spiked roller could be used to "cheat" and would also help prevent the bubbles in dough that had not been properly prepared.
The best pizza is one that is made from dough that has been out of the refrigerator long enough for the yeast to activate and grow, but not too long (a couple hours usually, with a couple more needed for dough fresh off the truck.
When this dough is skillfully stretched into shape, it does not need the spike roller, and using it may actually prevent some of the flavor from fully developing during baking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.235918 | 2016-11-15T20:35:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75534",
"authors": [
"John Feltz",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21427 | What can I substitute for eggs in a pancake recipe?
I'd like to make pancakes. I have all the other ingredients that I'd normally use (flour, canola oil, sugar, salt, and corn starch) in a pancake mix, but I don't have any eggs.
Can I substitute milk, or more of one of the other ingredients, in lieu of the eggs?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4192/with-what-can-i-replace-eggs and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14025/are-there-any-vegetarian-friendly-egg-substitutes-that-can-be-used-in-cakes
Google egg-less pancakes, plenty of recipes
Ingredients: Potato starch, tapioca flour, leavening (calcium lactate [non-dairy], calcium carbonate, citric acid), cellulose gum, carbohydrate gum
Ener G Egg Replacer has always worked well for me. I keep it in the house for times when I don't have eggs on hand and want to bake something.
There is also recipes like this one for vegan pancakes.
1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons white sugar
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 1/4 cups water
1 tablespoon oil
What you need to substitute is the binding ability of the eggs. There are a few ways to do this...
There are a variety of seeds that produce mucilage when soaked in water. This sticky substance can work very well to bind baked goods together. To use, you soak the seeds or seed meal in water until the water becomes thick. If whole seeds are used, the water may be heated to speed up the process. Some of the most common seeds that have this characteristic are flax, chia, and buckwheat.
An alternate method that will change the characteristic of your pancakes a bit is to incorporate something that contains pectin. This includes many fruits: canned pumpkin, mashed banana, apple sauce, many jams and preserves, etc. The pectin will serve as your binder.
Some eggless pancake recipes also call for small amounts of corn starch (which has some mild binding abilities) or cider vinegar (which aids leavening and helps to tighten dough, but doesn't really bind on it's own).
2 tablespoons of APPLESAUCE! An old family trick my grandmother used to use, works magic you cant taste the difference!
Apple butter and prune butter, too.
Vegan chefs also use chia seeds for baking cakes, breads and pancakes. They're the same seeds you use for Chia Pets. You can use them whole or grind them up. Use 1 tablespoon whole seeds or 1/2 Tbsp. ground per egg. Put in a small amount of liquid that is being used in recipe and let soak 15 to 20 mins. It forms a gel that binds like egg.
The page you linked to says a tablespoon of meal (ground) per egg, but you say half a tablespoon - which is right? And can you really use them whole as easily as ground?
Web site deleted. The wrong site was chosen. I did indicate whole or ground.
Bit late for a reply, but I believe the reason I asked about whole vs ground is that I would expect ground to soak faster than whole. Indeed, I've more commonly seen ~5 minutes when using ground, and more often ~15 minutes for whole.
I started pancakes at 5am then realized I was out of eggs. Not wanting to wait for store to open I reviewed all of the answers here and came up with my own concoction that turned out better than anything else ive tried in 40+ yrs of cooking. You probably won't have some of these but may figure out your own substitutes that work too.
For protein I used a tablespoon of powdered chicken bone broth. (A suplement or whatever that came in a big orange container from a health food aisle and was left at my house by a friend months ago.made by Now Sports, is almost pure protein) other protein powders would probably work the same idk.
Drain the water from a can of Garbanzo beans (chickpeas) into a saucepan and heat on low, you just need it warm not hot.
Stir in 3 heaping tablespoons (about 1/3 can) of pumpkin
Add scoop of protein powder and stir
For pancakes thats it. You have enough in that pot to make pancakes all week. I used a 1/4 cup measure to dip out the volume of 1 large egg. Your recipe already calls for oil or butter so no extra is needed. Just add it directly to your bowl like you normally would.Oil + water dont mix anyway If your making something other than pancakes that doesnt call for oil youll need to add some to the recipe to make up for whats not in your concoction.
My recipe is equal parts buttermilk and dry mix with a couple tblsp of oil and a dash of vanilla extract. My dry mix is all purpose flour, baking soda, sugar, salt.
Results: This variant took out all lumps in flour very fast. Not a good sign if you understand that lumpy pancake batter makes the best pancakes. It also required more liquid and I added almost 1/2 cup cold water to make the mix pour. They rose quickly in pan but then settled slightly before they finished. The end result was a perfectly tasting and acceptable pancake. They didnt have the big air bubbles, and were maybe a bit crepe-like. I may make more tomorrow and add a bit more baking soda in an effort to get those bubbles. All in all id call it a success. Not perfect but good enough for me to store concoction in the fridge to be used later.
Thanks everyone for those ideas. Much much better than crushing bananas, applesauce, etc. Just apologize to your guests that the pancakes are an experiment so they don't wonder why they aren't as fluffy as expected.
Flax seed soaked briefly in water is a common substitute for eggs.
1 unit flax seed
4 units water
Time: 4 min
Example: Soak 1 tsp of flax seed in 4 tsp of water for 3 to 6min.
Use as you would eggs. Best results seem to be with pancakes. Results mixed for fluffy cakes and baked goods that really need to rise.
I've also had success using the same ratio but with tablespoons.
I use ground flax seed. I wouldn't think whole seed would work well. Additionally some use ground golden flax because it looks a bit closer to eggs but I think this is not really that important.
Whole seed does work pretty well, but I've always seen it soaked for much longer or simmered in the water.
I just made pancakes with a two spoonfuls (i.e. About the same volume as an egg) of jelly and they came out fabulous! Honestly I think I liked them more this way. I used dandelion jelly so it didnt really change the taste, but I'm sure using strawberry or raspberry would give you yummy fluffy flavored pancakes!
I just read that the liquid from canned chickpeas can be used as an egg substitute in recipes. You can even whip it for meringue.
Hello and Welcome! We encourage adding a link to your source. We also ask that context from the link be provided, including quotes, in case the link should fail at some point. Please visit our Help center, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help, for information on how to provide the best answers.
This technique/ingredient is called aquafaba, and is documented in several sources under that name.
Fine cornmeal, if you have it, can replace maybe 10% of the flour. Probably you'll need a drop more liquid without the egg too.
This will change the flavor and texture of the pancakes, but I have found most folks are agreeable to the switch. Fluffier and drier (soaks up more syrup) vs. rubbery and eggy.
3 tbs of mayonnaise will do the trick.
I find this strange as a suggestion for a recipe where the eggs are used for binding. Maybe you could expand on how it changes the texture as opposed to normal pancakes.
Mayonnaise contains egg, so it's not a great substitute for eggs.
@ChrisSteinbach- The asker doesn't have eggs- they might have mayo. If it works this would be a reasonable answer to the question.
Chickpea flour (different chickpea product than aquafaba) is commonly used in indian pancakes (besan ka chila - usually mixed with grain flours), and can even be made into a dough that cooks into something not entirely unlike omelette on its own, with just water and seasonings. Other legume flours - soybean flour, lentil flour - are also not infrequently used as binders.
I used 2 tablespoons of vegetable oil mixed with 1/2 teaspoon of corn starch per egg for a pancake mix and it worked great.
I understand that this is an old thread but thought will share my two cents because I don't use eggs for pancakes or any other baking which calls for eggs. Like some of the previous chefs have mentioned 1 tablespoon of flax seed meal or chia seed meal mixed with 3 tablespoons water can be used and also mashed banana can be used.
I simply use baking powder in pancake recipes to make it egg free/vegan and it works very well. You can see the full recipe here.
Deeply-mashed banana—to the point where it's a homogeneous goo—works very well for me.
I have used 3 tbsp mayo for each egg and also subbed 1 tbsp vegetable oil for each egg. I actually preferred the taste and texture when I used the mayo but the oil will work if you don't have or don't like mayo. Hope this helps! :)
most eggless pancake recipes seem to sub eggs for 1 tablespoon of vegetable oil, try that
I've just made great pancakes using ground flax seed instead of eggs. I just put 1 spoonful in the batter, let it rest a couple of minutes, and it was ready to fry. Great substitute
As I've read the advice, I can tell you that I have used mashed, brown 1/2 banana in baked products, in substitution for one of the eggs called for. I have also done the same with applesauce. Yet I've always used at least one egg in the formula.
I think using either of these two or both, would work for pancakes. I'd suggest maybe adding a little cream of tartar to help the rising stays a little more stable. I've done that with good results for biscuits.
Apple cider vinegar worked great for me.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. It seems unlikely that replacing eggs with apple cider in a pancake recipe would lead to anything like success.
@DanielGriscom, just to be clear, OP was suggesting apple cider vinegar, not apple cider. Very different things, but agreed that it would be surprising if it worked; cider vinegar has moderate leavening power but not much binding strength.
@JohnFeminella Typo on my part: I meant to type "... vinegar"... same conclusion...
@DanielGriscom Not the answerer, but I use apple cider vinegar in my pancakes, but more as a way to make vegan buttermilk than to replace the eggs. 1 tablespoon of apple cider to 1 cup of soy milk. Whisk and leave to sit for 5 mins. Combine 1C flour and 1 teaspoon baking powder. Mix in "buttermilk". Cook. Perhaps that's what Nathan meant. (This doesn't answer the question though, as it omits the egg, rather than replacing it.)
I use applesauce, about 1/4 cup - snack size. They are excellent. I often also add nuts and chopped apple. This was originally because of egg allergy and having applesauce to use. Now this is my preferred method.
Mayo didn’t work for me, oil didn’t work for me, but custard powder which is basically cornflour worked beautifully!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.236210 | 2012-02-16T23:55:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21427",
"authors": [
"Abe Karplus",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dustin Serreyn",
"Fodder",
"John Dyer",
"John Feminella",
"Karen",
"Michael Lazenby",
"Mien",
"Onepotmeals",
"Richard Morrell",
"Rismy Rally",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Tammy Lacy",
"arp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93716",
"joelcox",
"justwonderings",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22470 | Chocolate-Flavored Cheese
Would it be feasible to make a chocolate-flavored cheese? The idea that originally occurred to me was the use of chocolate milk for this purpose, but I'm not sure that's the best solution. Does this food already exist? What kinds of cheese are doable in this situation?
Are you talking about making your own cheese, or flavoring existing cheese?
I've had many chocolate cheese cakes...
I've seen white Stilton with chocolate chips. There are better combinations with white Stilton.
@Jefromi- neither, as I know relatively little about the practice of cheesemaking and have yet to attempt it. But I was referring to concocting a cheese from scratch.
It does already exist, yes.
I have had chocolate cream cheese (Philadelphia brand) from the supermarket. Don't know if it is generally available or just a seasnoal product, as I don't recall seeing it lately. Still, I wouldn't recommend imitating it, as I found the taste rather bad. (Maybe there are ways to make tasty chocolate cream cheese, but the manufacturer just used a bad one).
Trader Joe's used to carry a chocolate marbled cheese, FWIW. So it can be done. http://www.whatsgoodattraderjoes.com/2012/02/trader-joes-chocolate-cheddar-cheese.html
The other answers refer to products that are cheese-flavored fudges or cream cheeses blending with cocoa.
Your question seems like it is asking about making a cocoa flavored cheese from scratch.
I have not tried chocolate in particular but I have been experimenting with flavoring cheese (and tofu) and have some data points that might be helpful.
I have not had much success with flavoring the milk before it is curdled. The curdling and pressing process is designed to force out water and water soluble compounds. I would expect much of the cocoa dissolved in the milk to be wasted. Additionally, I wouldn't expect store-bought chocolate milk to work very well because of all the additional sweeteners, emulsifiers, and thickeners that are included. I don't know how it would behave when making cheese but I wouldn't be surprised if they got in the way of forming a good curd.
I have had more success with adding dry flavorings to the curd after it is drained and before it is pressed into the final shape. This is the same time that the salt is added. Some water is still pressed out and so some flavor is lost but much less than in earlier stages.
I am still experimenting with how much dry flavoring can be added before the curd doesn't set properly. The cheese becomes more fragile the more ingredients interfere with the milk proteins.
An easy way to start would be with a simple paneer or queso fresco. Simply heat up milk, stir in some acid (lemon juice, vinegar, citric acid, etc), let the milk protein precipitate out, strain it, mix in salt and some cocoa powder, and let the mass drain in a cloth until it is the consistency that you want.
When thinking of food combinations, I try to think similar combinations that exist already.
I'm sure I've had cheesecake with chocolate decorations. Without a doubt, the flavor combination works in that type of food. Likewise, I've also had chocolate cupcakes with cream cheese frosting, as well as chocolate cake-pops with cream cheese frosting.
If I had to generalize, I would say keeping the two flavors discrete (i.e. frosting has one, cake batter has another) seems to have better results. I haven't heard of chocolate going with heavily salted (or otherwise flavored) cheeses, but this isn't to say that such a combination can't be done well.
I have tried chocolate cheese. It is Awesome! We bought it in Frankenmuth MI
I never actually tried it, but at Michigan State's Dairy store, they sell chocolate cheese.
From: http://dairystore.msu.edu/dnav/109/page.htm
This fudge-like delicacy blends the finest cheese with sugar, vegetable oil, peanuts, and chocolate powder.
Your link does not work. Is this the link you want: http://dairystore.msu.edu/products/cheese/chocolate_cheese_confection ?
http://www.shullsburgcheesestore.com/chocolatecheesefudge.aspx
It's OK, if you don't think of it as cheese.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.237055 | 2012-03-21T15:57:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22470",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Harshavardhan",
"JasonTrue",
"Mien",
"OrigamiRite",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spencer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"init_js",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28361 | How many people does one rabbit feed?
Approximately how many servings of meat can be gotten from one rabbit? For argument's sake, let's say the rabbit is about 12 weeks old and raised as a foodsource (not hunted wild). I understand that the answer can vary wildly based on preparation and serving technique- I hope to serve it as a main dish, probably roasted or fried.
What breed of rabbit? There are some breeds that grow to 9lbs / 4kg, while others are going to be closer to 4.5lbs / 2kg.
@Joe - Meat rabbits are generally 3-5 lbs at time of slaughter(12 weeks)
@Chad : thanks; I didn't realize they were so close in size when they were at that age ... I did find some information saying that the 'meat breeds' are selected for their finer bones (so better meat to bone ratio), but couldn't find specific info on what the ratio actually is.
I'd say 3 to 5 people, depending on the heaviness of the sauce, the meatiness of the rabbit etc.
and the hungriness of the guests ;-)
It not depends only of the rabbit but of the people.
Think of it like a chicken. You could feed 2 adults and 2 children with one roasted chicken with potatoes. It's the same with rabbit. Add rice or potatoes for those who would eat more than a half roasted chicken.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.237390 | 2012-11-11T16:54:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28361",
"authors": [
"Bholendra Singh",
"Chad",
"Debra Kerlin",
"Isabel Ruiz",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joanne Adkison",
"Joe",
"John B. Cown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25095 | How safe is it to harvest wild sassafras?
I am interested in trying to incorporate wild sassafras (roots, mostly) into my cooking. I have established definitively that the plants are sassafras, and not something else, so I'm not worried about accidentally picking the wrong thing. However, I was reading up on it, and Wikipedia seems to think that the plant can be poisonous. How true is this? Is there a way to ensure safety in my cooking (beyond scrapping the project altogether)?
I don't think the US government puts blanket bans on food additives without good cause. In this case there was scientific research showing that it was carcinogenic in laboratory animals. Do you have any reason to suspect that the FDA got it wrong?
No. I was just unsure of how to source the information, and whether the entire plant was carcinogenic, and whether I could get around it. Also, they tell me grilling meat is carcinogenic. I have reason to suspect that the US government tends to panic rather easily.
Safrole is the potentially carcinogenic substance. It doesn't seem to be a big problem (looking at the list that Wikipedia cites, it's below beer and wine and above coffee and orange juice). It's not completely banned - you can buy sassafras online. I don't think it would kill you, but you would use it at your own risk. (Also, it seems to be an MDMA precursor - I don't know how much that had to do with the decision to ban it.)
@user5561: The only part of the sassafras plant that can be sold or purchased is the leaf, and it has to be certified to have a certain maximum concentration of safrole.
well, I found several places claiming to sell "sassafras root bark" - I don't know exactly what "root bark" is, though...
@user5561: Well, that is interesting. I wonder if the regulation has been changed since I last looked into this. "Root bark" is (should be) just what it sounds like -- dig up the roots, scrape off the "skin".
I have been cooking with sassafras roots for years, all wild, as taught by my Indian Lore classes in scouting, and what I teach to current scouts. I also have taught specific recipes with the leaves, but only as flavoring in steaming and such, never eating (not for harm or issues, but because of the bitter aftertaste of the leaves)
As far as your actual questions:
How true is this?
Is there a way to ensure safety in my cooking (beyond scrapping the project altogether)?
For 1, I would have to say that they are true, but also clinical, and I have not been able to discover any documentation that sassafras directly harms humans, only that some of the compounds found in sassafras are harmful at higher levels, and given that the plants are wild, the concentration levels are unknown.
For 2, I would say that one standard root (approx 6 inches in length of varying circumferences) is good for about a half of a gallon to a gallon of water, boiled 2 to three times. If you want a concentrated flavor, boil the water down, and you will get a more potent mixin liquid. (also used for making beers, and ales - ginger ale included, both alcoholic and non alcoholic)
Note that filé powder, used as a finishing/thickening ingredient (cajun gumbo, creole stews, etc), is made from sassafras leaves (as other comments indicate, with no "detectable" safrole).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.237643 | 2012-07-18T03:24:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25095",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Cascabel",
"Nader Elmasry Mohamed",
"Richard Thomas",
"Tyson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"jscs",
"lux",
"user5561",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21972 | What is this Vietnamese Food?
Several years ago, I had a friend of Vietnamese descent. She went back to visit her home country and returned with gifts. I was given a box (possibly yellow) containing several foil-wrapped cubes or rectangles. They were a sort of caked or compressed powder, and somewhat unpleasant to eat. I have since lost touch with my friend, but I would love to be able to track down (or at least identify) this food.
I remember that the first ingredient listed was "grease pig."
Could you say something about the flavour? What did it remind you of? Was it sweet, bitter, salty...?
It didn't have a distinct or memorable flavor, but I certainly didn't find it tasty. Maybe kind of...meaty?
Could it have been like a bouillon cube?
Quite possibly.
I wonder if it was like a pho seasoning cube.
Definitely sounds like a stock cube to me: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3c5cjve3d1qzx5fuo1_500.jpg
Does it look like this? I have some in my pantry now. (Don't tell anyone.)
By request, the box contents: inside a cellophane sleeve, 4 foil-wrapped cubes. Here's one:
Texture is very much like a boullion cube - hard, with a bit of sticky give when pushed. Salty, as expected, but also sweetish with a distinct flavor of caramelized onions and star anise.
No. There was no recognizable French or English on the box (aside from the ingredient list). Sorry!
If you could post a picture of the contents of that box, it might be exactly what the OP was thinking of, just a different brand.
@Jefromi: Excellent idea - done.
That's probably it! Is there an ingredient list?
@AdeleC: salt, sugar, MSG, and spices.
Does it's look like this?
or
This cake is made from mung bean powder and it is bright yellow. Once upon a time, it was wrapped in plant leaves, but today, it is factory-produced and wrapped in foil.
The Mung bean cake, or Bánh đậu xanh, tastes very sweet. It is served with tea.
Davuz, welcome to Seasoned advice! I inserted the images you had linked, and used the occasion to rewrite your post with better grammar. We are a collaboratively edited site, and such editing is common here. I hope I could retain your original meaning. If not, you can revert the post to its earlier version, or edit my version further.
@rumtscho Thank you for edited! My English is not good!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.237940 | 2012-03-03T23:40:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21972",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"David Phelan",
"Davuz",
"Debidee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mien",
"Nancy Wood Kiesman",
"Sergey Moiseev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9365",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34096 | Pulled pork substitute- How do I do it?
I want to emulate pulled pork for my non-pork eating friend (semi-Jewish, read: no pigs, it doesn't have to be technically kosher). What cut of beef would achieve a similar texture? The closest I've ever eaten was short ribs, but is there something better? I'm not too worried about duplicating the method- I'm comfortable with a crock pot, a dutch oven, stove top cooking, whatever- just looking for a similar end result.
Depending on the dish, maybe duck confit. It works really well in tacos. It has the nice unctuous fat and goes well with tomatillo and avocado. But it'd probably be hard or expensive to get in large quantities.
I would personally be inclined to use chicken thighs. They're easy to get, reasonably priced, they can be cooked up to a similar texture, and they're not a strong flavor like beef.
You are not going to find any other meat with quite the same unctuous texture as pulled pork and mild but meaty flavor. Certainly no cut of beef will do so.
If you feel compelled to use beef, use the corresponding cut of beef, which is the chuck. It will pull (although a little more shreddy), but it won't have the same texture, and it will have the stronger beefy flavor (which may be delicious in its own right, but won't be like the pulled pig).
The closest substitute, functionally, would be pulled chicken, although it is very different, and must not be overcooked if you want it to maintain its moisture. The sauce can echo the flavor notes that you would have used with the porky version.
I would recommend just serving something that is kosher or at least acceptable within the definition you are working with, that is designed for the cut you are using. You can get many excellent barbecue results from chuck or brisket. A good smoked barbecued brisket is a masterpiece in its own right, and doesn't need to pretend to be anything else.
But is it better to do it in a smoker or a Weber grill...?
@ElendilTheTall YES!
I have never tried this, but I would expect goat to work well. So I googled and found this blog entry, with a linked pulled pork recipe. It reads like it was successful.
I'd be very interested to know if you try it !
I've made pulled beef before using beef brisket (same spice rub as pulled pork). It is a little drier than pulled pork but the taste is still great.
Braised chicken breasts...moist and pull apart easily. They'll be good with virtually any sauce you'd be using with pork.
Chicken breast is really lean, so I have a hard time imagining it being a good substitute for fatty pork. Surely dark meat would be better?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.238172 | 2013-05-13T16:13:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34096",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Geoffrey Cummings",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FireflyDizziness",
"Jochemspek",
"Joe",
"Kelvin Sherlock",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sammitch",
"beth hughes",
"domie",
"groner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79397"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116930 | Using yellow mustard as a soup base
I have a lot of yellow mustard (think French's brand, nothing fancy here) and am looking for ways to quickly use a lot of it. One thought that came to mind was to somehow use it along with some other ingredients to make a soup. I found some recipes for Dutch mustard soup, and something like that sounds perfect, but of course those recipes call for higher-quality stone ground or perhaps Dijon mustards. My guess is that the main difference is my yellow mustard tastes less of mustard and more of vinegar and salt than higher-quality mustards.
Could I use my mustard as a direct substitute for better mustards called for in something like Dutch mustard soup; or, would I need to make adjustments or pre-process the yellow mustard first to get something similar; or is using something like French's mustard as a significant component of a soup base just an idea that is not worth pursuing?
...don't know about soup, but: https://www.foodandwine.com/condiments/10-ways-use-mustard
If you are happy with the taste of your mustard , give it a try. Only consider tast mustard should be added at the end of the cooking — or enhanced with a fresh spoonful if added it earlier.
There is a style of BBQ that uses yellow mustard. It’s not a soup but might help you use up some of it
You can, I did, but it probably isn't authentic.
The first recipe I found specifically cautioned against yellow mustard. Other recipes call for wholegrain, Dijon, or something rarer. The first recipe also only used 3tbsp to serve 4, which wouldn't use your mustard up very quickly. On the other hand yellow mustard is far less mustardy than Dijon. Wholegrain mustard can be quite vinegary, so that may not be too much of a worry.
The recipe didn't give a reason for avoiding yellow mustard; I suspect it wouldn't be strong enough. I'd try it, with the following changes:
don't add any salt until the very end
choose a low salt stock
use more mustard than called for. I'd start with double, possibly adding more towards the end.
I gave it a try, following the recipe at the 2nd link above (which treats ham/bacon as optional; I opted against).
Having never had the original I can't speak for the authenticity, but mine was quite enjoyable. I got a tasty soup that I enjoyed and would make again. The yellow mustard I have is a little hotter than French's, but still mild enough that I would happily lick it off a spoon. I started with about as much mustard as the recipe calls for, and didn't find the need to add more as the mustard flavour was strong enough, though without heat.
Mustard freezes, by the way, divided into small portions.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.238405 | 2021-08-21T14:04:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116930",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jmk",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21883 | Can I brine chicken in buttermilk after I boil the chicken?
I want to make crispy fried chicken and waffles. I have had great luck boiling chicken wings and then deep frying them. Can I do the same thing for fried chicken? Boil, brine in buttermilk mixture, coat and then fry? Or is there a better way?
Can you clarify when you say "chicken"? Are you trying to fry the whole chicken, you are you frying various parts of the chicken. If so, which parts are we talking about.
parts and all parts. I just wonder if I boil then marinate will the chicken still marinate and stay soft when I fry. I find frying chicken to be too long and eventually the outside burns while the inside it still un-cooked. Thanks for responding.
Short answer: Brining after boiling won't do much (if anything), and you probably don't want to boil all parts of the chicken anyway.
One primary purpose of brining is to hydrate the cells of the muscle tissue before cooking, which allows the cells to hold on to more moisture during the cooking process via denaturation of the proteins. If you cook the meat first, then the heat will permanently denature the proteins first, so the brine will essentially be useless.
The reason why you want to pre-cook chicken wings is that (a) they have a lot of fat which melts off into the cooking liquid, and (b) they have a good amount of connective tissue (collagen) which needs to be cooked low and slow to soften into delicious gelatin. Most of the other parts of the chicken don't have nearly as much fat and collagen, so boiling them would likely only serve to overcook them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.238626 | 2012-03-01T18:10:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21883",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Karen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9335"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86084 | Why dry steak/meat/chicken/fish before cooking on a stove?
For most recipes the instructions for cooking a steak on a stove say "pat the steak dry" then cook on the stove.
The drying instructions I have also seen for chicken and fish.
Why dry steak/meat/chicken/fish before cooking on a stove?
(I saw another question that was asking about how to dry the meat but not why.)
Because any moisture left on the surface will turn into steam upon touching the hot pan.
The steam will cause a lot of oil splatters (which is not only a huge mess, but can also hurt you), and if it can't evaporate fast enough, will interfere with proper browning, especially if you are overcrowding your pan or if your meat exudes a lot of moisture.
Excellent point about the spattering. (I usually use my grill or the broiler, so I avoid that problem)
To get a good sear (grill marks/browning)
If you don't, the moisture will generate steam , cooling the cooking surface and preventing it getting over 100deg C
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.238780 | 2017-12-03T01:37:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86084",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84579 | What is the difference between "European Butter" and American butter?
I am in America, recently I noticed in my grocery store in the last year or two that there is a type of butter called "European Butter".
Is "European Butter" really different from regular butter, yes/no?
If yes, what is the difference between regular butter and "European" butter?
p.s. I thought there was only one way to make butter. So... is there such a thing as "European Butter" or is "European Butter" just made with different type of cow milk (i.e. a more organic... more grass fed.... less processed type of milk... maybe less homogenized)?
I don't know about "European butter", but cultured butter (made by the same process, but starting from cultured milk) as opposed to fresh butter may be one distinction... and I think it's more commonly found in Europe than America, due to historical usage.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14619/why-is-butter-usually-labeled-sweet-cream
Most butter in the US is sweet cream butter, meaning that the cream is not cultured before it is churned. European style butter is cultured by adding bacteria to the cream and giving it time to thicken and acidify before churning. This results in subtle flavor changes. European style butter also has a slightly higher fat content.
FWIW, imported and domestic cultured butter is becoming pretty common on US shelves. Expect to pay considerably more for it.
I think this answers the question I was about to ask, about why Irish butter melts and tastes different when used in 'bulletproof' espressos and teas
European style butter contains more fat (and thus less water) than american style butter. European butters tend to be 83-86% fat as apposed to american butter which is around 81% fat. This makes european butter ideal for applications such as croissants and other delicate flaky pastries.
Does 2-5% extra fat really make that much difference?
Yes. The amount of fat impacts gluten development by blocking the proteins from bonding. It really draws the line between dense squat pastries and flaky ones.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.238884 | 2017-09-24T01:14:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84579",
"authors": [
"A Gold Man",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"New Alexandria",
"RonJohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725"
],
"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
} |
61842 | What is the difference between Atlantic and Steelhead farmed salmon in taste and how to cook?
I noticed today at the grocery for the first time a new type of salmon called Steelhead farmed salmon next to the regular Atlantic farmed salmon. The Steelhead was about 10% cheaper in price and slightly deeper pink/red (the packaging assured me that the color was artificial like the Atlantic).
What is the difference between Atlantic and Steelhead farmed salmon in taste and how to cook?
Technically, steelhead is an ocean-going subspecies of rainbow trout (a term more commonly applied to fish who live only in fresh water). They're definitely related, though; salmon, trout, and char (you can often find Arctic char in the fish case alongside salmon) are all members of the Salmonidae family. As such they're pretty similar from a culinary perspective.
Personally, I find the flavor to be somewhat "fishier" and the texture less oily than Atlantic salmon, which is relatively mild. Steelhead is a bit closer (as the color would indicate) to Pacific salmon varieties, with coho being the closest match in my experience. But farmed fish are almost always milder, so don't expect anything close to really flavorful wild salmon.
The bigger difference is likely to be the physical size of the filets you get from steelhead. They are smaller fish than the quite large Atlantic salmon, which means a generally thinner filet and a finer grain. That in turn means they'll cook more quickly than thicker Atlantic filets.
Definitely an easy substitution, and not a bad difference in price (which is probably more due to where you're located in relation to the respective fish farms).
Forgo the farm and buy Alaskan!
@Jolenealaska Can't argue if quality is your goal. I do sometimes buy farmed salmon/trout/char for the lower price, especially if I'm grilling, using a crust, or something else that covers the natural flavor of the fish. But no fish on earth beats wild-caught Alaskan chinook [drool]
say NO to farmed frankenfish. ( and GMO's )
Steelhead is not salmon. Salmon Trout and Steelhead are types of trout, an entirely different fish from the same family of fish as salmon. A salmon is always a salmon, but a Steelhead starts its life out as a Rainbow Trout. If the Rainbow Trout migrates to the ocean, it becomes a Steelhead. If it never goes to the ocean, it stays a rainbow trout for its entire life. Because they are closely related, and taste similar, Steelhead is sometimes marketed as Steelhead Salmon. The store had it improperly labeled as such.
The Steelheads (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are more closely related to the Pacific salmon (Chinook salmon's scientific name is Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) than the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is. In flavor, it's a different story. This may be one of those “is tomato a fruit or a vegetable” type deals.
I find the two very close in flavor and would say it is probably a matter of taste. If offered one and told it was the other I would probably believe it. That is not the case with most wild caught salmon. The Steelhead (scientific name Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a rainbow trout (a type of salmon) that has gone to live in the ocean. They are from the same Genus as the salmon from the Pacific side (Sockeye salmon's scientific name is Oncorhynchus nerka). The Atlanic salmon (Salmo salar) is from another genus.
Make sure your Steelhead is farm raised in good conditions. Steelheads are between a threatened to endangered species. For some yet unknown reason, those raised in farms become domesticated and do not do well in the wild, so restoring them appears to be difficult. The farmed Steelheads also taste better in my opinion. Wild salmon gets its red and pink shades from a carotenoid in their krill based diet. The farmed salmon (including the steelheads) have carotenoids (canthaxanthin and astaxanthin) added to their diets, so color does not help much to determine quality when buying farm raised salmon, but it does help in the presentation.
Because of their lower fat content compared to other salmon, I would pan fry the filets (unless you have an unusually thick piece). You can follow the suggestions in this article at Serious Eats which goes through common problems arising while frying salmon.
The farmed Steelhead, in my appreciation of taste and cooking is tastier (less fishy) and not as dry as the Atlantic Salmon. Cook at highest heat (oven broil) don't cover, skin down, sprinkle steak spice, a little maple sirop, remove when golden and "WOW" just like candy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.239068 | 2015-09-19T11:15:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61842",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Christine Gambin",
"J Wright",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lisa Barrett",
"Sarah Abdullah",
"Tammy Connery",
"Trish Connolly",
"William Mewha",
"a Argento",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"logophobe",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68170 | Breakfast burritos from 16 egg casserole, how to cook everything uniformly?
I am baking a 16 egg casserole that will be used for breakfast burritos and so I want the egg mixture to be cooked uniformly through. Once the breakfast burritos are made I will freeze them all. What is the best way to cook the egg casserole uniformly?
over the stove with a large skillet? large wok over stove?
baking with a casserole dish or metal skillet in oven? with lid or without lid? what temperature time (i.e. hot 350+ F and shorter time or cooler 250-300 F and longer) and how long?
(maybe you have another way that is not stove+skillet nor baking.)
I chose to go with baking because I think such a large volume of eggs is too difficult[1] to cook over a stove in a skillet/wok.
[1]
I say difficult because when I cook a 10-11 egg mixture over a stove with a 10 inch skillet the cooking requires stirring vigorously the entire egg mixture throughout the entire cooking process and the total time is something like 5-10 minutes plus or minus (I haven't measured how long I just look at the egg consistency). So after half way through finishing stirring you start to get tired and sometimes you get parts that get harder if you slack in your stirring. And so I can't imagine doing the same thing with 16 eggs I don't think I would have the stamina to cook stirring that long and I would be concerned about food safety with everything cooking through.
what problem are you trying to solve? Why can't you make 1 or 2 eggs worth of burritos quickly, then set them aside and make another 1 or 2 eggs worth, and so on, until in one morning you have stocked your freezer with egg burritos? Why do all 16 need to cook in a single swoop - which as you've mentioned is very difficult? Until you explain why they have to all cook at once I doubt you will get very good advice.
Just for clarification for those not so familiar with the recipe: You are basically making a 16-eggs portion of scrambeled eggs? Or are you aiming for something entirely different?
@Stephie the egg mixture has potatoes, green peppers, onions, corn, black beans. But more or less the goal is scrambled eggs with all of the above ingredients.
@KateGregory the egg mixture has lots of ingredients and so I thought doing all at once would be faster and easier.
Baked, covered, at low heat :
ovens self-regulate, so you're going to get a more consistent result each time than doing it on the stovetop.
covering will minimize evaporation, which will cool the top more.
low heat will minimize problems with the edges cooking before the middle ... but eggs also have this strange thing where it's more difficult to over cook them at low heat ... and it's not just an issue of carry-over cooking (which lower heat will help to minimize, too).
As for shape of the vessel, I'd go with a rectangular baking dish -- because then I could more easily portion out 16 equal sized servings than from a round or oblong vessel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.239416 | 2016-04-10T14:50:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68170",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Stephie",
"Trevor Boyd Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9421"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39709 | Lumps of flour in my sauce
During the thickening of my sauce I accidentally poured too much flour into my sauce. This resulted into lumps of flour.
Is there a way to get rid of these lumps?
Mix flour with a liquid first, so there are no lumps. Then thicken the sauce with the floured liquid.
Cold liquid, not hot
Pouring dry flour directly into a sauce is generally not a good idea. There are better methods. You could start with a roux (oil/butter and flour cooked) then make your sauce, or mix flour with butter to form a beurre manié and add it to the sauce, or make a slurry of flour and cold water and add it to the sauce.
Once this has happened, about the only practical way to remove them is with a strainer. Of course that will remove anything else in the sauce like onions as well.
In the future, you can use better ways to thicken your sauce. See some ideas in this question, which while phrased for mushroom sauce, has a very general answer: How can I thicken my mushroom sauce?
I totally agree with @SAJ4SAJ his answer, but I would like to add that I've heard about people getting rid of the lumps of flour with an immersion blender. However, I did not do this myself. But if I ever try it, I'll update this answer.
This is not always a solution (same limits as other answers), you will destroy pieces in your sauce you do desire.
also, as a caveat, some thickeners won't handle the shearing well and may actually thin out again (of course, if this happens, you can simple re-thicken it correctly)
@sourd'oh the question was specifically about flour, which doesn't care about shearing. It is usually the gums which show strange behaviors under agitation.
And separately to the answer itself, I have tried it with the blender, and it works if you do it while you are cooking the sauce - the lumps get broken up, you give them some time to hydrate and continue cooking. But if the sauce is already fully cooked, you will end up with raw flour from the lumps in the sauce, which doesn't taste good.
Sometimes, if you're lucky, whisking the bejabbers out of the sauce with a French Whisk will work. Rolling the whisk shaft between your palms can generate some pretty good RPM without resorting to electrical motors.
I tried it with a whisk but failed :P
I was stuck in this position, with no strainer, blender or any other device. Instead, I used a spoon. With the spoon, I tried squashing the lumps, to the side of the pan and continued a motion. Dipping the spoon in to the middle of the sauce and bringing the back of the spoon the side. Do this for about 5 minutes and you should get most of the lumps, by using your eyes and catching as much as you can. I also add a little extra water, to help the lumps dissolve and continued to whisk and cook away. Eventually I had a very smooth and tasty sauce. It may not of been perfect but after getting rid of the largest lumps, the smaller ones soon disappeared.
If its a sauce, try using a manual food mill, it works wonders to strain soups and sauces. i have tried it, it works very well for veggies and flour if the tool is of good quality.
Chances are that you are Australian and your regular tap water is Anything above 25c in the peak of summer, of course, depending on where you live and what your water source is. Where I live, towards the end of heat waves we can get tap water getting very close to 30c (think 28 - 29 - ish). So sometimes you will still get clumps unless you add your cornflour real slow. If you are able to prepare earlier then stick some water (sealed somehow) in the fridge for a few hours. There is info all over but they call it "Making a Slurry" in cold water. This enables the Corn Flour (starch) to disperse (not dissolve) into the water without clumping. then, when you are ready you add it into the hot stuff (could be juice, stock, or water or combination) and bobs your aunt you got gravy! Woot!
Corn starch will not gel at 30 degrees. It won't clump any more at that temperature than if you're using ice water.
I don't understand the 25c parts. Is this cents per gallon? Why would that matter? Celsius? Still way below thickening temperatures. Also, the question was not how to thicken a gravy but how to remove the lumps from too much flour.
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.239772 | 2013-11-24T18:37:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39709",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chanon Yana",
"Mien",
"Optionparty",
"Robert",
"Sneftel",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108465 | Sour Dough Starter - proofing in less than 24 hours?
I recently started with making sour dough. I created a new starter yesterday. After feeding it one time in less than 24 hours it's already doubling it's size. I'm not using self-rising flour just normal wheat bread flour.
Is it usual that it picked up so fast?
So you just fed an existing starter leftover? Or you started from scratch with just flour and water?
Did same on Sunday. Used wheat flour type 2000. It's normal for such flour to double (or even triple) in size in first 24 hours (especially in calm, warm place). I assume it's due to amount of wild yeast and airness of the flour itself.
@Luciano just flour and water, no existing starter. Bare in mind I live in Singapore, our humidity is 85% and temps is about 29 - 32 C
24 hours is above average but not unheard of, 24 hours is a realistic time. I'd say you have a healthy starter on your hands.
I think to get the most of your starter however you should go through the complete process 5 - 7 days just to get a starter that is really sour.
Temperature can make a big difference. In my house right now the air temp is around 65F depending on the room or area, which is pretty low for sourdough. I leave my starter on the counter and it rises slowly.
I am fortunate to have an oven which can go down to 85-90F, at this temp the difference in activity is very noticeable, I would say it is 3 or 4 times as active, and I can easily get the starter to double in a few hours.
Other factors that make a difference are the quality and type of water, chlorine and other additives can inhibit activity, also the freshness and type of flour, etc.
The OP seems to be saying that they created a starter from scratch in less than 24 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.240138 | 2020-05-19T06:11:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108465",
"authors": [
"Lucas Kauffman",
"Luciano",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9446"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116947 | Over kneaded dough: what can I do with it?
I severly overkneaded my dough (I left it in the standmixer for over 45 minutes by accident).
What can I do with this? Can I use it for starter? Any other use-cases?
What does it look like now?
Goo, sticky goo
@FuzzyChef Something like a medicine ball, I expect, lol!
In addition to @rumtscho's answer, there is another option:
Dough that has active yeast in it can be used as a starter culture for future doughs. This is the method by which bakers used to propagate their yeasts before the advent of readily available dried or pure fresh yeast cultures. It goes under various names, such as poolish, biga and pate fermentee, though technically the poolish is higher hydration than the other two, so yours is more like a biga or pate fermentee.
Given that you are just at the kneading stage you would need to ferment ("rise" - though yours won't; it'll just go bubbly) the dough.
Then you can simply take some of the dough and add it to a fresh batch of ingredients. The amounts to add vary depending on what you actually want to do with the new bread and how fast you want it to rise.
You can also take this and divide it up into smallish amounts; 15 -- 30 ml (0.5 -- 1 oz) works well and freeze, then thaw for usage when needed. Silicone muffin/cupcake trays work well for this, as you can drop the mix in, freeze, then pop-out for storage in a bag.
There's some nice instructions here for how to use from fresh. For frozen the process is similar, just make sure that the "dough" is thawed and warm.
You will most likely have to play with the amount you use, but given the poor nature of the gluten in your current batch, I wouldn't go over about 25% of the total future bake.
I would say nothing. It will never again behave like the original dough, and for me, any rescue attempts will involve putting in way too much effort for getting a badly tasting result. I would throw it away.
If you really insist on saving it, I wouldn't try turning the batch into anything baked or bread-like. You can try adding more water, then use it as the base for something from the pancake/crepe family.
bake it, for science
@CobaltHex you could just as well say "throw a stone into a lake, for science". Some experiments are simply not worth doing.
i mean i would not say those are the same. the dough has been made, gluten has probably been destroyed, I'd personally be curious what the result would be
"I wouldn't try making anything baked or bread-like again" – seems a bit harsh for one mistake
@dbmag9 Oops! Thank you for noticing the bad phrasing, edited.
@CobaltHex The "experiment" has been done millions of times before, by mistake, and the results are known. The three extreme points of the possible result space will be: 1) a wet mass that hasn't baked through, 2) a crumbly mass falling apart, a bit like old birdfeed, 3) n aunbitably hard puck. The actual result will be one of these, or some combination of them, depending on exact circumstances.
@rumtscho - one more option - use as a starter for future bakes; divide it up into tablespoon sized amounts, freeze, use as needed.
@bob1 this sounds like an answer in its own right (and one that I would upvote)
Regarding CobaltHex's comment, don't think of it as "baking", but as "curing". I'm wondering how sturdy various objects made from what amounts to a gluten-based plastic would be if you managed to remove all the moisture.
@chepner if you are wondering that, buy modern biodegradable drinking straws, they are frequently made from gluten. It works somewhat, but the material is very moisture sensitive. The broken down dough in the example is not suited for that purpose though.
Buying biodegradable straws is a far cry from trying something yourself. Why bake bread at all if you can buy bread?
@chepner I read your comment as wanting to know what's the best one can do when creating a gluten-based polymer for nonfood use, and suggested the straws as an example. You can probably devise a method to make that kind of material at home, too - but the overkneaded dough won't get you far in that direction.
Including your list of 3 likely results in your answer would be a good idea, IMO. (And the fact that over-kneading will eventually destroy gluten once you get past the point of developing more than you want, if that's what happens.) Like @CobaltHex, I didn't know what to expect. (I was thinking that if you have too much gluten, you could bake kolacky or something else that doesn't need to stay rolled out: when I was about 10, I once made cinnamon bun dough, but didn't know different types of flours existed, and the flour I happened to find was gluten flour. xD)
It is unclear to me whether you are talking about bread, cake or other dough. Disregard if you are not asking about bread.
Personally, I bake sourdough bread, both wheat and rye, and there the kneading is very important to give it structure (there are very interesting biomechanical processes going on specifically with wheat-majority doughs).
I used to worry a lot in the initial stages of my "career" as a baking hobbyist. But now I just bake the bread, no matter what. Worst case it will be more like a flat cake/chabati than a real bread. There are other reasons except over-kneading for this to happen as well - wrong water/flour ratio, unhappy temperatures (mainly too hot, in my experience), bad time logistics, low-quality flour etc. The bread usually tastes more or less the same, and certainly is not unhealthy. The mouth texture will be different, but I am not trying to win contests with every single loaf of bread, and sometimes some variation is welcome as well.
If I had a lot of dough that I really cannot use, I would possibly not be able to use it as an optimum starter because at that stage it has salt in it, which inhibits the microorganisms (if I had somehow lost my actual permanent sourdough culture I would certainly try to get something going with the salted dough, anyways).
But what you can always do is to use it as "old dough" (in German: "alter Teig" - an actual term amongst bakers) in the later stages of your next bread. I.e., make a little less regular bread dough next time, and add a portion of your over-kneaded dough together with the salt. This can, in fact, give great tasting bread, and is even done intentionally in some recipes. The historic roots are exactly what one you might imagine - when that stuff was not cheap, or people were very hungry, nobody would throw dough away just because it was not fluffy enough; and they would just throw it in together with tomorrows batch.
Try baking it and see what happens. Make several shapes and cook, then see how they turn out
A really thin pizza base, later make a pizza on top
Line a muffin/cupcake tray, and fill like a pie/quiche
Small cubes, for use as croutons
If any of them fail badly, simply blend them into crumbs and dry, for later use as a breadcrumb substitute.
Your original plan for the dough is unrecoverable - make a fresh batch.
Also check your mixer's instructions and see if it has a timer mode, or consider one of those plug-in timers on the switch, or just set a count-down timer when you start the mixer.
If nothing works at all, it'll make a great bird-food.
bread isn't good for birds.
@kat fair point - its kinda not bread any more.
Birdlime: if it is really sticky and looks yummy to birds, maybe you can catch birds with it!
Not that I suggest you do so!
Welcome to the site. Please take a [tour] and visit the [help] to see what makes a good answer. The SE format values answers with some knowledge or references behind them; what evidence do you have that bread dough could be made into birdlime? Note that birdlime is illegal in large parts of the world.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.240327 | 2021-08-24T04:26:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116947",
"authors": [
"CobaltHex",
"Criggie",
"FuzzyChef",
"J...",
"Kat",
"Lucas Kauffman",
"Peter Cordes",
"bob1",
"chepner",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9446",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34181 | Food Safety - Infused oil with dried herbs
I know using fresh herbs to infuse oil can be dangerous as the oil might become a breeding ground for botulism. I was wondering, if I first rinse my herbs (or peppers for that matter) and then dry them for several weeks/months, would it be safe to make an infused oil with these dried herbs compared to fresh ones?
realted: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/33635/3649.
On a side note, dried tomatoes are apparently too acidic for botulism to grown in: Vegetables and herbs to be packed in oil without treatment with vinegar should be dried almost to crispness. Tomatoes, including sun-dried tomatoes, are a special case. The pH of fresh tomatoes is normally just below 4.6. When the tomatoes are dried, the natural acid components are concentrated and the pH is reduced. It will often be close to 4.0 in the dry product and therefore the risk of food poisoning is eliminated.
No such safeguard exists with other vegetables, however, and these must be either acidified or properly dried before being covered with oil. This includes small quantities of garlic or herbs which may be added to other preserved vegetables as flavourings. — http://www.csiro.au/resources/preservation-in-oil-vinegar
Per the University of Ohio Extension, yes, it does reduce the risk (emphasis added):
Flavored oils also can be a concern if not prepared correctly. When
herbs, garlic, or tomatoes are placed in oils, the botulism spores on
the plant material can start to produce the toxin in this anaerobic
mixture. To be safe, keep these flavored oils refrigerated and make
only the amount of herbal oils and butters that will be used in a
few days. Using dried herbs and vegetables will also reduce the risk.
Still, reduce is not eliminate. The guidelines to not can or hold the oil for long term continue to apply.
What is considered a long time? Like days or weeks?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.241182 | 2013-05-17T13:33:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34181",
"authors": [
"Adrienne C",
"Cerberus",
"Ebranc",
"FightMilk",
"Lucas Kauffman",
"MandoMando",
"SadKick11",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9446"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27745 | Can food be boiled "extra fast/hard" in water?
Once water is boiling you can either leave the heat on quite high, or turn it down a bit so that it just keeps boiling. Apart from extra water vaporating, does this have any effect on the taste of food you're boiling (meat, vegetables, eggs, etc.)?
With just common sense we could get to the following reasoning:
The liquid water is max 100°C (right?), beyond that it should vaporize (right?)
Water vapor could be hotter than 100°C (but how much, in normal cooking conditions?)
When boiling water, the vapor originates at the bottom of the pan
So technically the foot could be "hit" by this vapor, thus being heated above 100°C
Even if the above reasoning is correct, the questions would still be: would it matter how much you heat boiling water beyond 100°C? Can you significantly change the taste of boiled food by "boiling it really hard" or "boiling it slowly"?
Just thought I'd point out that water (and other liquid) boils because of pressure, which rises with temperature. If you put water in a sealed box, pump air into it until the pressure rises higher, and then raise the temperature, it will boil at a higher temperature.
You don't even have to pump air in--the evaporating steam will work fine. This is how pressure cookers work.
@zebediah49 No. Pressure cookers work by, as the name suggests, increasing the pressure. At higher pressures, water boils at higher temperatures and that is what makes the food cook faster. (The pressure is higher because boiling the water turns it to steam, which takes up more space.)
I am not sure what part of your 'correction' to zebediah49 is in conflict with what he said?
The most obvious thing is nothing to do with heat/temperature. The rapid boil agitates the food a lot, to the point that if the food is soft, it can pretty much tear it apart. You probably don't really want disintegrated food, but smaller pieces do cook faster, so I suppose you can look at this as a rapid boil cooking faster from a certain perspective. It certainly cooks differently.
The other big thing is that rapidly boiling water will recover faster when you add food to it. It's not because the water itself is hotter, but the pot is, and the stove is too if it's electric. So you want a rapid boil to start, even if you don't need it later.
As for heat/temperature, there are differences between a full rolling boil and a slow boil, but not really what you're suggesting.
At a rolling boil, the water is mixing well enough that effectively it's all at 100°C. At a slow boil, it's really only boiling at the bottom, with a few little bubbles floating up from there, so most of the water is actually a bit below 100°C.
This difference is bigger than any effect from steam coming into contact with food; the heat capacity of water is substantially greater than that of steam, the steam isn't under pressure so it won't be above 100°C, and the food will be in contact with water more of the time than steam anyway.
Of course, if all you're doing is boiling water with a relatively small bit of food in it, it doesn't make a huge difference if the water's a little below boiling. But if you've got a lot of food and not that much water, like in a stew, the difference can become way more pronounced. Convection becomes inefficient, so at a simmer or a low boil the heat doesn't propagate from the bottom to the top very efficiently. That lets the temperature at the top be significantly lower, and so things will cook more slowly. Covering the pot does mostly mitigate this, if it's an option.
Finally, the bottom of the pan is substantially hotter than the water, and if you've turned the stove up higher to make it boil faster, it'll be even hotter, so food that comes into contact with it will cook (or more likely, scorch) faster. That's not directly due to the faster boil, of course, just the heat being transferred from the stove to the pot, but they go hand-in-hand.
So yes, things do sometimes cook faster at a rolling boil (what you call "boiling it really hard") than at a slow boil, but it's not because of steam coming into contact with the food, and once it's truly boiling, adding even more heat doesn't really change anything in terms of heat.
I doubt that the sides or bottom inside of a pan of boiling water is significantly hotter than the boiling water. You can witness this yourself by viewing YouTube videos of water being boiled in paper cups and plastic water bottles.The water keeps the surface at boiling temperature.
@Jim I doubt those paper cups and plastic bottles were boiled on a stove. It's completely possible to burn things on the bottom of a pot full of water (or soup, or sauce).
Jefromi, you should accept that video evidence @Jim mentioned trumps your own unproven beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLa9mxrrrsc proves - the bottom of the container is NOT substantially hotter than the water.
The influence of a full rolling boil vs a slow simmer is negligible. Much like the influence of a pinch of salt, as another cooking Q&A here discusses.
@MatthewElvey My beliefs aren't unproven. I've stuck thermometers in simmering pots and seen temperatures over 100C with the thermometer in contact with the bottom of the pot, and temperatures <100C at the top. Your and Jim's examples simply aren't the same situation - they show that it's possible to get the water to boil with the container at 100C, not that it's impossible to have the bottom of a pot on the stove go above 100C while the contents boil, especially if there's potentially food in contact with the bottom of the pot, not just water.
I do believe that you've stuck thermometers in simmering pots and seen temperatures over 100C with the thermometer in contact with the bottom of the pot, and temperatures <100C at the top. Not unlikely at all with a thick soup (it can burn). Or that you'd get > 100.01°C at the bottom and <99.99°C at the top with pure water, but don't care.
I'm sure you've never stuck thermometers in simmering pots of water and found water temperatures substantially hotter than 100°C near the bottom but substantially below 100°C at the top. I challenge you to post a youtube video showing otherwise.
@Jefromi you wrote, "I doubt those paper cups and plastic bottles were boiled on a stove." - expressing disbelief that a plastic bottle of water could be boiled on a stove. That is the unproven belief I refer to. You did this even though you were pointed to video evidence suggesting you should accept that water in a plastic bottles can be boiled on a stove. Do you think the video was faked? Did you look at it?
@MatthewElvey Read my previous comment again. The stuff I'm saying addressing the question is true despite the fact that you can boil water in a plastic bottle; they're different situations. Cooking food on the stove is not the same thing as boiling plain water. If you look at those videos, or the instructions people have posted for doing it, you'll see that you have to be careful not to use too high heat, e.g. holding the cup a decent distance from the heating element.
When you do that boiling trick, it's true that the inside is held at 100C. From there, there's a gradient to a higher temperature on the outside surface. (There has to be, because heat is being transferred in, causing the water to boil.) The outside is over 100C, but the heat is gentle enough that it's still cool enough to not melt plastic or burn paper. The heat used to boil on a stove is generally much stronger than that, so the pot is way over 100C below the surface. That means that when food sticks on the bottom, displacing the water, it can also get way over 100C.
In my experience, the most likely impact of a gentle boil vs. a furious rolling boil is going to be on texture of starchy foods, such as potatoes or other root vegetables, rather than flavor.
I've found that a gentle simmer of potatoes will result in a mostly intact shape and consistent texture, whereas an aggressive boil without perfect timing can result in the outer layers of the potato breaking apart, sometimes before the center has time to cook fully.
I've seen similar issues with stuffed parcels of pasta like ravioli or boiled won tons. I've also found that open pot egg poached eggs have much nicer results with a gentle simmer than an aggressive boil, perhaps for related reasons.
Since part of how we experience taste is texture, you could say that the "taste" is affected.
I can't believe no one else mentioned this or voted this answer up ... and you end up with the excess starch in the water, which can cause other problems (eg. the boil over common in pasta, working back in the protein scum that forms when making stock before you can skim it off)
not to mention that a "hard fast boil" can still dehydrate something like a protein and make it dry and mealy if the cook time isn't sufficiently long enough to tenderize the meat
I think the main problem with fast boiling ravioli or boiled wantons is actually that if a significant amount of steam forms inside them, they will expand enough to break open.
Perhaps that's what happens when potatoes fall apart too.
For potatoes, the age will matter about as much as how hard you boil them...young potatoes are firmer, and will not fall apart much when cooked, even at a rolling boil, while old, starchy, flaky potatoes will start to fall apart even at a simmer, and will be turned into mush by the mechanical action of a rolling boil. I think it is the mechanical action, at least with potatoes, rather than steam forming inside the chunks of potato, because I'd expect young potatoes to be destroyed almost as completely by steam forming inside them.
At a normal atmospheric pressure, even the steam created by boiling will only be 100°C. However, you will have to worry about the food touching the bottom part of the pan, as that can, and will, get hotter than the water.
So if what you're boiling is suspended or floating then no, it won't be any different.
I figure it's also worth mentioning that if what you're boiling is sensitive to movement (like poaching an egg), then a more rapid boil can effect the structure due to larger, faster, "more violent" bubbles. I don't think it would change the flavor at all though.
The liquid water is max 100°C (right?), beyond that it should vaporize (right?)
Yes, but strictly no. Firstly the boiling point of water depends upon purity and pressure.
The purity factor is argued as a reason for putting salt into water - increasing its boiling point and hence cooking faster. In practice this has negligible effect (a brine strong enough for a wet cure would still only be about 102°C boiling point, so the effect on cooking time of a bit of salt is going to be overwhelmed by the pressure factor).
The pressure factor has two practical effects. One is that if you try camp-cooking high in the mountains, it's harder to cook anything or make a decent cuppa, because the boiling point is so low (okay, not that practical unless you climb very big mountains, but some people do). The other is that pressure cookers cook faster, because of the corresponding effect of using high pressure to raise the boiling point.
Secondly, liquids won't necessarily boil when they reach their boiling point. This has a practical cooking safety effect, in that if liquid is heated in a clean smooth container (hence no nucleation sites) in a microwave it's possible to get it to do this. Such super-heated water has enough latent heat to turn the water into vapour, but hasn't done so. Once you do something that gives it a nucleation site (blow on it, knock it, add something to it), it suddenly flashes into steam splashing steam upwards and boiling water outwards, with enough force to smash the container as well as the obvious scald hazard.
In practice though, barring the superheating case (won't happen in a pan) and half-way normal weather and altitude, then yes, 100°C.
Water vapor could be hotter than 100°C (but how much, in normal cooking conditions?)
Not in this case. It can in the cases mentioned above, but not in normal pan boiling.
As you add heat to water starting at, say, 20°C, that heat will cause the temperature of the water to rise. Each large calorie (kCal, the same sort unit used to measure the energy content of food) absorbed will raise a kilogram of water, 1°C.
Once the water reaches 100°C, yet more heat energy is needed to turn it into steam. This takes around 540kCals per kilogram - much more than the amount needed to raise the water by 1°C. Hence the water remains constant at 100°C for a while, then some of it turns into vapour. Now, it only takes .48kCal to raise vapour by 1°C, but that vapour is going to rise, moving it away from the heat-source and helping distribute the heat energy more evenly throughout the water (which after all, will be cooling elsewhere).
For this reason boiling water will be staying pretty much at an even 100°C (not precisely so, but precisely enough for cooking purposes.
Likewise, while ice can be much colder than 0°C, ice mixed with water will stay around 0°C as the heat absorbed goes into melting the ice rather than heating the water.
When boiling water, the vapor originates at the bottom of the pan
Some flashes near the top, but most does, yes.
So technically the foot could be "hit" by this vapor, thus being heated above 100°C
No for the reason given above. It's worth nothing that when the food is hit by vapour, that vapour contains more heat energy than the water at the same temperature, and while it can't raise the temperature any higher than 100°C, it can theoretically do so more quickly. However, liquid water is a better conductor than vapour water, which mitigates this. In all, this has no effect upon the cooking process, but it does explain both why a steam burn can be much worse than a liquid water burn - it's not normally the potential for vapour being above 100°C, so much as the greater heat energy to transfer - and also why one can put ones hand in domestic steam for longer than in heated water - the poorly conductive steam, mixed with air, is not as good at transferring heat, and hence causing injury, as liquid water is.
In all then, boiling water is 100°C, and this isn't a concern for cooking - if the recipe says to boil it, just boil it. The only real concern is to not let it boil dry.
The big thing that can matter for cooking are that a more vigorous boil drives off water faster, is more rough, consumes more energy, and heats the kitchen more. Nice technical explanation of why all those other things don't matter for cooking.
Thanks @derobert Worth noting that while the temperature won't matter, for the reasons I give above, the driving off water faster does have a cooking effect, since the ratio of food to water is increased. I mentioned boiling dry (and I have indeed managed to burn soup), but before that point it can also cause issues if you want a generous supply of water as in cooking pasta - drive off lots of water and you're left with a nasty high-starch goo. Not the concern the OP asked about, but still a way to ruin a meal.
(And also, the microwave superheating is hard to do on purpose, but has caused injuries in normal domestic settings, and safety is always something to think about when cooking).
"negligible effect" - counterexample: syrup. Can get close to pressure-cooker temperatures.
@rackandboneman that though is very different to a pinch of salt.
Point one: No, you can't significantly change the taste of food by choosing different boiling temperatures.
The taste of food depends on the final temperature it reaches. There are certain "turning points" for different types of food. Actin and myosin (the proteins in meat) curdle in the 60°C to 65°C interval for land animals, lower for fish. Different egg proteins curdle in the 50°C to 85°C interval, maybe a bit more, but not above 100°C. Collagen needs at least 68°C to melt, and starches need at least 70°C, depending on the source, but none of them needs above 100°C. All interesting changes happen within an interval below 100°C.
You can change the taste by slow heating, because heat travels by conduction through the food. If you heat a piece of meat at 100°C and wait until the middle has reached 62°C (well done), the outside surface will have reached 100°C and be dry. If you heat it at 62°C (for enough time that even the middle reaches them), the meat will be tasty throughout. The question is whether parts of the food are heated above a limit which makes everything taste bad. There are no such limits above 100°C. So slow boiling (at 100°C, as opposed to slow heating at much lower temperatures) doesn't change anything.
Point two: you can change cooking time by using quicker boil. Starch is unpleasant (raw) below 70°C, but it doesn't have an upper limit at which it gets unpleasant. (Technically, if heated enough, it first breaks down to smaller molecules and then chars, but you can't achieve this with boiling). So, if you use a pressure cooker, which boils food at above 100°C, you can get your starch cooked much sooner, and the taste will be the same as when boiled at 100°C (could have some changes in the aromatics due to easier extraction under pressure but also more breaking down at higher temps).
Point three: Steam won't give you higher temps than boiling water. Steam does pack more energy than liquid water per molecule: the heat energy as well as the vaporization energy. When it hits the under-100°C surface of the food, it condenses, giving up its vaporization energy. But the problem is that it is much, much less dense than water. Even with much more energy per molecule, you get less energy transferred to your food when steaming than when boiling. So steaming heats your food much slower than boiling, and it doesn't heat it to above 100°C unless you use a pressurized environment (and then the things I said above about pressure cooking with water come into play).
So, really, there is no reason to do it. If you want to know what interesting things can be done to food, read about the chefs who do modernist cooking, molecular gastronomy and the like. They are good at it, and have had years of head start to come up with good ideas. If they don't do it, it probably doesn't make sense.
Hmmm, collagen starts melting lower than that (though it takes a really long time, but we're talking about low-temperature/sous vide for that to matter). More importantly, most of the changes you're talking about are texture changes. The really interesting flavor changes—caramelization and the Maillard reaction—take place at higher temperatures, generally anhydrously (doing it with water requires pressure).
@derobert I checked it again. Turns out that type V collagen denatures at up to 68°C (becomes rubbery) but starts melting at 70°C. Maybe other collagens melt earlier, but this is the one important for beef stew. As for the difference of flavor vs. texture, you are right, I didn't go into in this answer and just used "taste" in a very general meaning, including texture changes; this is consistent with the meaning which interests most cooks who want to experiment.
Great answer. Nit: I think you mean to say 'different boiling speeds' not 'different boiling temperatures'?
Clearly SE (Stack Exchange) doesn't always cause the best answer to rise to the top, since the reality is that "things do NOT cook significantly faster at a rolling boil", but the top answer, currently (by Jefromi) claims "things do cook faster at a rolling boil".
People have mentioned some pertinent things -- the temperature of the water and the bubbles is 100C (correct) the bottom of the pan is higher than 100C (but not so much hotter as to burn paper, which burns at 250C), but very little contact will occur directly between the food and bottom. Another very important factor is covering the pan, as this will reduce the temperature gradient. But one thing not mentioned so far, which is certainly the most important, has to do with the temperature of the interface between the water and the food. As food cooks, these changes (whatever they are) take energy. This lowers the temperature of the morsel, and that needs to come from the water/food interface. This cools the interface, which will remain cooler until heated by conduction (slower) or circulation (faster). So a roiling boil is going to increase recovery of temperature at the interface due to circulation. It is like, standing outside on a cold day, do you get colder with a wind, or without one? This is the same question of replenishment of the interface due to circulation. A roiling boil acts like that wind, circulating the water.
I sometimes use a pressure cooker, which cooks at over 100C and can have much quicker cooking times than conventional cooking. It is not known for adversely affecting the taste of food.
For some dishes it seems to improve the flavor, I'm not sure if this is due to higher temperature, less evaporation, or shorter cooking times.
So I wouldn't worry about boiling point at atmospheric pressure.
See pressure cooking on wikipedia
I don't see how this answers the question that was asked.
Hope edit had clarified this
Actually, pressure cooking is dependent upon the type of regulator used. The type that release vapor as they cook (the equivalent of a 'hard boil'?) were judged to adversely affect quality when making stock : http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=2561.html
Simple answer: "There is nothing hotter than boiling" as it was neatly explained to me once.
The boiling point of any liquid is simply the point at which it turns into vapor. It's not going to get any hotter under normal kitchen conditions. Higher heat will just make it evaporate faster.
Jon Hanna's answer to this question is a good explanation of the science behind this.
For pure components the boiling temperature is determined by the pressure and thermodynamic vapor - liquid equilibrium properties of the pure component. Once water reaches boiling, continuing to apply the same amount of heat will not raise the temperature of the water. It will vaporize more water, i.e., convert water (liquid) to water (vapor). But the temperature will not increase.
The food bumping against the wall of the cooking vessel doesn't much matter. In chemical engineering terms the food doesn't "touch" the wall of the vessel but touches a thin layer of the fluid ... a temperature gradient exists across this think layer from the pot/metal temperature to the bulk temperature of the cooking fluid.
It is true that heat transfer will be less efficient (you will waste energy) if the amount of heat applied transferred is too high once you start boiling ... that is because you are in the film boiling regime as opposed to the nucleation regime in which boiling occurs from individual "nucleation sites" on the surface of the vessel .. in film boiling the layer next to the vessel is all vapor which has much poorer convective heat transfer characteristics at the surface than liquid.
Therefore if the pot is already boiling you can turn it down the heat until the boiling rate is just steady not rolling and the food will cook in the same amount of time (at temperature = boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure (around 100C = 212F) but waste less energy in the form of vaporized water going out the range hood exhaust.
"The food bumping against the wall of the cooking vessel doesn't much matter. In chemical engineering terms the food doesn't "touch" the wall of the vessel but touches a thin layer of the fluid..." tell that to all the food I've burned onto pots.
The subject is about cooking food in boiling water. So long as the food is immersed in the boiling water, the food won't "burn" onto the wall of the pot. The only way you would burn food while cooking it in boiling water, is if you don't watch the pot and allow the water to completely evaporate. The adage "a watched pot never boils" is obviously wrong; watched pots do boil, but they don't "burn" food.
Again, what matters is whether there's boiling water between the food and the bottom of the pot - and there isn't always. There's no magical law of physics that ensures that in a pot with water and food, they always arrange themselves nicely. Surely you've had pasta stick to a pot before, at least? It can also happen with vegetables, especially cut vegetables with flat surfaces, and especially starchy ones like potatoes.
The wall temperature is not the cause of food burning on the wall of the pot of boiling water. If you turn the heat on high and walk away, some foods (e.g., starchy noodles or potatoes) could stick to the wall of the pot as the food hydrates, softens and cooks. This is a different problem than being discussed here. My suggestion for this different problem is - don't turn the heat on high and walk away, and give it an occasional stir, especially those starchy noodles. Also, for your different problem, bringing the water to a boil first and then adding the food will help.
It takes two things: food surface staying in contact with the pot (easiest with starchy things, can happen with anything), and the wall temperature rising above boiling now that it's not in contact with water. And it happens in a pot of boiling water with food, exactly the situation the OP asked about. Yes, it's a different mechanism of cooking, so it makes sense to differentiate in an answer. But it still exists. Declaring it to be a separate problem, or limiting yourself to an artificially ideal situation, doesn't mean it won't happen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.241427 | 2012-10-11T18:14:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27745",
"authors": [
"Auriel Dawson",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Danley Wolfe",
"David Richerby",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Jan",
"Jeremy French",
"Jim",
"Joe",
"Jon Hanna",
"Judith Archer Nevitt",
"Kyle",
"Marti",
"Psychiatrist Westlake",
"Raul Toledo",
"S iverson",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Vivianne",
"annonymously",
"baking for my family",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"muru",
"pneumatics",
"rackandboneman",
"rodney collier",
"rumtscho",
"tjd",
"user1521620",
"zebediah49"
],
"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
} |
64418 | How long before steak is at room temperature?
I've got a piece (of about 300 grams) dry-aged rib-eye in the fridge, at around 6 degrees Celsius. I want to let it "get to room temperature" (which technically is about 21 degrees Celsius for me) before I cook it up to about 55 degrees Celsius core temperature.
Is there any good rule of thumb to determine how much time I should minimally / optimally let it sit outside the fridge before slapping it into the pan?
My new rule of thumb is : don't do it. You get a better medium-rare if the meat's cold so not as much of the outside over cooks.
On a side note, since asking this question I've been pre-heating steaks in the oven with a meat thermometer to a little above room temp just before searing on high heat (I might get a sous-vide setup later on to get more control).
According to Serious Eats, a 210 gram steak in sitting in a 21° C room managed to go from 3° C to 10° C... in 2 hours. For a larger steak going up all the way to 21 degrees, it would take longer. The take-away from that article is that it's not worth it and does not affect the resulting steak.
The mass of the steak is much less meaningful than the size/geometry. A flank steak and a filet, for example, will have totally different heat transfer properties. So a "larger steak" does not necessarily take longer to warm up... but a thicker steak of the same size, or even smaller, could.
I usually let a steak sit out for 45 minutes to an hour before cooking it. But the real answer is to get a meat thermometer, preferably an instant-read digital one, and use that to not only tell you when your steak is at room temp, but also to tell you when it's done cooking.
I've got a meat thermometer, but not one that predicts when it'll reach a certain temp ;-). A thermometer only tells me if it's at the right temp, not when it shall be at the right temp.
@Jeroen Draw a graph and extrapolate
@CaptainGiraffe remembering (thanks to Newton) that the graph is exponential rather than linear :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.243521 | 2015-12-15T14:59:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64418",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Air",
"Amazing Xman",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Jeroen",
"Joe",
"Melannie M Spencer",
"Rosie Mcgovern",
"Varian McWhite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"mark scrimshaw",
"thomas dalton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86984 | Should an Aviation include Crème de Violette?
The "Aviation" cocktail is an IBA "official" cocktail. It is listed on the IBA website with these ingredients and instructions:
All Day Cocktail
4.5 cl Gin
1.5 cl Maraschino
1.5 cl Fresh lemon juice
Shake and strain into a chilled cocktail glass.
To my surprise this doesn't list Crème de Violette at all: not in the ingredients, and not as e.g. "a dash" in the instructions.
Nearly all recipes I've seen so far though (e.g. How to Drink) do have Violette, and they all call out the Aviation as a "blue as the sky" cocktail because of that creme.
So what's the deal here? Is the IBA website just lacking it (perhaps because it's not a "core" ingredient but just a dash or a barspoon, usually)? Or is the "official" version actually without it?
My understanding is that creme de violette used to be a very difficult liqueur to get hold of – it's benefited both from classic cocktails becoming trendy and the internet enabling manufacturers to reach a market. For a long time it was made without violette out of necessity as much as anything else.
This is probably a better match for https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/
@NatBowman Agreed! I didn't know that beta site spun off. In light of that, wouldn't nearly all "cocktails" questions be migration candidates?
Agreed, but I don't have permissions to do anything like that afaik.
Maybe it should be left for when that site leaves its beta though...
According to wikipedia, the original Hugo Ensslin's recipe calls for 2 dashes of crème de violette.
In the same article there can be some variation on the theme, with or without crème de violette.
The Gin foundry website offers 2 recipes, with or without it; the version without the crème de violette dates from the 1930s and they say it might be because the product was hard to found at that time (ww2 era)
I'd say, if you want to be fully original, use the proper recipe with the crème de violette, but if you cannot find it, then it is not that big a deal as it is still historically correct.
After tending bar for 18 years and enjoying all manners of libations the Aviation is my favorite cocktail. I have had it all different ways and loved most of them. Creme de violette adds to the complexity in both flavor and presentation in a way in which I now find necessary to fully enjoy the drink. Creme de violate is obviously floral; with the explosion in gin popularity there may be some new gins on the market that eliminate the need for it entirely. In fact most craft cocktail bars use a perfume bottle to apply the liquor to limit the amount of it in the drink.
The Aviation derived its name from the sky blue color imparted by the creme de violette but the liquor was never very popular and nearly became extinct. The craft cocktail revival brought back classic drinks and when the aviation cocktail grew in popularity with it grew a demand for the liquor.
The IBA exists for competition purposes and readily available ingredients are necessary. Since creme de violette is still making a comeback it may still be difficult or even impossible to find in some world locations and therefore absent from the IBA version.
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. Good answer: keep 'em coming!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.243743 | 2018-01-09T18:27:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86984",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Jeroen",
"Nat Bowman",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453"
],
"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
} |
64788 | What do the base ingredients in pancakes do?
So here are the ingredients for "Dutch" pancakes (which are much like French crepes, quite flat):
Flour
Milk
Eggs
Pinch of salt
And for more "American" style I guess you also need:
Baking powder
All the various ingredients contribute differently to the end result: fluffyness, texture, flavour, baking time, etc. I'm trying to find out how they contribute, and I've tried to do so through experimenting, but my experiments are not "controlled" enough probably to find out.
Any tips for what these base ingredients do for the end result? I want to vary with quantities, knowing what I could expect when changing the relative quantities.
Is there a particular result you're aiming for or is this just about knowing?
You should invest in a good scientific cooking source like America's Test Kitchen... They generally do a good job of explaining the purpose of most ingredients included in recipes and compare the results of different amounts and ingredient choices (eg buttermilk vs milk or bread flour vs cake flour vs ap flour).
If you're interested in food and cooking and how it all works, an investment in a copy of Harold McGee's On Food And Cooking is money extremely well spent.
@Jefromi Mostly about knowing; knowing how varying the ingredients will affect the end result, so I can cater to what my guests prefer / what I want to achieve. The accepted answer actually best explains what I was looking for, as it was exactly that :-)
Thanks @Pointy and Catija for the suggest (as well as the detailed answer), I think I just might invest in such a resource.
The range of possibilities with a basic pancake recipe is not very broad. There are additional things you can add of course, but the basic recipe is really basic.
Eggs are mostly protein. When you cook an egg, it goes from liquid (basically) to solid. The egg blended into the pancake batter will do the same. Pancakes are generally cooked pretty quickly over a fairly hot fire, and that quick heating makes the egg proteins lock up and stiffen. Think of the difference between making a fried egg and scrambled eggs: fried eggs should cook fast, while scrambled eggs cook slowly to keep the eggs from being rubbery. (The other pancake ingredients counter that rubbery toughness of fast-cooked eggs.)
Flour is mostly starch. Starch absorbs moisture (from the egg and the liquid). People started making things like pancakes because flour is relatively cheap and keeps well, and one egg can make a lot of flour-based pancakes and feed a lot more people than the egg alone.
The liquid (milk in your recipe, but other stuff works) is necessary to thin out the batter; we're still stretching that egg out. Without a liquid addition, you'd have a lump of thick dough. By keeping the pancake batter thin, you ensure that the batter poured onto the hot griddle will remain loose enough to spread out into the familiar flat disc, providing a large surface area for the egg protein to solidify.
The salt is there so that the pancake doesn't taste bland. That's an easy one to test. Most American pancake recipes also include some sugar or another sweetener.
American pancakes without some additional fat — melted butter or vegetable oil, usually — would not be liked by most Americans. The added fat makes the pancakes softer and richer. Using table cream or something instead of plain milk can work too, as would adding an extra egg yolk.
Baking powder is a mix of dry sodium bicarbonate and one or more acidic salts. The blend is (usually) designed so that some amount of gas is produced as soon as the powder is mixed with liquid, and more produced when the batter is heated.
Finally, besides the bill of ingredients, the process used to combine the ingredients is also important. Wheat flour has gluten in it, and too much mixing in liquid will form gigantic protein mega-molecules in your batter and result in disturbingly chewy pancakes. You want gluten development for bread, but not pancakes, muffins, and other "fluffy" baked goods.
Generally, dry ingredients (except granulated sugar) are pre-mixed separately from wet ingredients. The two are combined as the last step before cooking.
You also want some air in the pancakes (for American pancakes at least), and that's of course what the baking powder does. You can get even more air in by separating the eggs, using the yolks as a "wet" ingredient, and then whipping the egg whites into a soft foam. The foamed whites are then blended in when the wet and dry ingredients are combined. (Note that you don't want air in crepes, and that's the purpose of letting the batter sit for a few hours before cooking: it lets bubbles escape, bubbles formed in the blender or via the whisk used to prepare the batter.)
You've maybe underplayed the importance of starch here. Sure, it does absorb moisture, but for American pancakes it also provides pretty much the entire structure, so messing around with the flour/liquid ratio has a pretty big effect on texture.
@Jefromi I'm sure I did; I was too lazy to run down and grab my copy of McGee to do some reviewing. Yes, pancakes are at least half flour by volume so the starch is pretty important. Also I didn't elaborate on the fact that you can vary American pancakes with other grains: oat flour, flax, etc.
Yeah, I like my batter thinner because I like thin pancakes that have crispy edges. Also butter milk increases the levening effect of the baking soda or powder. It makes the cakes fluffier and also gives them somewhat of a zestier taste as well.
Milk also helps the pancakes brown. Pancakes made without milk and egg are usually very pale.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.244074 | 2015-12-25T11:57:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64788",
"authors": [
"Amalia Zo",
"Andrew Kolakowski",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Jeroen",
"Linda Chambers",
"Mary",
"Pointy",
"Rachel Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"jan Foy"
],
"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
} |
68757 | Use BBQ for both searing and slow-roasting beef
When I make roast beef in the kitchen I typically have these two cooking steps:
Sear on all sides in a frying pan on high(ish) heat;
Slowly roast it in the oven on low(ish) temperatures.
I've varied the temperature in step 2 from 160 degrees celsius down to 80 degrees (about the lowest temp my oven can consistently provide). I've found that the closer (lower) I get to 80 degrees, the better the result.
I want to bring this process to my BBQ now, preferably doing both steps using the BBQ itself. I'm unsure how to deal with the fact that the BBQ should be rather hot for step 1, yet a lot cooler for step 2.
From experience I know that the heat I'd want for step 1 would at a minimum lead to 180 degrees on my BBQ when the lid goes on (or higher if I'd fail to reduce air flow).
The only workarounds I could think of:
Do step 1 in the kitchen with a frying pan (feels like cheating / will reduce BBQ-flavor);
Do step 1 on a lot of coal, and remove some coal before moving to step 2 (feels wasteful);
Do you guys have any suggestions on how to handle this?
Some more details:
I have a Weber BBQ with lid and built-in temperature monitor;
I have a meat thermometer to measure the core temp of the meat as it roasts;
I use indirect heat for step 2 by having the coal on the sides and the meat in the middle, and intended to use direct heat in step 1 by placing the meat over one of the sides;
I have a chimney to quickly get fresh coal started;
You might want to consider searing the meat over the chimney starter (as Alton Brown did in the Good Eats tuna episode), then spreading the coals out for a two-level fire, and cooking on the cool side.
@Joe That is a great suggestion. I just tried it, and found it should work (even though this time, I did it a wee bit too early getting a little bit of that nasty black "smoke" onto one side of the meat).
In the Good Eats episode on tuna, Alton Brown mentioned that you want as hot of a fire as possible, and that you could cook directly over the chimney starter, once the coals are going:
As for the fire, well, it's hot. It's real hot. Just take a look. It's like a jet engine down there. Now the normal thing to do would be to distribute those coals across the bottom of the grill and get to cookin'. But, um, I don't want to dissipate the heat. I don't want to spread it out. I want to keep it concentrated. I want to cook on a jet engine! And ... it's ... my jet engine so I say we'll cook on the jet engine.
He then put a grate over the top of the chimney starter, and cooked his tuna.
In your case, you could sear the outside of the roast, move it to the side, then dump the coals into your grill for a two-level fire, and then put the meat over on the cold side. It's not all that different from what you were already doing, but it should give you a hotter initial sear.
I've just used this method, and it was a great success. After searing the meat for a few minutes on a half-filled chimney I placed the coal on one side and let it sid with lid on at 135 degrees celsius for 35 minutes until core temp was at 48 (which became 54 after resting).
You have 2 ways of controlling heat in a kettle bbq, they are fuel quantity and airflow. Reducing the amount of fuel which can combust at any one time will lower the amount of heat the bbq can produce at full airflow. Reducing airflow by partially closing the air valves will reduce the amount of heat the fuel can produce no matter how much fuel you have in it. You'll want to use a combination of the two.
One approach to this would be to put a pile of lit charcoal in one end of the bbq, sear the meat, then move the meat to the indirect side, cover and significantly close down the airflow to cool the fire. The problems with this method are that you may have so little air for the fuel that it may simply go out, and that you would get inconsistent heat from the fuel and a big drop in heat at some point as the fuel burns out. You'd need to be tweaking your airflow constantly to keep this going as it's unpredictable, so it's not ideal.
When doing low and slow a good method is to make a C shape of charcoal and start one end of it, then cover and let it go - the charcoal burns through the C from one end to the other and gives a nice even and consistent heat. I'd suggest modifying this a bit, instead having a C shape with a fat end. You'd start on high heat, ie the fat end of the C, then once that burns out the tail of the C would be lower heat. You may have to shift the meat around a bit once or twice to keep it off the direct heat during the low and slow period, and some tweaking of the valves to get the right temperature, but that's about it. You could leave it unattended for awhile using this method.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.244578 | 2016-05-03T13:21:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68757",
"authors": [
"Jeroen",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27874 | Can texture affect taste?
I was about to write to a friend: "...but texture affects taste", when I stopped to wonder if this is in fact the case. After some research I'm still not sure of the answer.
Wikipedia's article on taste tells the expected tale of taste, discerning some Basic Tastes:
Bitterness
Saltiness
Sourness
Sweetness
Umami (since start of 20th century this is usually included)
Metallic (somewhat controversial still, used since 1950s)
Can these 6 "basic" tastes be influenced by the texture of food?
On a side note, I'm not sure about the following: when food experts speak of the "taste of food" do they mean "taste" in the sense of the 6 tastes mentioned above? Or do they use it in a broader sense? In the latter case, my question would probably be more accurately described as:
Does texture affect taste (in the broad sense, as the word's used by food experts)?
Related to this question on boiling food (as claimed in answers a rolling boil may affect texture, which in turn may affect taste).
Organoleptic Properties of Food http://organolepticpropietiesoffoods.blogspot.com/ Taste, odor, color, texture, and probably a few more a well.
Yes, there are two different meanings of taste, as you already mentioned. One is the salty-sweet-etc. multidimensional space of sensory perceptions felt with the mucous membranes of the mouth (many authors add astringency and pungency/hotness, which are not felt by the tastebuds themselves), and the other is the overall impression of the food. The overall impression includes also the aroma - citric acid and acetic acid in a solution at the same pH level are both equally sour, but you can tell them apart by aroma - and the texture. An example for the texture would be to try confectioner's sugar and pure rock candy - both are 100% sucrose, so have the same narrow-meaning-taste (sensory perception of sweetness), and both have the same aroma (provided they are produced from the same plant at the same degree of refinement, which is often the case with white sugar), but your overall feel of them (taste in the broader sense) will be entirely different due to the different texture.
Taste in the narrow sense can also be slightly different with different texture, due to the difference in availability of the taste-creating chemicals to the taste buds (and to the rest of the mucous membrane). The obvious difference comes with density. Cotton candy does not feel as overpoweringly sweet as the same volume of table sugar, because it is mostly air and doesn't trigger as many taste buds at once as the sugar. This is a difference in the strength of taste, not in the taste profile - cotton candy doesn't start tasting more-salty-than-sweet due to the different density, it just tastes less sweet.
Another thing which might happen to taste is that the structure which creates the different structure isolates some of the taste-causing molecules from the taste buds. I know from experience that this happens with aroma. Adding xanthan gum to food reduces its aroma, I assume that it traps the volatile molecules which would normally reach the olfactory sensory cells. But if it does reduce the taste too, it doesn't do so in the same proportion, as there is much more taste left than smell. If somebody knows for sure that it reduces the strength of taste too, I would like to see conclusive information on it; I only include it here as a hypothesis.
Summary, texture changes taste in both the narrow and broad sense. It does so more strongly for the broad sense, which is the one most people care for.
Let us consider an item of food with a smooth surface. When in contact with saliva - or indeed any solvent, e.g. a sauce or cooking fluid, a certain amount of the tasty chemicals will be dissolved.
Let us consider the same item of food with a textured surface - most likely having a greater surface area than our example above. It would seem that a greater surface area would result in more dissolved tasty chemicals, resulting in a different taste.
So this straight-forward - and possibly over-simplistic - thought experiment leads me to suggest that yes, texture does affect taste.
One could argue that the tongue can only process a certain amount of content, and that both textures could very well produce more than enough for a full flavor and thus have no bearing. (Not shooting your answer down, I just like making counter-points to people.)
@Orin - Point taken and understood. However, the mechanism I proposed simply suggests that a textured surface might release more flavoursome compounds compared to a smooth surface.
@Orin: I took too long editing my earlier comment. Wanted to also say - good comment.
If I understand this article correctly, and may sum it up: texture does affect our perception of taste, but not the taste itself (in the strictest chemical/biological sense involving the tongue).
Unfortunately, this article only pertains to the thickness of the food. But I think it would similarly apply to things like: grainy vs smooth, dry vs slimy, etc.
...and melting behaviour - what texture at what temperature, especially if it changes during the meal being eaten - one reason why making a vegan cheese that works perfectly on pizza or casseroles/gratins is so expletive difficult. Also, see German Eiskonfekt (coconut oil used in a clever way to make food appear colder than it is).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.245084 | 2012-10-17T12:15:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27874",
"authors": [
"J Lickwar",
"Jeroen",
"Nicholas",
"Orin MacGregor",
"Paperback Writer",
"Shelbbaby",
"VoltisArt",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"herrbischoff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"nak11",
"rackandboneman",
"user64015"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41786 | mixing cake batter in a blender?
I only have a blender, and was wondering if you could make cake batter in a blender. Till now I've been mixing by hand, but I have a recipe that calls for creaming sugar and oil, and I don't know how to do that by hand.
Can cake batter be made in a blender? Does the process need to be altered somehow? Are there things to look out for?
If you have a recipe which calls for "creaming the sugar and oil", forget it and find another recipe. Creaming is a process which only makes sense with a solid fat, so the sugar crystals create tiny air bubbles which are then expanded during leavening. Mixing sugar and oil separately, with or without much whipping, doesn't do anything. If the recipe author was not aware of that, he had no business creating recipes, and you can expect there to be other mistakes.
But if we assume that you have recipes which require real creaming (they will use butter or other solid fat), you can't make them in the blender. The cutting motion of the blender blade is very different from the paddle action of a mixer. It won't work. You can do it by hand, although it is a bit tedious.
If you have other cake recipes, for example muffin method cakes, it will work OK. You shouldn't overwhip, for the reasonds SAJ mentioned, but it is not guaranteed that it will happen. A cake recipe has lots of fat and uses a low-gluten flour. If you blend in short pulses, the result's toughness will be very slight compared to a mixed cake, it can cost you points in a culinary school, but family and friends won't notice it. On the other hand, there isn't any special reason to use a blender for them and not mix by hand, as there isn't much work involved there.
Muffin method cakes are the ones where a power mixing device is least needed.... I would definitely do those by hand.
While you could try to make cake batter in a blender, it is highly likely you will over mix the batter, developing too much gluten, and making a tough or rubbery product. This is the reason you do not see blender-cake recipes.
You would be better off making the batter by hand, using one of the many methods that are not overly labor intensive. Most of the creaming method cakes can easily be done by hand, for example.
I make this type of cake batter in the blender
5 eggs
1 cup sugar
1 cup oil
7 tablespoons white vinegar
Vanilla
Mix all wet ingredients
1 and 1/2 cup Sifted flour and 3 teaspoon of baking powder
Fold in to the wet ingredients by hand. Bake in a 350 F / 175 C oven
This may answer the general question in the title - apparently there are some cakes which can be made in a blender - but note that the text specifically asks about creaming butter with sugar. Also, 7 tablespoons of white vinegar? This is not a cake I would like to eat.
OP mentions oil, not butter, so this recipe is closer than the butter options in the other answers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.245538 | 2014-02-05T16:23:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41786",
"authors": [
"Good Ol' Saint Nick",
"Malabimaker",
"Pearl",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97484",
"isma14",
"rumtscho",
"sevs"
],
"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
} |
22262 | What is the white foam that builds up when I make tea?
I microwave water in order to make tea. After it is microwaved and I drop the tea bag(green tea) into the water, thick white foam builds up on the top.
What is it and should I worry about drinking it?
Not having seen this myself, I wonder: is there anything unique about your situation? Possibly something about the tea, the water, or how you've cleaned your cup?
+1, I've wondered about this too, although I don't get foam. However, when I drop in a Stash green tea bag, I'll get a torrent of white bubbles that rush to the surface, which doesn't happen when I use, for example, an English breakfast blend.
Can you get a picture of this for us?
This phenomenon has now also some answers on Physics Stack Exchange, different from those below.
When you boil water in a cup in a microwave, it will often boil without forming bubbles, because unlike a kettle with a rough heating element or inner surface, a clean ceramic cup has few nucleation points. Nucleation points allow pockets of gas to form, which become bubbles as the water boils.
When you add the teabag to the hot water, you are essentially introducing thousands of nucleation points very quickly, and so lots bubbles form very quickly - your foam. You should exercise caution when heating water this way prior to adding a teabag, as if you heat it for too long it can superheat, and will boil explosively out of the mug when you add the teabag.
But why "thick white foam"? Bubbling/boiling water usually makes rapidly disappearing bubbles that might be described as thin and mostly transparent, not thick and white.
Foam is in the eye of the beholder
There are thin transparent bubbles when i let the tea bag sit. The thicker foam appears when I bob the tea bag in the water. Perhaps the mixing action creates the thicker foam. Thanks Elendil!
For the reason Elendil points out it is advised to put a spoon into a cup of water when heating it in the microwave. That way the air has something where bubbles can form, preventing this superheating also called boiling retardation. As long as the cup is nonconductive a metal spoon will not do any harm in the microwave.
Tannins produce foam in tea, and also streams and rivers.
There's nothing to worry about when you see the foam appear. When hot water comes in contact with tea, it extracts the amino acids and proteins that result in such foam.
The reason that you get more foam on the surface is when you microwave the water is perhaps dip the bag in hot water. When you put the tea bag in the cup first, part of the bubbles that appear will dissolve due to the moving water. Try to see if this makes a difference.
Check this page for more information:
https://www.teasenz.com/chinese-tea/foam-surface-tea.html
This may not be direct answer to your question about what the foam is made up of. But when it forms and how to avoid it.
This often happens if the water is not warm enough.
If you like to avoid it, you can try these steps:
Most tea leaves should be placed in water near boiling point. That's 95C (or 200F) for black tea and 90C for Green tea. If you're not near sea level altitude just make sure the water reaches boiling point.
Pour the boiling water over the tea bag already placed in your cup. Dunking the dry tea-bag into hot water can lead to the issue ElendilTheTall talks about as well as foam.
The "white" foam is caused by denatured proteins in the tea leaves when heated. Same when you boil meat, eggs or fish.
I have never heard of plant leaves containing significant amounts of protein, and I am pretty sure tea leaves have close to 0% protein content. Besides, if this were true, it would happen with tea boiled by any method, not just in microwaves. Any sources for your claim?
Leaves, or at least their chloroplasts, are full of the most abundant protein on earth, Rubisco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO It convrts carbon dioxide to sugar. Still, I think the foaming is more likely due to the tannin content of the leaves.
Tannins interact with proteins though, it doesn't have to be an either/or.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.245837 | 2012-03-14T18:50:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22262",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Denise Skidmore",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kias",
"Umbranus",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zukhraf",
"ashes999",
"fertchen",
"fire.eagle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9496",
"jrounsav",
"rumtscho",
"tanius",
"terri"
],
"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
} |
22312 | Does the colour of the olive oil say anything about its quality?
Does the colour of the olive oil say anything about its quality? Some labels make a point of saying that the olive oil was made within a short period of time after harvesting. Why would this be important?
My only observation is that oil from young trees is greener in colour than from older trees of the same variety. But different varieties can be paler or greener anyway
@TFD: it also depend on the pressing. Usually first press extra-virgin olive oil is greener and less transparent than second or third press olive oil.
There are two main factors in quality of olive oil: the flavor, and the free fatty acid content. (Those are fatty acid molecules that are not bound up into oil molecules; they make the oil more unstable, prone to going bad faster.)
Neither of these has anything to do with color, which is provided by chlorophyll and carotenoids. The only exception is refined ("pure") olive oil, which is generally made from oil that already has higher amounts of free fatty acids; it's purified to remove those, and in the process the desirable aromatic molecules are also removed, so it loses flavor. This process would also tend to remove color. But as long as you're looking at unrefined (virgin or extra virgin) oil, that's not relevant.
I suspect time after harvest is not critical, but could potentially make a difference. The olives do need to be at the right point in ripening - underripe olives make bitter oil, and overripe ones make oil with less flavor. So if olives are left for too long after harvest before oil extraction, they could lose flavor from further ripening. Additionally, the flavors come from reactions between fatty acids and enzymes which are released during grinding and crushing, so I suppose this could take place much more slowly over time, especially if the olives have been damaged, and the aromatics produced at that point would be partially lost to the air. All of this said, presumably high-quality olive oils are produced correctly, whether or not they advertise details of the production. The labeling you've seen may just be marketing.
In any case, the surest way to discern quality is direct observation, so just try to find what you like! It probably won't be correlated with color, or any details of the labels.
+1, also note that, when tasting olive oil, it is presented in teinted glass so that the color will not affect the observer.
It happened with me once, I had olive oil that tasted good at first, after 1 year, there left aroung a bottle of it, it looked no more like before.
Their color turned to be more transparent than before, and also they become loose, also more than before, and as for their taste, they no more tasted like olive oil, or a little bit olive oil, but they lost their pungent taste.
Carotenoid and chlorophylles are light- (and air-?) sensitive and will degrade with time, making the oil change color. That is why often olive oils are sold in dark bottles.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.246220 | 2012-03-16T04:19:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22312",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chemus",
"K. Morgan",
"Mitch Dempsey",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24547 | Can a broiler function as a grill substitute when making kebabs?
When grilling is not option, but broiling is:
Can a broiler + broiler plate function as a substitute for a grill when making kebabs? If so, what must I do to prevent overcooking beef, lamb and/or veggies?
Relevant: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/season9/kabobs/kabob_tran.htm
Related Question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17596/can-i-use-the-grill-tray-in-my-oven-for-grilling
The first thing I have to say is kebabs and overcooked are synonymous. If you want all your meats and/or veggies to be cooked right, I would advise you to put each item on it's own skewer so you can take them off as they are finished.
As for a broiler and broiler plate functioning as a substitute for a grill, I would say that it won't be an exact substitute, but you will at least get the high temperature cooking and caramelization you would expect from a grill (you will just be missing the smoke flavor).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.246489 | 2012-06-19T00:03:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24547",
"authors": [
"Nick T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22737 | How do I remove small grounds when using a french press?
When I use a french press to brew coffee, there always is some small grounds with the coffee.
I have adjust the grinder to make coarse grounds, but this does not help a lot.
Can I remove these annoying grounds without a filter?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.246585 | 2012-04-03T04:27:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22737",
"authors": [
"Joseph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51256",
"juliesurp",
"user51256"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123405 | Is my sourdough starter ready
I’ve been attempting to make sourdough starter for the first time over the last week. I’ve followed the recipe from this website:
https://www.coles.com.au/recipes-inspiration/recipes/sourdough-starter
I’ve used spelt flour which is about 11% protein and bread flour which is also about 11%.
I’ve noted that it smells good (i.e doesn’t smell astringent (I was told to look out for this)) and has a yoghurt like consistency. However, I’ve noticed that it doesn’t rise and doesn’t have the bubbles one would usually expect for sourdough starter (not at the level in the photo from the recipe linked above).
My question is, would it be ready to use?
Appreciate your feedback/suggestions.
Thanks
We have lots of sourdough questions and answers, but my quick search did not locate one that specifically responds to your question. According to Maurizio (lots of good info in this link), in general, a starter is "ripe" or ready to use when is has risen, you see bubbles on top and around the edges, and it smells sour. I usually like to time my use of the starter as close to its peak of rising in its starter container as possible. It's hard to tell from your picture from above. There are some helpful pictures on the linked page. It sounds like from your description that you are on the right track.
My wife is learning all about sourdough currently and it is (sometimes) driving her around the bend. There are lots of websites that help with this (she sometimes uses pantrymamma.com) and have discussions about this particular issue. I don't have specific advice but there is a lot of people out there posting and discussing all about sourdough/starter. Worth looking for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.246645 | 2023-02-14T23:05:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123405",
"authors": [
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123515 | Miso Marinade Did Not Char
I followed this miso recipe and cooked it on a foil lined sheet pan directly under the broiler.
Somehow, I only succeeded in burning the excess marinade on the foil, whereas all the marinade coating the fish retained its light brown miso color.
Any ideas as to what could have prevented it from browning properly?
Welcome to SA! You appear to have forgotten to link to the recipe ... try again?
Sort about that! Edited.
Some of the comments on that recipe note that if they put the pan too close to the broiler, the marinade burned. How far away from the heating element was the fish?
I've made that recipe before. Lopez-Alt's assertions to the contrary, getting a good browning on the miso sauce is actually highly dependent on having a good, pre-heated broiler and having the fish exactly the right distance away. The first time I made it, I had the same result as you; the fish was fully cooked but the sauce hadn't browned.
Here's things you can do to make browning better with this, but you'll have to tinker around and try various ones to get the combination that works in your oven:
Precook the marinade, reducing it by 1/3 and making it thicker
Add 2 Tbs more sugar do the marinade
Pre-heat your broiler making sure that it's very hot before you put the fish in
Test distances of 4cm to 10cm from the broiling element/flame
Make sure the sauce isn't thicker than 3mm on top of the fish
Finish it with a blowtorch
Good luck with this. At least it tastes delicious regardless of whether it's browned or not.
+1 for a hands-on answer! And I never considered that you may have more than 3 mm of marinade built onto the fish, that would indeed require extremely long times for charring.
Yeah, that was my main mistake the first time; I had extra marinate so I piled it on. Was never gonna brown.
Thank you for the incredible answer. Can’t wait to try again.
This may sound overly easy, but it is, in fact, the solution - things char all by themselves under a broiler. All you have to do is to leave it there until it chars. It is practically certain that it will happen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.246811 | 2023-03-01T02:01:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123515",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Giuseppe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123728 | What happens to the cream and egg white in a Ramos Gin Fizz?
A Ramos Gin Fizz uses both egg white and heavy cream in order to form an extraordinarily stable and dense head on the drink.
When egg white is whipped, it forms a foam through protein networking. When cream is whipped, it forms a foam because fats capture air in bubbles. This question tells us that whipping them together doesn't work because the mechanisms interfere.
Furthermore, we're working in an acidic, alcoholic environment. This ATK article explains that cream thickens instead of curdling because the fats (again) interfere with the protein networking action, this time of the caseins.
I've gotten good results on the foam even when I omit egg white, meaning that it's probably not an integral part of whatever chemistry is causing the foam. I've also noticed that I get better results if I mix the club soda and cocktail streams as I pour them, making me think there's something of an emulsion happening during the pour, and the gas in the foam starts as mostly CO2.
The Cocktail Codex by Death and Co. contains a recipe for the RGF made in an iSi whipper, so whatever's happening, it works just as well with CO2 as it does with N2O.
What's causing the foam to be so stable?
I made one a couple of nights ago. I did my dry shake for about 30 seconds and got no foam. It was still tasty but no foam. How did you achieve your foam (with no egg white, no less)
If you've got a milk frother you can use that instead of dry shaking and it approximates ramos' ten minute shake
Foams are a little complicated, and while it's true that an egg white foam will lose stability with fats, it's also true that fats can create foams, and fats and proteins can also combine to create a stable foam. In the baking world, we create meringue with egg whites and pâte a bombe with egg yolks, but we also create foams from whole eggs (such as in a biscuit Joconde).
Other ingredients can stabilize the foams for varying reasons. Sugar increases the viscosity of the continuous phase of the colloid which helps stabilize the foam. Mixing alcohol and water together increases the viscosity over either liquid by itself. Alcohol also denatures proteins, which can help create a foam. Acids both help create a foam and also prevent the proteins from bonding as tightly which helps prevent syneresis in the protein matrix (pushing out water).
Eggs are complicated mixtures of water, proteins, fats, phospholipids, sugars, and other molecules that all contribute to the stabilization of emulsions, foams, and other colloids.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.247025 | 2023-03-24T04:03:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123728",
"authors": [
"Jakob Lovern",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123786 | Use bone marrow and skin from chicken stock
Every time I make chicken stock with a carcass it feels like I'm still throwing away a bunch of skin and marrow (and some meat chunks), but I love the idea of using everything.
Is breaking up everything in a food processor and then straining it problematic for the stock or food processor? I've read that breaking up bones can make your stock "cloudy" but I don't see why that's a problem...I'm also wondering if this would make it taste bad or render it indigestible. Thank you!
Edit
To clarify, my question is whether it could be useful to process (blend up) the carcass at some point, either before or during cooking. Without processing, it seem like a lot of material gets thrown away when I strain it. For example, you can break apart the bones and see the marrow.
Hi, I don't understand what you are asking. Do you mean processing - cooking - straining, or cooking - processing - straining, or something else? Why are you "not using" the skin and bones if you don't process them?
There's nothing left to use after you cook bones for stock, see the previous answer above.
Thanks both for the questions and link! I looked through the link and added a clarification, still wondering about my specific question
Why don't you just clarify the stock. Make some consomme.
To clarify, my question is whether it could be useful to process (blend up) the carcass at some point, either before or during cooking. Without processing, it seem like a lot of material gets thrown away when I strain it.
I doubt that breaking up the bones will make the stock indigestible -- from what I've read, chicken bone marrow is safe as long as it has been cooked. So the question seems to me to be whether breaking up the bones will improve the stock, and if so, whether the improvement is worth the extra effort. At this point, I think the question is subjective -- try it, and do it if you like the results.
I definitely wouldn't use a food processor or blender to pulverize everything beforehand. That seems like it'd be hard on the food processor, and probably unnecessary. Instead, start making the stock as usual. Once the stock has simmered for an hour or two, most of the collagen will have been extracted and the bones will become brittle. At that point, you can pick out the larger bones (which contain the majority of the marrow). Snap them in half, or give them a quick chop with a cleaver, and return to the pot for a little more cooking.
I don't think there's any use in breaking up the skin, as the skin is already very thin and fully exposed to the hot water, so everything that's likely to be extracted will be whether the skin is cut up or not.
For poultry bones, I’ll take a cleaver to them before hand, and chop any long bones (leg and thigh, mostly, but I often buy just thighs or leg quarters) before making the stock.
It's my understanding that a cloudy stock is actually not a problem or undesirable save for aesthetics, especially a common concern with regards to classic French and various Asian cuisines. In particular, if you want to have a perfectly clear soup your initial stock should be clear. On the contrary, going so far as to get a perfectly clear stock is a trade off that can actually lose some flavor, particularly if your stock cooks for a (relatively) shorter length of time. If, however, your stock cooks for a longer time you might be introducing undesirable flavors by including these.
There are also a number of dishes where having it impart a muted background flavor is desired, generally when one would prefer a white stock to brown or with regards to most fish based stocks, and is another reason that a clear stock can be desirable.
My main concerns with your intended process would be in the stress incurred on the food processor, accidentally leaving in bone, not getting things broken down fine enough for the texture to be desirable, or adding an unpleasant texture and taste with waterlogged skin.
My instinct would be to leave the skin out entirely, but to save the marrow and break it down with a good knife, working it in a similar manner to making your own minced beef or garlic paste, then pass it through a very fine sieve, helping it along with a rubber spatula and by pouring over some of your stock. This should help ensure that the resulting stock is more homogenous, free of any accidentally introduced bone, and that the added marrow more readily suspends in the stock. You could try including the meat using the same process as well, but I don't think it would break down as readily as desired so might leave the meat out.
If keeping things low waste matters to you, I would suggest lightly roasting or pan frying the skin to lightly crisp it before breaking it down. If the meat does not break down cleanly, this could perhaps be a good use for the food processor. I would add a very small amount of the stock and the meat into the food processor, enough to help it come together smoothly. In this case you could also reserve the bones for a second stock or to add to a garden bed. For details with processing for a garden, check here.
To know definitively what combination of ingredients should be retained for the best results, I would suggest you break a portion of each down as finely as possible, keeping them separate, and mix them each individually with a small quantity of your stock to see what individual characteristics they provide before deciding which ones to include.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.247351 | 2023-03-30T21:37:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123786",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Neil Meyer",
"braces",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
} |
124582 | Sticky Tortilla Dough, when to knead, when to rest and when to add flour?
I am relatively new to baking and today I attempted to make flour tortillas. I tried making this recipe with butter: https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/recipes/simple-tortillas-recipe
I found my dough to be very sticky so I kept kneading, adding flour and resting in hopes it would fix itself. It feels like I am flying blind in how to "fix" the dough when it comes to deciding should I knead more, should I add flour, should I let it rest does anyone have any guidance?
You shouldn't do any of the three; there is nothing to fix. This dough is supposed to be sticky. If you do anything to "fix" the stickiness, the texture of the baked tortillas will be wrong.
Some resting is good, but it's more about improving hydration than about reducing stickiness; you should have shortened the dough anyway (step 2 in your recipe) so you won't get much gluten formation from the resting. The overnight rest they mention is also meant to give you more flexibility in your time schedule, not for reasons related to texture.
In the end, it's a sticky short dough, and you have to roll it out as such. Roll it on flour, and with some practice, you'll get the knack of handling it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.248007 | 2023-06-27T01:37:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124582",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126647 | Cracked ceramic plate water damage/discoloration?
I noticed some discoloration on some dishes I have. I assume this is from water seeping into the dish someway. Is there anything I can do to fix?
This dish around the crack which it seems water has seeped in.
@rumtscho, that is a false duplicate. The plates in the photo are actually cracked, whereas the linked question is about glaze crazing. We do not have a reference question about cracked dishes, so please reopen.
Victor: your first photo is poor quality, I can't tell what you're trying to show.
@FuzzyChef OK, if you can see a difference in the damage, I'll reopen.
Thanks. Now this one can become our reference question about cracked dishes
I can upload a better picture later today
I can't comment on the first plate, since your photo is poor.
The second plate has a straight-up crack in it. Given that the crack is discolored at the edge and faint in the center, it's clearly spreading and will soon result in the plate splitting apart. Given the shape of the crack, it looks like a flaw in the plate itself rather than impact damage (from you hitting it on something), although I'd need to see the underside of the plate to be sure.
While there are ways to fix cracks in dining ware, none of them are great or attractive; it will always be obvious that this plate has been repaired. If other plates in the set are having problems, let me suggest that you'd be better off with a different set of plates. If all of the plates are cracking, they may have other things wrong with them that you can't see, such as using unsafe glazes.
Warning aside, if you want to repair it, the most effective method is to crack it the rest of the way in half, and then glue it back together using a food-safe epoxy.
Background: I'm a potter of 30 years experience.
It depends on your perspective of attractive. There’s kintsugi, which is a japanese repair method where you add gold dust to highlight the repair: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi
I added some markup to the first plate to showcase the different colors in the picture. The shading is very similar to the shading around the crack in the second plate.
That picture is still too dark to see anything. If you wanted a comment on that plate, you'd need to take a new photo, not just mark up the old one. If it's the same problem, though, you don't need to bother.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.248139 | 2024-02-12T05:41:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126647",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Victor Feagins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
129491 | crumbly fudge, separated fats. What can I do better?
I was making American Test Kitchen's Chocolate Fudge recipe it is behind a pay wall so here is the youtube video of them making it here. It is the same recipe.
The results are got were very crumbly and not very fudge like. More like a chocolate bar. I would like to know how I can make fudge better next time. I do not have experience working with chocolate and new to making candy.
From what I can tell the fat separated from the chocolate I would like guidance on how to prevent this.
Below are the overall steps from the recipe what I hypothesis was the problem was in step 2 perhaps the sugar was too hot or my dutch oven retained too much heat? Or in step 3 I could have whisked harder. Can I use my standmixer for whisking?
Summarized the steps are the following:
Heat sugar, butter, evaporated milk to 234 F
Take off heat, add chocolate and marshmallows. I used 80% cacao bitter sweet.
Whisk everything till looks like frosting
Stur in nuts
Put in baking dish to cool for 2 hours, then put in the fridge for 2 hours.
Cut and serve.
Below are images of the final product.
It does, it is the same recipe. I edited to clarify.
The extra 4 degrees isn't helping, certainly. Candy is particular about temperatures. I also wonder if this is a rough cast-iron Dutch oven, or is it one with a smooth porcelain lining? Anything that gets the sugar crystalizing early (which a rough pot interior can encourage - but so do loose sugar crystals not washed off the walls of the pot into the mass to melt) will be detrimental to fudge.
Does the recipe specify what kind of chocolate to use? 80% is relatively high for a dark chocolate. If the recipe says dark chocolate you should be fine but if it is meant for milk chocolate that difference might be a problem.
This is almost certainly the result of not using a sugar/candy thermometer or measuring the stage of the sugar cooking. If you don't get the temperature right, the candy won't form properly. I'd suspect that you overcooked the sugar and it "cracked", meaning that it formed a solid lump that excluded the fat because it was too hot. The times in the recipe (and many recipes) are indicative only, not to be taken as gospel, as the temperatures reached in the given time-frame are dependent on stove element output, pot area and ingredient volume.
Without a sugar thermometer need to test the status of the sugar to ensure that it has reached the right temperature is to measure the texture of the sugar by dropping droplets into ice cold water and feeling the resulting ball. This is moderately subjective and takes some practice to get right. For fudge you want the "soft ball" stage.
I checked with an instant read thermometer for 238 Is that too hot? (I see in recipe that 234 is the right temperature so I agree with the possibility). It did also seem sudden when all the fat left the chocolate when I was whisking it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.248356 | 2024-11-04T02:12:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129491",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Victor Feagins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
} |
125168 | Sagging flat-bread after proofing
I have been making sourdough bread for quite a long time (almost a year) and am starting to up the hydration percentage from 60-65% to like 70-75%.
When I do this, I am fine with activating the gluten and I get a dough that will spring back perfectly into a ball if you try to stretch it. But when I do the bulk rise and the final proofing at the start, I have a dough that will comfortably hold its weight on the bench in a ball without deforming but when it has finished proofing the top will be completely flat and the dough doesn't get that nice round top once it has baked. what can I do to stop the dough going flat and sagging?
It appears likely that you are over-proofing your dough, now.
If you are strictly following the same exact procedure, but you've changed one variable in hydration percentage, and you observe that the loaf behaves differently, you then need to look for other variables that may need to be changed to get the result you want, rather than the result you are now getting.
In the described loaf, the flat result after proofing suggests that it's over-proofed, that is, proofed for too long. Try less time, or less size (depending on the method you use to determine the endpoint that it's proofed.) Leave some life in the dough for oven spring.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.248615 | 2023-09-06T12:12:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125168",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125180 | Fermenting lactose water solution as if it were milk with lactic acid bacteria
I have been fermenting milk for the last 10 years and used various commercial lactic acid bacteria cultures and starters.
I am well aware that there are thermophilic and mesophilic cultures and that it's important to maintain a certain temperature during fermentation.
Recently, I decided to ferment a lactose water solution.
I tried several times with a couple of different LAB starters and was very surprised to see that my lactose water solution ferments very little and much much less than actual milk.
For example, I used Biena YO-CULT (Yogurt Type I) yogourt starter and other starters that ferment milk very well.
For preparing lactose solution, I used distilled water. I tried to get lactose powder from different sources: stores selling beer and wine making supplies as well as health food store brand "Now Real Food" .
I tried to dissolve as little as 50g of lactose powder in 1 liter of water to as much as 200g of lactose powder in 1 liter.
The result was always the same: lactose water solution ferments very little and much much less than actual milk.
For the sake of completeness, a few years ago, i did ferment milk prepared from dried milk powder and it fermented very well as it should.
So preparing the solution from a dried source is not a factor by itself.
So, commercially available lactose powder is not the same as the lactose in milk?
Does the milk powder contain something other than lactose, perhaps?
How do you know that it doesn't ferment? What was the final pH, did you experiment with times different from milk fermentation?
@rumtscho, yes of course experimented with times up to 72hr. Final pH was not nearly as low as with milk which you see even by tasting
@fyrepenguin, this is exactly what I want to hear from diary scientists - in addition to lactose , what else is exactly needed for lactic bacteria to ferment lactose?.
For example, you can ferment a plain sugar solution with just yeast and nothing else. But it's not the case with lactose and lactic bacteria.
Or, perhaps, the lactose in commercial lactose powders is not the same as the lactose in milk.
@Alex your bacteria are probably missing the obvious stuff, like nitrogen and trace elements. But you won't hear it from dietary scientists, rather from microbiologists. And there's the crux: why are you doing this at all? For best taste, you don't want your bacteria to develop in a minimal medium, you want them to develop in an optimal medium, and that's milk.
Might add a prebiotic to your next try. My feta culture loves inulin. Coconut water too feeds the wee beasties well.
Bacteria can’t survive and flourish on a lactose solution, any more than you can survive and flourish on pure sugar water. Other nutrients are needed for them to metabolise and grow and reproduce. Your dry milk powder is a good example of the “complete diet” necessary to sustain bacterial growth.
So, in addition lactose , what else is needed for lactic bacteria to ferment lactose?
Presumably electrolytes, amino acids, possibly some vitamins, and trace minerals. But we’re getting outside the realm of “food” here.
I precisely want to get outside the realm of “food”, but are not allowed to post questions in 'biology' as I have fewer than 300 posts:-(
You mean, you can’t post questions on the [biology.se] site? That doesn’t make sense.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.248760 | 2023-09-08T05:14:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125180",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125665 | What would be the benefit of folding and rerolling chapati dough?
I am a new person to cooking. My mom used to make chapathis, and I saw, that sometimes, she used to fold them up and rolled them out again in an attempt to make softer chapathis.
I just wanted to know, how does this work(if it does)?
And if it works, would rolling the dough into a strand and twisting it into a knot instead of into a disk over and over work as well? I tried this method once and it seemed to kind of work.
Welcome to SA! It's not clear what your actual question is. What are you trying to find out? It will help if you can explain what you mean by "knotting", since you're using that word in a way that it's not usually used. Ideally, share a photo.
I mean making a long tube of dough and knotting it on itself like it was a thread... The first part of my question was how does folding the rolled uncooked dough on itself in various shapes and rolling it supposed to make the final cooked version softer
Still struggling to understand, sorry. Am I understanding correctly that your mom sometimes rolls out the dough, folds it up and then rolls it out again? (As for the benefit of that I could make an educated guess.) Or something else? And for the second part, do you mean tube as in hollow at some point by rolling out the dough, then rolling it into a log-shaped form and making a knot in that? Or just a solid rope and then making a knot?
My bad, your first assumption is correct, and the tube is solid
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your actual question is. Please edit your question to make it clear what information you're asking for.
@NetiSasidhar I tried to rewrite your question based on the comment discussion. Could you please check if I understood your question correctly?
There are different ways of adding layers to dough, but you will have to decide which one you prefer, or if it’s necessary. Two common techniques for flatbreads:
Oil the dough, then fold it in half, oil again, fold in the other direction, then possibly roll it out gently before cooking: https://kiss100.co.ke/lifestyle/2023-05-13-how-to-prepare-soft-layered-kenyan-chapatis/
Oil the dough, roll it into a snake, flatten the snake, roll it into a cylinder (tucking the outside end in), flatten the cylinder with your hand then roll it out to the desired size: https://thefoodietakesflight.com/scallion-bing-chinese-flat-bread/
The example recipes were selected simply because they did a good job of explaining the technique and had reference pictures. Although the second one added other fillings, you don’t need to for the lamination technique.
I would have thought it could be to layer the final chapatti. I've seen them both ways, single-layered & multiple. It seems to depend on the chef.
I was just eating lunch at my desk when I was reminded of this question.
Home made chicken nihari, tarka dahl, onion bhaji, mint sauce & basmati - just to make you hungry. The bread was bought though, mine isn't as good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.249027 | 2023-10-28T17:09:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125665",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Neti Sasidhar",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
} |
20660 | Will meat cook inside of a rice cooker?
I would like to use my rice cooker to cook one of those pre-packaged jambalaya mixes, and I've had good success with using prepackaged rice packets in my rice cooker. Sometimes there is a bit of sticking on the bottom but it comes right up and is never that bad.
My question is if it's safe to throw uncooked meat inside of the rice cooker. I'm talking about average sized chunks, but can cut them smaller to make sure they cook through.
Since water boils at 212°F, and the contents of the cooker are kept warm afterwards, I'm guessing that any meat you put in there (granted its cut thin enough) will cook straight through.
To be more specific, in this instance I am thinking about throwing cubes of deer venison which require much less cooking than say pork or poultry.
Is your rice cooker made for steaming? (Did it come with a steamer basket that fits in the top?) Or do you only want to cook the meat in the rice?
I find when doing something like venison or beef, or even chicken, I'll season and cook it separately and fold it in the jambalaya at the end. Sausage is about the only thing I do in with the rice. Just seems to work more consistently.
Its a steamer, yes.. and I was wondering if I can just throw all the ingredients together (with the uncooked venison)
Anything will cook in a rice cooker, eventually. You will need to experiment with the size of the meat chunks. When the meal is done cooking, take them out and see if they are cooked and at the correct temperature. If not, finish cooking them and cut them up smaller next time.
What I would do however is cube the meat, sear it, and then throw it in to the cooker. You will end up with a better texture this way.
Browning the meat beforehand will improve flavor as well.
I like this answer, for deer venison and possibly other meats that are more sensitive to longer exposure to heat I would sear but leave out for the majority of the cooking, which turned out pretty well in this instance.
I've had success with wrapping oil, chicken, and peppers in tinfoil and placing it on top of the rice while it cooks; open the packet over the freshly-cooked rice for a quick meal. If you're worried about meat being cooked all the way through, I'd toss it in a packet -- that way it's easy to crack it open and check if the meat is cooked or needs a quick toss in a pan to finish it off (which has happened to me if my chicken chunks are too thick).
@Yaminkuronue: Good idea with the sealed packet! Presumably this would keep the rice from being ruined as well, preventing uncooked poultry juices from saturating the entire pot of rice.
I've cooked lots of meat in my President's Choice rice maker, which comes equipped with a steaming tray. The rice cooks for about 50 minutes, and if it senses there's extra water or moisture in there, it will keep extending the time by 1 minute. I have literally thrown entire 1.5" thick pork chops in there, chicken leg quarters, a small sirloin roast, all kinds of stuff. I've never had an issue with anything being undercooked. I've never tried steak, but I'd just expect it to just look different, (ie a grayish brown color instead of that seared dark brown look). I'd expect the meat to come out very tender and juicy, as well WAY more nutrients are retained in anything you cook using this method.
Soon I want to experiment with some bigger meats, like a flattened while chicken, but it might not fit into the steam tray lol. If I ever find one day by some fluke that something doesn't cook all the way through, then I would just throw it in the oven or on the bbq or frying pan and finish that bad boy off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.249297 | 2012-01-21T18:16:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20660",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gregor Thomas",
"MargeGunderson",
"Maria Soares",
"Tyler",
"coffeecop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20035 | Is it true about a dull knife being more likely to cut you?
I've heard people argue that a dull knife is more likely to cut you than a sharp one. The argument is that you are more likely to cut yourself by applying too much pressure with the dull knife. When too much pressure is applied, you jeopardize your control over the knife and it puts you in a position to cut yourself.
Is this true?
To my experience, the cutting "trajectory" (not sure if that's the right vocab) of a dull knife is less consistent and less controllable than a sharpened one, and is more subject to be influenced by the texture of the material being cut, especially cutting something hard, thick and fiber-ish such as carrot or big melon.
I like the term "trajectory", too much pressure applied to a knife with an unstable trajectory can result in injury!
Imagine cutting a large tomato. With a sharp knife, the blade slices into the skin and straight down through the flesh without a problem. With a dull knife, you have to push down hard to try and pierce the skin, with an increased risk of it just slipping off to the side and into your fingers or hand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.249636 | 2011-12-29T06:36:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20035",
"authors": [
"Dictionarics Anonymous",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Tyler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7817",
"mvorisek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44153 | Counteract the negative effects of spicy ingedients with other ingredients
I love spicy foods. Anything with ghost pepper is going to be gobbled up instantly. I however do not like the negative effects when it comes to getting rid of the waste.
Is there anything you can put in your spicy dishes that maintain the spiciness, but neutralize it during digestion?
I would love there to be an answer to this question.
Someone voted to close this question because it's off topic.
if capsaicin is an alkaloid, then an acidic juice should neutralize it
i'll try it for lunch ;)
@Styler If that doesn't work, you can buy a synthetic capsaicin anatagonist called "Capsazepine". It's about $600 for 50 mg, so use it sparingly.
There's nothing you can put into the food that will neutralize the spice after you eat it. The only way to avoid the infamous "ring of fire" is to add less spice to begin with. One way you can do this is by removing the seeds. Some of the heat from chilis comes from the seeds, however it doesn't all get extracted from the cooking. After you eat the chili the seeds keep producing capsaicin, meaning your insides get more spice than your mouth. If you de-seed the chilis you need to use more as you lose some of the heat, but you'll get the full force when you eat the food. You can also use chili powder for most of the heat, and then whole or chopped chilis for decoration and texture as the capsaicins from the powder will be more fully extracted by the cooking process.
Some people drink yogurt based drinks (mango lassis and such) to counteract chili. This can calm the heat in your mouth and some people get some relief from the internal symptoms as well, however it's different for everyone and YMMV.
Still, there's only so much you can do, if you like really spicy food you have to be willing to pay the piper.
Pay the pepper.
"Much of the heat from chilis comes from the seeds" - simply false. The heat comes from the whitish membrane surrounding the seeds, while the actual seeds are heat-less.
@Gnbubis that is correct, most of the heat is in the membrane, but does GdD's comment about seeds continuing to produce capsaicin in the digestive track still hold?
@nbubis, while the seeds do have less heat than the membrane they are not heat-less. There's generally a lot more seeds than membrane, so are not to be discounted. Still, you are right that much may be overstating it a bit, so I've changed that to some.
Capsaicin isn't actually stored in the seeds: It's in the membrane surrounding them. It's a pretty useless distinction, though, since it's pretty much impossible to remove the membrane without removing the seeds as well, and even if you could... why would you want to? Either way, unless you're talking about dried peppers the seeds don't pack that much "punch".
Most of the potency of fresh peppers is found in the white pithy stuff between the seed cap and the outer hull of the pepper. Get rid of all the "white stuff" and you'll have a considerably less spicy dish while still maintaining the flavor of the fruit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Natural_function
If you want something that both tastes spicy AND doesn't upset the digestive system... good luck. In over a decade of professional cooking I've never found something that will reduce the "after-effects" of spicy food, besides some serious antacids.
+1 for "Capsaicin isn't actually stored in the seeds: It's in the membrane surrounding them"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.249875 | 2014-05-15T15:01:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44153",
"authors": [
"Carolina",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"GdD",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Tyler",
"Wall Words",
"WetlabStudent",
"ameliab",
"coburne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7817",
"user108255"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126645 | Can you wash a pop can or ( in my case ) a monster energy drink can in a dishwasher?
Can you wash a pop can That os recealable but empty in the dishwasher or will it degrade?
It may or may not degrade, but it won't get clean on the inside.
Can I clarify what you want to do? Do you mean wash a full can before you open it, perhaps to avoid ingesting any contaminant on the outside of the "ring pull", or do you mean wash the empty can after you have drunk it, perhaps to reuse for something?
Dishwasher soap is highly alkaline, and highly alkaline solutions easily attack aluminum.
Based on my experience when I accidentally put some pan with aluminum parts in the dishwasher, the degradation appears as loss of the shiny aspect, which resembles a matte finish. Do it enough times and you will get a hole.
Besides what you already mentioned, dishwasher detergents contain grit to help the water scour the items to be cleaned. It’s possible that it would strip off the paint on the can, especially those on the lower rack. It’s also not going to be able to fully get into the can, and may toss the cans around in the dishwasher. It definitely won’t be able to clean the insides as intended as there’s a small hole in a mostly closed container.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.250204 | 2024-02-12T03:06:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126645",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126700 | The garlic cloves in olive bars in U.S. grocery stores often have little or no bite. How is this achieved?
The garlic that I roast in the oven at home typically still has a bit of a garlic bite in the finish. (This seems more or less independent of the cooking approach that I use. A typical method for me is to cut off of the top of the head, apply extra virgin olive oil, and roast for 40 min at 400F. The bite is also present regardless of the type of garlic that I use.)
However, the garlic cloves that I buy from olive bars at various grocery stores (Whole Foods, Wegmans, Hannaford, etc.) have a mellow, semi-roasted flavor with no significant garlic bite. How do grocery stores achieve this? Are they blanching the garlic, marinating it in vinegar, or performing some other step before roasting? Is there some other trick? Any insights would be appreciated.
I don't know how olive bars do it specifically, but when I confit garlic it comes out very mellow with no garlic bite. I cook peeled garlic in olive oil in the oven at 210°F (100°C) for an hour or two, and it comes out soft, golden brown, and sweet, with no strong garlic bite.
However, according to America's Test Kitchen, blanching (or even microwaving!) the garlic will remove its strong bite. Apparently, the key is making sure the garlic reaches 140°F (60°C) internally.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.250332 | 2024-02-18T21:06:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126700",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121323 | Earliest pizza recipe?
What is the earliest recorded recipe for pizza ever written?
I think it’s in the 1700s, but I’m just not really sure myself, thus my question.
I’m voting to close this question because it is out of our scope. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic, it even includes the exact example of historic pizza recipes as illustration for what is off-topic. If you want to find another stack, you can ask in History chat if your question is clear enough to be answerable for them.
@rumtscho it's not clear that the OP is asking for an actual recipe, as opposed to knowing the time and the place, which is allowed (and answerable). Abraham, which were you asking for?
(also, note that you didn't "vote to close", you closed it)
The history of pizza was what I’m going for @FuzzyChef not a actual recipe.
@FuzzyChef Yes, I get what you mean. I still find that the question is a bad fit. 1) it is unclear what the OP would accept as close enough to count as "pizza". But more important, 2) knowing our audience, I am pretty sure that they don't intuitively know the correct answer, or at least the right magnitude of it. So the votes are likely to be quite misleading, unable to distinguish between plausibly-written-but-wrong answers from right answers. If you nevertheless think it is a good question, it is probably worth a Meta discussion, we can even feature it, to make sure it gets attention.
Yeah, let's take this up on Meta.
Rumtscho: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3761/history-of-food-questions-discussion
The earliest example of unquestionable Italian pizza in the modern sense started in the slums of Naples in the late 18th century. These had pizza crust, tomatoes, mozzarella, basil, and other ingredients. Since they were poor people food, it took a while for them to be documented in writing; the earliest clear description of them is from 1849. By 1889, the monarchs of the newly unified Italy chose Pizza Margherita as the representative food of Naples.
Dishes called "pizza" such as pizza rustica go back much further, first recorded in the 10th century, likely brought by the Gothic conquerors of Southern Italy. These would have been pies of eggs, meat, fish, and/or vegetables in a short crust.
If you expand the definition of pizza to "flatbread cooked with cheese and stuff on it", such a dish goes back to at least ancient Persia, and likely to prehistoric times.
So, which recipe is first is going to depend on which of these definitions of pizza you're using.
According to the phenomenal book Modernist Pizza by Nathan Myhrvold et al, the first published recipe for a savoury pizza is actually in French! And it's surprisingly recent, dating to the 1870s. (Cuisine de Tous les Pays was written by Urbain Dubois some time in the 1870s (I have come across multiple publication dates for it.))
That does NOT mean that pizza first appeared in France, or in the middle of the 19th century, but rather that a Frenchman traveling in southern Italy thought it worth mentioning.
That book (Modernist Pizza) is a must-have for anyone interested in pizza (who has the space/budget for it — it's big and expensive!)
This is actually difficult to answer because many English speakers consider a ‘pizza’ to be something different from what Italians consider to be a ‘pizza’
In Italian, ‘pizza’ means ‘pie’, so there are dishes like ‘pizza rustica’ (more like a quiche than what an American would consider a pizza) which may be pre-Colombian, as they don’t require any new world ingredients (tomato).
And then there are non-Italian flatbreads with stuff baked on them. It’s believed those may go back 1000 years, well before Italians were making pizza.
Ah, yes. The genre - it’s been around since well before written sources which would make that a written language history question rather than a culinary history one. In the end, it all hinges on the definition of “Pizza”.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.250466 | 2022-08-11T08:08:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121323",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76004 | Why isn't Almond Milk (and other non-animal based 'milk') considered juice?
I consider "Milk" to be the substance secreted by living being to sustain their young, whether they be human, cow, dog, etc...
Almonds do not produce milk to sustain their young, in fact they are simply crushed. This reminds me more of juice than milk. So why don't people call it "Almond Juice"? Wouldn't this be more accurate?
The only reason I can think of as to why they would call it Milk would be to attempt to market it as a "milk alternative". Is that all there is to it? Or is there some defining feature that actually makes it fit the definition?
Looks like I'm not the only one who finds this strange.
Juice is the liquid already in vegetable matter, so that doesn't really work either.
Hmm fair point @SourDoh... I can't think of a closer analogy off the top of my head though...
You could argue that almonds, being seeds, are the young (and the nourishment for them). But it's not liquid on its own, so that's a human process. It's dandelion milk that's a juice.
Just a curiosity: do "coconut milk" and "animal milk" share the same word also in languages of lands where coconuts grow natively? Or is it just a English or European misnomer, which happened when they first saw coconut milk in the modern era and named it after what it looked like the most?
@FedericoPoloni Possibly a question for [linguistics.se]? I've not checked if it would actually be on-topic there.
@DavidRicherby I doubt it is on topic there. Anyway, I checked a few languages using Google Translate. Apparently in Indonesian and Javanese there is a separate word, in Indian languages it contains "milk", and in all other languages I have tried there is no separate dictionary entry for "coconut milk", which means that probably it returns a useless word-by-word translation.
Why is cake not called bread? Why is stew not called soup? As most things in the culinary world, ingredients and dishes are called certain names so they are easy to understand. There's nothing ambiguous about "Almond milk" and most people will immediately guess how it is made without knowing it before. What is rice flour? It's like wheat flour but made of rice. What is rice milk? It's like milk, but made of rice.
I think it's the same reason we call tomatoes vegetables instead of fruits...
Juice is carbohydrate-only, no? While milk is emulsion of fats and/or proteins in water (with some carbs often)?
@FighterJet Fine. Bell peppers, then. Or courgettes. Squashes. Cucumbers. The usual list. We all know that botanical fruits aren't necessarily culinary fruits.
@FighterJet Fruit means part of a plant, vegetable mean use in savory dishes. They are not mutually exclusive. Tomatoes are both. When cooking, you don't give a damn about where they came from, you care about where to put them, that's why most people call it a vegetable in a kitchen (but fruit in the garden).
um, because it looks like milk? and is white?
@FedericoPoloni In Chinese you have 椰奶 and 椰子汁, literally translating to coconut milk and coconut juice.
Also see this previous question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54275/what-properties-allow-something-to-be-considered-milk
@FedericoPoloni in spanish usually Coconut Water is the liquid naturally found inside the coconut, while Coconut Milk is the liquid produced by the process of coconut pulp and water (or coconut water)
One reason is simple appearance, I think - opaque white liquids or saps have long been called "milky", including nut milks, coconut milk, dandelion or milk thistle saps, and several other white substances. Nut milks get called milk because they look like milk to the eye.
Another reason is that nut milks behave like milks in recipes - they are emulsions with sugars, proteins, and fats... fruit juices tend to have nutrients and sugars, mostly, they behave rather differently in cooking. Almond milk was a long held substitute for animal milk in medieval times because it was more reliable - the nuts would be shelf-stable, while actual milk could spoil within hours. It is worth pointing out that nut milks were substitute for so long because they worked in dishes calling for milk, at both the chemical level and for rough flavor profiling.
Also, it is probably worth noting that nut milks taste like milk, as well - a mellow flavor, very mild and a bit rich. The flavor isn't strong or sweet like other juices. They are different from cow's milk, true, but perhaps nut milks are not immensely more different from cow's milk than it is different from sheep's milk or goat's milk.
In the end, nut milks get called milk because they seem similar, and there's no other category they fit into more neatly. If it is to label them as an alternative, it is a very old label, and for an alternative that works very well in nearly all applications.
Ps: if it helps, the nutrients extracted from the almonds into the milk were produced by the parent tree and intended to sustain the baby almond-plant... so the major difference is that the plant stores the milk in solid form, not whether it was meant for the next generation or not
"Almond milk was a long held substitute for animal milk in medieval times " Today I learned. Had no idea it had been a concept for that long.
@shadow TIL FTW
Also, coconuts produce both milk and juice. Coconut juice it the water contained in green coconuts. That water gets absorbed to create the flesh of the fruit (the more flesh the less water). When the coconut turns brown and dry then it's ready for milking. The milk is water squeezed out from the flesh (typically also adding a bit of tap water to help the process along). So for coconut we use "milk" to distinguish it from "juice/water".
In places where you can regularly get fresh coconut people also distinguish the more thick/creamy first press of the coconut milk (coconut cream?) and the more thin/watery second press.
Answer is 100% correct in my opinion, but I'd like to add that I think it was Lewis Black who observed we call it milk not juice because the thought of drinking Nut Juice is enough to make anyone gag.
"Milk" from plants is such a part of our language that even beyond milkweed and milk thistle, one might look for the milk-named Lactuca genus that has since become known as lettuce.
I like your last paragraph: "the nutrients extracted from the almonds into the milk were produced by the parent tree and intended to sustain the baby almond-plant". The juice in fruit is not intended to nourish the baby plant and has probably rotted if not consumed by an animal first before the seed has sprouted, so your idea works well.
And then there's rice milk -- which I use a lot -- which is similarly milk-like from a consumer perspective. (Not sure if it has the appropriate features to make it a good milk substitute for cooking, though.)
I consider "Milk" to be the substance secreted from living being to sustain their young, whether they be human, cow, dog, etc...
Other people consider "milk" to have a wider definition than this. The Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required) gives a number of definitions of "milk" that are relevant to cooking:
1a. A whitish fluid, rich in fat and protein, secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals (including humans) for the nourishment of their young, and taken from cows, sheep, etc., as an article of the human diet.
2a. A milky juice or latex present in the stems or other parts of various plants, which exudes when the plant is cut, and is often acrid, irritant, or toxic. Also: [specifically] the drinkable watery liquid found in the hollow space inside the fruit of the coconut.
5a. A culinary, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, or other preparation resembling milk, esp. in colour. Usually with the principal ingredient or use specified by a preceding or following word. [Here, it specifically mentions soya milk, rice milk, almond milk and a number of alarming medical preparations from former times, such as "milk of mercury".]
5b. milk of almonds = almond milk
7. [originally North American] Strong alcoholic drink, often of a particular type, esp. whisky or beer. Sometimes with a preceding word suggestive of strength or ferocity, as in cougar milk, wild-mare's milk, etc.
For example, Wiktionary gives similar definitions, as will any other dictionary you might care to consult. Your assertion that milk is only the substance mammals use to feed their young is an example of what is known as the etymological fallacy: the belief that, because a word originally meant one particular thing, it must only mean that particular thing today.
#7: Mudder's Milk
Your definition for the word is not sufficiently broad. After all- coconut milk is a thing and it's more like juice than almond and rice milk are.
These liquids are called milk because they are milky: white, opaque, sometimes have protein and fat.
Either way, they aren't much like juice. The nuts aren't just crushed. They are ground and then soaked in water to leach out the good stuff.
I would argue that coconut milk isn't really milk either though. It being called the same thing because they look roughly similar seems a bit odd (eg, flour and sugar are white powders) but it seems to be correct in this instance...
Coconut milk isn't like juice -- it's the result of grinding up the nut meat and water, then simmering and straining ... which is very similar to how almond milk is made. You might be thinking about what they're now calling 'coconut water', which is the liquid from the inside of the coconut. And if you get the stuff that's in aseptic packaging (vs. canned), it's typically 'coconut milk beverage' which is more watered down, and might be flavored (vanilla or chocolate) and/or sweetened and typically has stabilizers (eg, guar gum). I won't even get into coconut cream & cream of coconut.
@shadow You're not really going to have much luck here as long as you keep insisting that your specific definition of milk is correct. Your question is about common usage that doesn't fit your definition, so clearly your definition is incomplete. I'd focus on asking how the full definition (encompassing things like coconut milk) makes sense, not on arguing against it.
It's called "milk" because that is what it most resembles in taste, texture and appearance, and it is also used as a substitute for people who can't or don't want to drink traditional cow's milk.
The choice of what they call it is strictly a product marketing decision, so strict scientific accuracy is not a consideration. What a biologist might refer to as "milk" is not a consideration.
From a cultural viewpoint, the stuff that Taco Bell churns out in no way resembles the actual foodstuffs they are named after. Vegetarian "burgers" are not all that much like the meat "burgers" they take their name from. The green "wasabi" you get at most Asian/Japanese sushi eateries contains no actual wasabi. There is often confusion when talking about what the layperson thinks of as a "theory" vs how science uses the term. Society is filled with examples everywhere of terms that are used that don't strictly fit a technical or scientific definition.
The name is chosen for familiarity and a convenient point of reference for consumers.
I don't think "juice" would not be more accurate, since almonds are seeds/nuts, not fruits or vegetables.
"The choice of what they call it is strictly a product marketing decision" - not sure that's the whole truth, given that names for foods generally go back way before serious product marketing decisions from sizable companies.
@Cascabel- If, for millenia, it was called "Almond Milk" and PR focus groups found that people with disposable income were more likely to buy it if it was called "Nectar," we'd be answering a question about why they call it nectar when it doesn't really come from a flower. The point of technical accuracy having zero bearing holds, even if your point about historical context were true. There was a long history and identity of "stewardesses" and "garbage men," yet now they're called "flight attendants" and "sanitation engineers." If there ever is a health scare/scandal, the name will change.
I'm not saying I disagree with your entire answer, just the notion that this is about marketing and PR groups. Sure, in some sense it's technically correct, in that manufacturers do choose what to put on a product label, but saying it's solely their marketing decision is ignoring the underlying reasons that it's actually a reasonable name, i.e. why it's the term in the English language.
So, more so with the overly-strong tone from the inclusion of the word "strictly," sounds like. That's fair.
"The choice of what they call it is strictly a product marketing decision, so strict scientific accuracy is not a consideration." That's not entirely true. Most jurisdictions have some kind of legislation about product labelling. That might not require "strict scientific accuracy" but you couldn't, for example call your almond milk "apple juice". It's not clear that you'd be allowed to call almond milk "milk" if the name had been invented last week.
@DavidRicherby - Not true, since FDA regulations specifically define what milk is, and soy milk, almond milk, etc don't fit the definition, and yet they've been able to call it that, market it and sell it for years.
@AndrewMattson That's exactly what I meant by saying that it's not clear you'd be allowed to call vegetable or nut milks "milk" if the term had been invented last week.
@DavidRicherby - Maybe you misunderstood me. The official definition for "milk" does NOT include liquids extracted from almonds or made from soy. And, yet, they are able to use that moniker for their products. That suggests to me that we have ample evidence that one can call their products almost anything they want. The list of things on the market that are called something that they are not is pretty endless.
@AndrewMattson You seem to have misunderstood the FDA. Their definition is for the product called "milk". We are talking about the product called "almond milk". You couldn't market almond milk as just "milk" in the US because it doesn't meet the FDA's definition of the product called "milk". But you clearly can call it "almond milk" because that product is widely available in the US under that name. Almond milk is "a milk" but it is not "milk".
@DavidRicherby - which further supports my contention that they can pretty much call it what they want, just with the modifier "almond" in front of it. So I'm not sure where your claim that they can't just call it what they want comes from.
There are EU regulations with definitions of milk. Only products from mammary secretions can be labelled as "milk". So it is prohibited to label something as "almond milk". Instead is is called "almond drink" or "almond alternative to milk".
@vclaw which is very silly in the special case of almond milk, which is a product with ancient history in european cuisine.
An edible almond is rather dry - and part of it (the shell) is even inedible and not useful to make food of at all. If you just pressed it, without adding water and heat, you would likely end up with impure almond oil and not a thin liquid like almond milk is. This would be like pressing dried beef instead of milking a cow and expecting milk. The same applies to rice, grains, cashews (where using the whole fruit would be actually poisonous!) and most other sources of plant milks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.250827 | 2016-11-29T22:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76004",
"authors": [
"Agent_L",
"CJ Dennis",
"Cascabel",
"CodeMonkey",
"David Richerby",
"Federico Poloni",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jeff Bowman",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Shadow",
"SourDoh",
"Wayne",
"corecursion",
"dalearn",
"dolma33",
"ecc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"slebetman",
"thanby",
"vclaw"
],
"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
} |
128928 | How to ensure you know you are frying/no water in sauce
When frying foods, the food you add will have water in it, which is released into the oil during the cooking process. This applies to vegetables, proteins or whatever it may be, and the more food you add, the more water is released.
Sometimes when attempting to fry, I cannot discern whether the food is frying or boiling as a result of water being released from the food.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I read when frying the oil is meant to be so hot that as water is released, it quickly evaporated due to the instant heat or won’t be noticeable in cooking. I can see why the latter might apply to deep frying, since any amount of water released is far less than the oil.
So how to know or ensure you are frying and not boiling, is boiling at some point unavoidable and is the answer different depending on the frying method, e.g., stir, shallow and deep fry?
Sometimes when attempting to fry I cannot discern whether the food is frying or boiling as a result of water being released from food.
Well, both. Always. If the food contains water, and is heated above boiling temperature, the water in it is boiling off.
It sounds like you’re describing a situation where so much water is present outside the food, and so little heat is being released by the pan, that the surface of the food is unable to rise above boiling temperature. In addition to all the clearly visible boiling water around the food, the most noticeable symptom would be that the surface of the food does not brown (which requires temperatures above boiling temperature).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.251994 | 2024-08-03T18:59:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128928",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16990 | Explanation of different egg preparations
When we go to a restaurant for breakfast and order eggs, we are often asked how we want them. I have a handful of ways that I will eat them (I often prefer over-medium) and I am sure there are a large number of ways to prepare eggs I am unfamiliar with.
I have a question then on the various technical definitions of these preparations if I were to go into the kitchen and prepare eggs for someone else. A good start would be the difference in over-{insert proper word} preparations or distinctions between some of the more popular methods.
Fried Eggs:
Sunny Side Up -- Not flipped, unbroken yolk. The top of the egg is just barely set.
Basted -- Sunny Side Up, hot fat spooned over until the white surrounding the yolk is opaque.
Over Easy / lite -- Flipped, whites fully cooked, unbroken yolk, yolk runny.
Over medium -- flipped, whites fully cooked, unbroken yolk, yolk creamy (not completely runny).
Over Medium Well -- Flipped, unbroken yolk, yolk cooked to have a firm but wet-appearing center.
Over Hard -- Flipped, broken, fully-cooked yolk.
Over Well -- Flipped, intact, fully-cooked yolk.
Broken / Lightly Scrambled -- Broken in pan and gently stirred while cooking - yolk and whites should not be mixed entirely.
Scrambled Eggs -- Made in many different ways. Generally the eggs are mixed in a bowl before being put into the pan, and often stirred while cooking. Some recipes add fat to the eggs in the form of milk, cream, butter, or oil. A distinction can be made between Wet/Loose or Dry, which refers to the degree of doneness.
Omelettes:
Filled Omelette -- Eggs mixed before cooking, possibly with added fat as in Scrambled Eggs. Cooked in fat in a saute pan; when set but the interior still wet, previously-cooked fillings (cheese, onions, mushrooms, peppers, tomatoes...) are added, and the eggs folded over into a half-moon shape.
Spanish Omelette / Western Omelette -- Same as filled, but the egg mixture is poured over the fillings in a hot pan and cooked, thus incorporating the fillings into the egg.
Fluffy Omelette -- Whites and yolks beaten separately. Yolks are gently folded into the whites without breaking the structure of the whites. Optional toppings are added. Cooked slowly in a pan, or baked (an electric frying pan with a lid works well for this preparation).
French Omelette -- Cooked soft & creamy with no color on the egg. Omelette is folded 1/3 in the pan, knocked to the edge so it can be rolled out onto the plate. It ends up being folded into thirds and is very creamy and soft.
Boiled:
Cooked in shell in water for a timed period. Some people will refer to degree of doneness by cooking time, i.e., a "3-minute egg" is soft-boiled with some runny white around the yolk. Some recipes call for eggs to be added to boiling water, others to be started in cold water. In the cold-water start, the pot may be left on the heat or removed when the water reaches a boil. The eggs may be shocked in ice water when removed.
Soft -- Yolk runny, potentially with slight unset white around the yolk.
Medium -- White completely set, yolk firm but with a dark, wet appearance.
Hard -- Yolk completely set and pale yellow.
Poached:
Egg cooked, out of shell, in water, stock, or other liquid -- excluding fats or oils -- at a temperature in the range of 160-180˚F (70-82˚C). There are possible degrees of doneness, however the typical poached egg has a runny but warm and thickened yolk and fully-set white.
Coddled:
An egg that has been very lightly cooked (poached eggs are sometimes considered coddled). This can either be accomplished with an egg coddler or cooking an egg in its shell with water that is slightly below boiling point.
Shirred:
An egg cooked in an oven at the low-mid 300's˚F (~160˚C), contained in a ramekin, until the whites are just set and the yolk is runny but thickened. Often butter or another fat is placed on top before cooking.
Steamed:
Very similar to shirred eggs, but the ramekin is covered with some aluminum foil and put in a steamer for 7-15 minutes.
In a basket:
Eggs fried in a hole made in a slice of bread
deep fried
Moo shu- using a strainer to drop small drops of egg into hot oil in a wok and stir. Frying in vegetables and/optionally meat or another protein then consume on mandarin pancakes with your choice of sauce.
Wonderful start! That should help tremendously in case I ever have to cook for a crowd.
Very nice answer. +1.
My grandfather used to call what you have as 'Lightly Scrambled' as 'Silver and Gold' (crack eggs into the pan, give the whites a few seconds to set up, then scramble it ... he wouldn't eat regular scrambled eggs after his time w/ powdered eggs in the Army)
Re poached eggs I have found being very specific as to whether it is soft, medium or well cooked is best. For instance if you want soft yolk and no runny white ask for medium, most of the time this works.
I've heard "in a basket" also called "toad in the hole", but it seems that's a different dish in Great Britain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toad_in_the_hole
You should prepare each kind, and provide pictures in here. :) Until then, I'll try to find pictures from online when I get the chance.
Chris' answer is truly epic. I'm adding this to cite a few less common ways of preparing eggs:
Balut:
A balut is a fertilized embryo, boiled alive and eaten in the shell. Too disgusting for the majority of the western world, is quite common in south-east asia, where it is sold in the streets.
Century egg:
Chinese dish. An egg is preserved with a mixture of salt, ash, clay, etc. for up to several months. By then, due to a number of chemical reactions, the egg will have changed a lot in flavor and appearance.
Pickled eggs:
Hard boiled eggs that have been stored in a pickling solution long enough to both preserve the eggs and flavor them.
Tea eggs:
Again from China. Eggs are boiled, the shell lightly cracked, then put in spiced tea and simmered. The tea flows in through the cracks, the spices give additional flavor, and they have a very nice “marbled” appearance once peeled.
"Onsen" egg, a sous vide cooked egg imitating the Japanese method of cooking a poached egg in it's shell in a hot spring. 168 degress F for 12 minutes... crack the shell, pull the halves apart and the egg drops out whole poached.
Over well gets confused with over hard constantly. It's fried completely without breaking the yoke. Simple concept, but when I order my eggs this way, I have about a 20% chance of getting them over well instead of over hard.
One more: Smothered; this is where a pot lid is put over the eggs on the grill. This steams the top of the egg while the bottom cooks on the grill.
By "grill", do you perchance mean "griddle"? An egg would fall right through most grills I've met...
This was called "basted" back when I cooked eggs for money. Wasn't ordered very often.
Sous Vide - Eggs are cooked at a controlled low temperature between 60°C-64°C for up to an hour. The typical result is an evenly cooked egg where the yolks and the whites have an equal degree of doneness with a consistency of custard. Sous Vide eggs cooked at 63°C for an hour referred to as "The Perfect Egg".
A little misleading. Whites and yolks cook to different textures (doneness) at different temperatures. So a sous vide egg DOES NOT have a yolk and white with equal doneness. The custard consistency of the yolk is attained as a very specific temperature and time. The white is a different, but related story.
It's hard to find a restaurant that fries eggs right. Griddle temperatures used to fry bacon and hash browns are way too hot to fry eggs properly. Restaurant managers and cooks want the food to come out fast but there is a price. They compromise quality for quantity. Pan frying over a low flame is much better than griddle frying. It only takes a few seconds longer cooking at a lower heat but you get Much Better eggs, Better product, Happier Return Customers. I have followed this fried egg definition since about 1968 with zero complaints on the quality or speed.
Sunny Side Up = Whites are solid on bottom and slightly loose on top. Yokes runny. No brown crispy edges or sides.
Over Easy = Whites are slightly loose. Yokes runny. No brown crispy edges or sides.
Over Light = Whites are solid on both sides. Yokes runny. No brown crispy edges or sides.
Over Medium = Whites are solid on both sides. Yokes partially solid. No brown crispy edges or sides.
Over Well = Whites are solid. Yokes are mostly solid. Crispy edges are tolerated by some people.
Over Hard = Whites are solid. Yokes are completely solid. Crispy edges and slightly crispy on both sides are tolerated by some people.
Burned = Everything is dark and crispy.
I want to add my favorite type of omelette, the french country omelette. This is a soft and moist omelette that is not very hard to learn. You can even achieve browning with this method while still having something moist.If you're worried about pathogens then pasteurize the eggs in 55°C water for two hours.
It's done with a medium-hot pan and you pour in the egg mixture, allow a skin to form on the bottom and then drag that skin to the centre with a fork allowing uncooked egg to spill into the outer parts of the pan. Add filling and then roll into a cigar shape like a french haute omelette.
There's a korean variant called a tornado omelette where you use chopsticks to twist it creating a beautiful vortex shape.
Here's Jaques Pepin showing us the difference between French country and French haute (which he calls classic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU
Tornado version:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uXi8BE7Wo0
May you eat nice eggs!
PS, Bill Granger is known as Sydney's egg master, watch him make scrambled eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.252276 | 2011-08-19T17:57:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16990",
"authors": [
"Alex Jager",
"Amy Robinson",
"Angella Ellsworth",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"B A",
"Bee Balasa",
"Eagle1",
"Fireflower",
"Honinbo Shusaku",
"JAB",
"Jochicago",
"Joe",
"Joseph",
"Loquito",
"Lori Dean",
"Marti",
"Thomas Orozco",
"Tim Nevins",
"Valerie Thomas",
"carraua",
"demongolem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6859",
"maxstoller",
"moscafj",
"priscilla johnson",
"user101058"
],
"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
} |
128252 | Why does sunflower oil turned to green after frying?
After frying foods, for example, chicken or cutlets(mix of meat and potato) with frying sunflower oil, the oil turns green/greenish, is this oil spoiled and bad?
Shouldn't I use the rest of the oil bottle? (I mean oil that has not been used yet.)
The following photos are of when the oil is cooled.
Thank you
Is this can be related to my problem?
Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10048579/
Welcome to SA! The oil doesn't look green to me in the photo. Is it greener than that in person?
@FuzzyChef Thank you, No, the oil looks the same.
That oil just looks dirty to me. I wouldn't re-use it, but I don't see any visual indication that there's anything wrong with it.
It is normal for oil to turn dark with use, and darkening is a sign that the oil is no longer reusable and should be thrown away or recycled.
Sunflower oil in particular is known to turn green in the presence of bases, apparently
@fyrepenguin that sounds like an answer! Why don't you post it as one?
I figured it could be relevant, in that sunflower oil can turn green in some situations, but it’s not clear to me that it’s the case here. But I had vaguely recalled seeing someone mention their sunflower oil cookies turning green after baking them
@fyrepenguin and FuzzyChef
I edited my question and added details.
Please see:
Is this can be related to my problem?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.253055 | 2024-04-29T17:58:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128252",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Hadi",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"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
} |
14489 | Can I re-cook a ham that was left out overnight?
I left a fully cooked ham in a bag out overnight. It was refrigerator temperature when I took it out at 9pm. Our Seattle home was not heated; it was about 50 degrees last night. I found it at 6am and threw it back in the fridge, in case it was still good. I would cook it again and then use it with eggs or sandwiches. Would this be ok?
How was it protected? I.E. still sealed? I don't know if that makes a difference, but it may
Does this answer your question? How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
@moscafj Is it really worth the effort to mark a 9-year-old question as a duplicate?
@LSchoon effort? It seems to me that cleaning up the site is always worth it....but, alas...I am only one vote.
It's probably even safe to eat without cooking again; the refrigerator is likely only about 10 degrees colder, and that generally translates to accelerating rates of spoilage (mostly growth of pathogens) by a factor of 3-5 or so. For example. at 10C (50F), E. coli only manages to divide once every 8 hours or so (see Ratkowsky et al., "Relationship Between Temperature and Growth Rate of Bacterial Cultures", J. Bacteriology, vol 169, p. 1 (1982) for a not-very-clear example of growth curves--I've seen these curves online, but unfortunately I tried and failed to find an easily accessible one this time).
It's almost certainly safe to eat with cooking (fully, to at least ~160 at the center), which would kill anything that managed to grow on the ham. The only thing to worry about with well-cooked food is whether bacteria or fungi have managed to produce so many toxic chemicals that the food will make you ill--and in this case, it's been too cold. (At those temperatures, not only is growth slow, but most anything is slow, including production of anything toxic.)
So I'd say--cook away, enjoy, and don't worry about it.
P.S. I have in practice eaten ham left out at warmer temperatures for longer.
Edit: In response to a comment about bacterial toxin production, I want to reiterate that colder temperatures slow down metabolism of just about everything, including toxin production. This is because, at a basic physical level, reaction rates are governed by the Arrhenius equation which translates, for simple reactions, to a doubling of reaction rates for ~10C increase in temperature. Of course, organisms like bacteria have more complex interactions, but this still gives an order of magnitude estimate. Furthermore, research has been done on production of bacterial toxins. For example, Skinner & Larkin (J. Food Protection vol 61 p. 1154 (1998)) wrote a paper called "Conservative Prediction of Time to Clostridium botulinum Toxin Formation for Use with Time-Temperature Indicators To Ensure the Safety of Foods", which gives, for food innoculated with the bacteria, a time-to-detection-of-toxin of 2-3 days at 10C. In fact, they did the research because food storage at open-face refigerators in stores often allows products to get up to as high as 10C (at least as of 1998).
Similarly, in Bonventre and Kempe ("Physiology of Toxin Production by Clostridium botulinum Types A and B, III"), their 10-18C toxin line is flat for 24 hours at the baseline level before creeping up by a factor of 3 or so between 24 and 48 hours (figure 4).
These are just examples, but you find the same general trends everywhere because of the fundamental physical relationship between reaction rates and temperature.
What evidence do you have, daniel, that this is bad advice? I cited research on microorganism growth to back up what I said. Leaving your ham on the table during dinner for an hour and a half allows stuff to grow up more than overnight at 50F. Shall we throw out any food that sits out during a moderately leisurely meal?
I agree with Rex Kerr generally. You should use extreme caution with it, but if it is cooked thoroughly, it should be fine in that time frame and at that temperature. I would avoid eating it without cooking it.
@daniel makes a good point. @Rex should have noted there are some risks. For example, if the ham already had high levels of bacteria or toxins due to improper storage or cooking at the store. With that said, it's a risk many people have taken. I am not an expert and this is not advice, but at my home I would eat it and I would start with a small piece because with heat resistant toxins the dosage does matter. More will make you sicker.
@daniel - I don't think you understood the question. The question seemed to me to be, "I did something that violates standard food handling rules. Can I make an exception?" All you're saying is, effectively, "no no no no no!" without any evidence. If you want to keep yourself safe legally this is exactly what you should do. Otherwise, you need to look at the question more deeply to understand why food spoils. If you do not understand how the risks arise, then I agree, the only safe thing to do is adhere strictly to general rules.
@daniel - If you have any evidence or data to share--for example, come up with any scenario where the original ham could have been edible but now is not, backed up by some sort of research--then we could maybe resolve things. As such, since you are simply repeating your opinion and not giving any evidence for it, we'll have to agree to disagree. (And yes, I understand both safe food handling, sterile technique in the laboratory, bacterial growth pathways, and so on.)
@daniel - OP had E. coli on his or her hands and touched the ham, is what you're saying. E. coli has a doubling time of 8 hours at 10C. So after 9 hours out in the rather chilly house, there are approximately twice as many bacteria as when he or she touched it. Then, they all get cooked and die. It would have been worse to just eat the ham the previous evening, because then the bacteria would have been alive! Try another scenario?
@daniel - Growth rates of pathogens is not a mystery. You're acting like the entire medical research profession doesn't exist (not to mention food safety research). Maybe it's a mystery to you, but that's not a reason to get all frantic. Meat sitting out for 9 hours at 50F is not the same as meat that's been sitting out for 9 hours at 80F because growth rates are very different at those temperatures. Since you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this, there really isn't anything left to discuss. (Incidentally, if I pay for any medical bills, will you pay for all the wasted hams?)
@daniel The "four hours in the danger zone" rule isn't hard and fast; it's more of a rule of thumb. If you've ever eaten a tough cut of meat prepared at a modern restaurant, chances are it was cooked at 55°C for a few days. If done properly, the meat can be effectively pasteurized. The actual "danger" is a much more complex function of time, conditions, and not only temperature but more importantly the change in temperature over time.
Might I suggest that number of bacteria is not the only (even primary?) concern? One does not get sick purely from consuming bacteria, but from the toxins produced by the bacteria. 9 hours may mean only double the bacteria, but I would posit that that does not translate to double the risk. Consider the amount of toxins that can be produced in that time when you're weighing the risks in giving public advice.
@Ray Every toxin that is produced by food borne pathogens of which I know is either (1) destroyed by subsequent heating, e.g., botulinum toxin, or (2) is only produced within the human's digestive system as a result of consuming the pathogen itself, e.g., clostridium perfringens. The only heat-stable toxin of which I know that also is produced within the food itself is due to staphylococcus aureus, however, if the food was handled properly then there should be little (albeit non-zero) risk.
@Ray - I've updated my answer to more thoroughly document why this also is not a major concern.
@ESultanik - And S. aureus is almost entirely impotent to produce toxins at 10C. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC380837/pdf/applmicro00055-0194.pdf figures 1 and 2.
+1 for every fact citing, rational response. My long experience cooking large chunks of meat suggests that it is nearly impossible to take a piece of meat from 165F to 35F in a timely way. And the methods for speeding the process (slicing/boning/etc) introduce environmental bacteria throughout the meat.
@daniel Do you deny that restaurants cook tough cuts of beef sous vide for 24+ hours at 55°C? Because, if restaurant's do---which is the case by my experience---then that invalidates the hard-and-fastness of the "four hours in the danger zone" rule.
@all: Please continue further debate/discussion/commentary regarding this in chat.
This is a ham right? Not a bone-in cooked pork butt, but an actual cured ham?
This falls into the category I like to call "Things I personally would eat, but wouldn't feed to anyone else." Chances are it's fine. 80 years ago they'd have thought nothing of it, but in our modern bacteria-obsessed culture, a few hours sitting on the counter is certain death. It was cooked, it was cured, it's probably okay. Hell, I've eaten cheesecake that's sat out the same amount of time, and the food nazis'll have you putting those in the fridge before they're even cool (which I know the professionals don't do, since that makes them crack like the grand canyon.)
On the chance that it's not okay, I wouldn't feed it to anyone else. And if you're going to eat it, I'd eat it quick. It certainly doesn't have as much shelf-life left.
Edit: My usual harp is on cooking temperatures (the recommended ones are all too high for me), but bacterial growth is another sore point. People will tell you a side of beef stored at 36F for a week must be used, frozen, or thrown away, and they'll tell you that, if you dare to cook it, it must be cooked well-done. But a high-end steakhouse will store it for three to four weeks at the same temperature, and sell you the finest steak you've ever eaten (cooked medium-rare) for 30 bucks a pound.
Sure, you can get unlucky and a random wrong bacteria can land on your food, multiply, and cause trouble. That's why they make the rule, so you're going to be safe 99.9% of the time. Like eggs. Raw eggs are killers, right? It's estimated that 1 in 14000 eggs has salmonella contamination, but that means 99.99997% of the time, you're fine to eat them raw. Don't take foolish risks, but don't let paranoia ruin your enjoyment of food either.
It's notable that we don't cure ham like we used (though I still doubt that it's dangerous).
@brendan: Well, we do, but this isn't that kind of ham. Still, in this situation, the curing we do do, plus being cooked, plus the house being cool, I wouldn't have any problem eating it.
If the ham picked up anything like botulinus then the toxic waste products are not destroyed by re-cooking... so the ham would remain toxic.
So the safe advice would be to throw it away.
And from a self-preservation point, I can't possibly advise anything else.
However, ham is full of preservatives (that's why it's ham not pork!) and it's probably safe to eat as is... but it's YOUR risk and your should NOT feed it to anyone else without them accepting that they are doing something risky and (nowadays) unusual. Playing russian roulette with your health is YOUR call, playing it with your children's health (or yoru spouse's health) is emphatically NOT your call.
In most parts of the world Botulism is very rare (though still very dangerous). It should not form on correctly cured hams as they are very salty at surface level and should be quite dry. It also requires anaerobic (wet) conditions. So a ham in a cloth at 10°C is not an ideal candidate. I would not same the same about store sliced ham etc
Ham is typically cured with sodium nitrite, which has historically been used specifically to block botulism growth. Not that there is no risk, but that's probably not the primary bacteria to consider. That said, listeria, e. coli., salmonella, etc., all work in the same way (though their waste products aren't quite as deadly). They produce toxins that remain after the bacteria has been destroyed.
Botulinum toxin is denatured at 60°C; as long as that temperature is achieved for a sufficient period of time (or a higher temperature for a shorter period of time), the "toxic waste products" will almost certainly be destroyed.
@ESultanik: Botulinum toxin is actually one of the easiest to get rid of. Most protein toxins are far more difficult to inactivate and require food to be cooked to ash, or at least to a flavourless mass. Examples: E.coli O157:H7 encodes an SLT or STX which just starts to denature after 5 minutes at 95° C, diphtheria toxin needs to be subjected an autoclave or chlorine bleach to inactivate, and I'm not even sure what the parameters are for CdtB. All of these are capable of being produced by bacteria on the food, just not quite as fast as they are within the GI tract.
At home, If the ham was left out, I would be more concerned with its environment given these timeframes. Was it covered, human/pet/insect Traffic, was it handled/sliced, served or whole, etc. If it was fully cooked, uncut/unserved, covered, and at room temps, I would eat it and even serve it to family. There are other risks that exceed the risk of spontaneous spoiling in the first 9 hours, i'd bet there is a better chance you would choke on it than get sick.
If it was a business I'd toss it or give it away. I used to throw out foods I KNEW were ok, just because it looked or smelled funny. Only because I didn't want to even deal with any questions. Distractions usually end up costing more than materials.
FWIW, my2cents
Do not eat it. It will most likely have bacteria in it, making unsafe to eat.
Lots have things have bacteria in them that we eat, often deliberately, yoghurt for instance, it is not a blanket "issue".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.253233 | 2011-05-02T19:43:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14489",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"David A. Singh",
"ESultanik",
"LSchoon",
"Orbling",
"Ray",
"Rex Kerr",
"Satanicpuppy",
"TFD",
"Todd Chaffee",
"dwaz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"mfg",
"moscafj"
],
"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
} |
10762 | I've heard that sugar, and especially brown sugar, loses its flavor over time. Is this true?
I've heard that you can revitalized lumpty or hard brown sugar, but also that doing so doesn't recover the actual flavor. Does baking with other brown sugar that is "revitalized" really impact cookie flavor? What about white granulatd sugar?
White sugar is generally sucrose and has been heavily refined, so it won't undergo any chemical changes over time. In fact, sugar is actually used as a preservative.
Brown sugar is a bit different. It gets hard simply because it loses moisture - i.e. the water evaporates - and that won't cause the taste to change. However, some people have reported brown sugar actually fermenting on its own (also here). This fermentation is more likely to happen than in white sugar due to the presence of molasses.
It takes a long time for fermentation to occur, but it can definitely occur, and that will most certainly change the flavour. I'm not sure if I'd call it "losing" the flavour; some might argue that the presence of alcohol is a good thing, although fermented sugar obviously will not be as sweet.
I would not worry about the flavour of brown sugar that has merely hardened; if it smells like alcohol, though, you might want to be more careful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.254533 | 2011-01-05T18:07:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10762",
"authors": [
"Deb",
"Martin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22459",
"user22057"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10833 | Is there a vegetarian gelatin substitute that is as strong as gelatin?
I've made several mold (shaped) desserts with both gelatin and gelatin substitutes, and the substitutes have always failed to hold the shape of fully domed chocolate molds and the like. Are there any real vegetarian substitutes here, or only relatively weak alternatives?
The primary subsitite I've used is agar-agar. Some others are suggested here, but I have no experience with them. (A good comment below suggests that is not the best link b/c all the non-agar substitutes listed at this link are just thickeners.
This depends on what you mean by a gelatin "substitute".
What you have to understand is that while most hydrocolloids have gelling and stabilizing properties, they are not simply interchangeable. You can't substitute one of them 1-for-1 where you need gelatin and expect everything to just work.
A great place to start would be the Hydrocolloid Recipe Collection which, despite its name, is almost more of a cookbook, because it has detailed information on the properties of each hydrocolloid.
Agar is actually a stronger gelling agent than gelatin in the sense of having to use less of it to get the same strength, but you need to use it properly. The most important property of agar is that unlike gelatin, which gives hydration at temperatures as low as 50° C, agar requires a temperature of 90° C. In other words, you need to heat the water all the way to a rapid boil before the agar will actually "activate". A light simmer is not enough.
The other notable property of agar is syneresis, which is the loss of moisture over time. Agar sets extremely fast compared to gelatin and above room temperature, but unless you combine it with a small amount of Locust bean gum, it will actually dry out. Otherwise, though, you can absolutely, definitely substitute agar-agar for gelatin if you actually get pure agar (I made the mistake of buying the "dessert agar" once, which is not the same thing) and hydrate/set it properly. In fact, the biggest concern with using agar as a substitute for gelatin is that you might end up with something too stiff, since gelatin produces a much softer gel.
Perhaps the closest hydrocolloid to gelatin in terms of its properties is iota type carrageenan. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the most important characteristics (this is all taken from the HRC):
Property | Gelatin | Carrageenan | Agar
------------------+-----------+-------------+---------
Thermoreversible | Yes | Yes | Yes
Strength | Soft | Soft | Hard
Elasticity | Elastic | Elastic | Brittle
Shear Thinning | No | Yes | No
Hydration | 50° C | 70° C | 90° C
Setting Temp. | 15° C | 40-70° C | 35-45° C
Setting Speed | Slow | Fast | Fast
Melting Temp. | 25-40° C | 45-80° C* | 80-90° C
Viscosity | Low | Medium | Low
Gelling Conc. | 0.6-1.7% | 1.0-1.5% | 0.2%
Syneresis | No | No | Yes
You should be able to see by this how much closer carrageenan is to gelatin; trouble is, it's difficult to find, and you have to get the right kind (the kappa type and other types have very different properties).
There's actually an even better type of carrageenan to use a gelatin substitute, if you can find it: It's called Ceambloom 3240 and it's specifically designed to be a gelatin replacement.
I'd like to also note for the record that the answer in your ochef link is not really appropriate for gelatin desserts that need to hold their shape. Xanthan gum is a fantastic and versatile hydrocolloid but (to the best of my knowledge) it does not "set" the way that gelatin, agar, or carrageenan do. It's more of a thickener/emulsifier/stabilizer, at its highest concentrations being used to produce foams (but not gels). It's often used to stabilize other gels/foams but I've never heard of it being used to create a gel on its own.
Guar gum is also largely just a thickener, that you could use a stabler replacement for corn starch or arrowroot, which is also mentioned in that answer. None of these are appropriate at all for gels (desserts), they are only useful as thickeners.
Excellent answer, very interesting to see the properties. Although I tend to favour it, carrageenan does have a few concerns surrounding it from a health perspective, I think the current advice is to moderate intake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns
Lots of great details, well done. One big way that both iota and agar differ from gelatin, unfortunately is the melt temperature. Body temperature is around 37 C, which you can see from @Aaronut's chart is in the band for gelatin, but not the others. So you don't get that wonderful melt-in-the mouth characteristic.
Very true about the melting point, @Michael. Not that I've ever tested this theory, but methylcellulose causes melting at lower temperatures, and I suspect some combination of that and carrageenan could create a gel with two melting points, possibly with one near mouth temperature. This paper seems to suggest that such a "double thermal transition gel" is possible, although the abstract doesn't tell us much about its characteristics (I can't understand anything on the chart).
+1 Excellent amount of detail. This is the sort of answer I love to see on this website! :)
If agar-agar isn't holding for you, either you haven't hydrated it sufficiently or just aren't using enough of it. Agar can make an extremely firm, brittle gel. Try doubling the quantity in your current recipe.
Agar is also very sensitive to acidity. If you're trying to add some citrus juice to balance out an overly sweet liquid, the gel will fail.
Best place to get good vegetarian gelatin is MaryJanes Farm. Just go to maryjanesfarm.org, look for products then click on food pantry and check out the "chillover" product. It is the best I have found.
That's just agar, as far as I can tell.
From a culinary standpoint, agar agar is usually used as the substitute for gelatin, Although its not quit the same. Most vegetarian preparations often use agar agar.
Gelatin is the consistency of jello, or runny jello if not enough is used. It's soft.
Agar agar firms up quite a bit more- has a rubbery texture. Is a lot stronger, feels, less watery.
The other ones are usually used as sauce thickeners, or for purees.
Try using irish moss. I recommend you to search gelatin substitutes in google and find what is best for you.
Here are other suggestions for u;.japanese arrowroot,guar gum, xathan gum, and guar bean
You can edit your posts, there is no need to post two answers. But note that we dislike the suggestion of "google it", and try to provide better answers than a random search. Also, your answer doesn't seem very trustworthy. Do you really claim that all these thickeners can replace gelatin and even be considered "stronger"? At what concentration?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.254787 | 2011-01-07T19:06:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10833",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Annika Himola",
"Chef",
"Joe",
"Kay",
"Mark Walker",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Branski",
"Orbling",
"Sean Bradley",
"Tracey Steel",
"calico-cat",
"david",
"deva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justin",
"lemontwist",
"polve",
"rumtscho",
"user98873"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
128570 | What is going on with these avocados?
I recently cut open an entire bag of avocados to find that all of them were browning inside, in a pattern of veins of brown/black running through the fruit's flesh. You can especially see this in the cross-section of the avocados in the middle of the picture.
I know that avocados oxidize and turn brown, and that there is nothing harmful about this and you can still eat oxidized avocados just fine. Other people have asked about this and there is a type of oxidization that can happen as a pattern of veins, but I've never seen it this bad: thick, dark, and in particular with empty spaces opening up in the middle of the brown sections. It seems to me like there might be a different or additional phenomenon at play here.
Is it a mold or a fungus, or just the natural extension of the oxidization and browning?
In particular, I'm wondering - is it contagious from avocado to avocado? Maybe I could have saved most of the bag if I had found the bad one(s) early on?
Does this answer your question? have these avocados gone bad?
They have just gotten too old/ripe and have rotted. You said they were in a bag - was it plastic? If so, the humidity in the bag may have sped up the process. This page has some relevant info
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.255311 | 2024-06-15T13:21:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128570",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52187 | Consistently getting cannoli shells off their molds easily
When I fry cannoli shells, I find that about a quarter of them -- apparently at random -- stick to their molds so that they are hard or impossible to remove without breaking.
The two tactics I use to combat this -- which do make a difference, but not 100% -- are to spray the molds fairly heavily with vegetable oil before wrapping the sheets, and to wrap loosely. I don't roll the sheet tightly around the mold.
When unmolding, I've found it best to wait until the shells are completely cool. Then, for the ones that stick, gripping the shell (as firmly as possible without immediately shattering it) and gently twisting either it or the mold often helps it break free. Sometimes the shell is damaged in the process, though, and sometimes it won't come off at all without being smashed.
The dough is made with vegetable shortening (lard isn't an option, unfortunately: they need to be vegetarian), all-purpose flour, wine, and sugar, and rolled out to translucency on a pasta machine. I'm extremely happy with the product, but I'm open to changing the formulation if evidence suggests that e.g., there's too much moisture. (Although on that point, I've tried making the dough as dry as possible while still coming together, and it didn't seem to have an effect.)
What other possibilities am I missing? What can I do to make unmolding more reliable?
I don't make these, but the most similar thing I do make ("rosette" cookies fried on a mold) suggest possibly preheating the mold in the fryer, and unmolding hot (even though your experience is unmolding cold is better) - when unmolding hot, there's a little flexibility left in the fried product - once cold, it's brittle. This recipe/method does not preheat, but does unmold hot: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alexandra-guarnaschelli/homemade-cannoli-recipe.html
Thanks for the info, @Ecnerwal; I can't see myself trying to wrap the dough around a hot mold, but I will definitely take a look at that article.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. I've found that simply increasing the amount of oil on the molds makes the shells slip off cleanly every time.
There needs to be a visibly thick layer of oil on the parts of the mold that the sheet touches. I've taken to using pourable vegetable (canola) oil rather than spray. I have the molds in a pan, pour the oil over them, and then take care to roll each mold in the oil to coat it thoroughly before wrapping a sheet around it.
It's surprising to me that so much oil is required when the thing is about to be submerged in oil, but it does make a considerable difference, and doesn't seem to affect the texture of the shell.
I have found rubbing with butter works well,have tried cooking spray they still stick.
As always said everthing is better with butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.255434 | 2015-01-02T07:19:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52187",
"authors": [
"Cellar Cooler Ltd",
"Darlana Mayhle",
"Ecnerwal",
"STEPHEN McDOWELL",
"Sue Bebar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs"
],
"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
} |
17582 | How to salt and roast pistachios?
I have a bunch of raw pistachios, in their shells, and I want to roast them and also have them be lightly salted.
I presume I would do this in a conventional oven. I like to roast them a few pounds at a time.
At what temperature and for how long, and what is the best way to lightly salt them?
I have a perforated pizza pan which might be good for roasting them since it would allow air to flow around the pistachios, providing even heat.
To toast walnuts, pecans, pistachios, macadamias, and other nuts, follow the same procedure as for toasting almonds: spread them in a single layer on a baking pan. Bake at 325F (160 degr Celcius) until they are light brown and fragrant, about 5-10 minutes depending on the amount of nuts. Check the nuts frequently and stir them to ensure even toasting. Always cool your nuts before chopping them. Nuts have a great deal of oil that has been brought to surface by the heat, and the oil must be allowed to be reabsorbed, or the nuts could turn greasy during chopping.
(information found at: http://candy.about.com/od/nutcandy/a/nuts.htm)
In my limited experience, and I'm roasting these to be eaten whole, I want to let them cool a bit after roasting. When their still hot or too warm, I find that they don't have the crunch either. Letting them cool let's them get to that nice crunchy state.
If you don't chop them, the same recommendations would seem to fit. Always cool your nuts. (pause will the jr. high audience chuckles) This allows the oils to be 'reabsorbed'.
Oh, absolutely. I wasn't arguing with that point about the oils. Just adding that they seem to get crunchier as they cool a bit. And I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to add additional double entendres to this thread. Let me click Add Comment before I do.
The traditional Greek way of roasting pistachios--preferably the delicious and uniquely flavored pistachios from the island of Aegina--is to soak them in a brine where some citric acid (or lemon juice) has been added. In a large bowl I add a pound of pistachios, a cup of water, two teaspoons of salt and one teaspoon of citric acid. Over the course of a day, I periodically stir the nuts in this tangy brine at the bottom of the bowl. The second day I spread them on a baking sheet and let any remaining liquid be absorbed or evaporate. Bake at 350 F (180 degr Celcius) for about 12 minutes. Let cool completely before transferring them into a large lidded jar.
This identical recipe may be used for almonds as well. Delicious!
To get the salty effect you're looking for, soak the pistachios in a brine before roasting.
That's what I've done in the past, but honestly thought that I might be doing a disservice to the nuts by soaking them in water. But it seemed to be the best way to get salt in and around the nut, with the partially opened shells without putting too much salt on them. Thanks for confirming with your tip.
I don't salt mine, but I saute them in a Stainless Steel pan over medium high heat and stir them or toss them frequently for about 5 minutes until they are browned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.255703 | 2011-09-08T20:26:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17582",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Amos",
"Cos Callis",
"DDennisM",
"Fauxcuss",
"Jodean Hall-Hawkins",
"Ken Woytisek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"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
} |
22225 | How should I clean, or care for, a banneton (brotform, proofing basket)?
How should I care for a rattan (cane) banneton? It would seem that washing it in water would eventually warp or ruin the basket since the wood can easily absorb moisture. I've seen people suggest that a quick washing is OK, but it still feels like the wrong thing to do if I want to prolong the life of the basket.
I usually just tap out any loose flour and store it. Some people are concerned about bacteria, but if used regularly, I don't see it as too much of a concern.
If one makes too wet a dough, it's possible that it could stick to the banneton and make a good mess.
A stiff brush and a set out in bright sun is about all I've felt the need to do with mine.
Normally I'll just tap out any extra flour.
If I've got a dough that sticks (like last night when I didn't flour enough), then I just take a stiff brush and get all the bits off.
If they do get a bit wet, dry them with a towel and then in a warm oven.
If I think there's been enough moisture to be concerned about something growing, I'll set it in bright sun (or my UV exposure box). Strong UV is a good inhibitor for much of that.
if nylon-bristle brush still leaves a bit in the cracks, try a thin plastic dough scraper (old CC in a pinch).
I keep mine in the freezer when not in use. This would eliminate the concern about bacteria and keeps it dry and handy for use. When you take it out, give it a tap over the sink and most old flour bits fall off as they have been frozen.
Now that this answer was edited, it's an interesting approach. Assuming that people have room in their freezers. Thanks for the suggestions.
Note—Though freezing will stop bacterial growth, it will not kill the bacteria; that’s why bio labs store microorganisms long term in deep freeze (think CDC).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.255986 | 2012-03-12T21:35:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22225",
"authors": [
"Fauxcuss",
"Pat Sommer",
"Paul Tanenbaum",
"Syntax Junkie",
"coner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83621",
"tunc",
"user60571"
],
"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
} |
62786 | What does it mean for a flour to be "strong" or "reinforced"?
When describing flour, I sometimes see people comparing flours and saying that one is strong or stronger than another.
I also see flours that claim to be reinforced such as the Antimo Caputo 00 Rinforzato, where Rinforzato = Reinforced.
I had my own idea of what it meant, thinking it had something to do with higher gluten content, but right now, I'm not sure if that is correct.
I've always understood 'strong flour' to mean bread flour ... something that'll develop good gluten, unlike a 'soft' flour (pastry or cake flour). I've never heard of 'reinforced' flour.
Although, now that I think about it ... there's 'vital wheat gluten' .. maybe it's flour that has extra gluten mixed in?
The two aren't necessarily the same thing; "strong" is used in many places and while "rinforzato" seems to be associated specifically with that brand of flour.
I believe a straight translation of rinforzato from Italian yields "reinforced". Of course, something that is reinforced can be thought of as "strong". I agree that it's possible that they are not necessarily the same thing, but then again, it may be.
Strong flour does mean higher gluten flour. I can't really find much info out about the Rinforzato flour. My guess would be that that could mean "enriched" but since another question (Red and blue Antimo Caputo 00 flour) seems to indicate that it has higher protein, it may just have some added vital wheat gluten to make it stronger.
The bag says "Ingredients: Soft White Wheat". It does not indicate any other ingredients. Enriched means that nutrients are added back in (vitamins and minerals) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_flour.
The ingredient list does not indicate that Vital Wheat Gluten is added into the flour, but certain strains of soft white white with higher gluten content could be used in the Rinforzato.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.256172 | 2015-10-24T19:07:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62786",
"authors": [
"Autumn Kemp",
"Barbara Remillard",
"Bethany Audette",
"Cascabel",
"Fauxcuss",
"Joe",
"Wesley Morris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"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
} |
15012 | Identifying Strands of Dough
I'm trying to write up a how-to guide for braiding six strands of dough.
I figured that for comprehension I would instruct the cook to move the pieces of dough based on a color-coding scheme. E.g. I would say place the black strand between the blue and green strands.
However, in order to identify which strand is which, I need food-safe colored items that can be stuck into the ends of each strand of dough [to be removed after braiding is complete]. What are some items that can fit this purpose?
wooden toothpicks with colored ends, like the kind at cocktail parties? (like these? http://tinyurl.com/3pjf4kx)
I guess glass marbles would be safe enough as long you don't forget to remove them!
I don't think identifying strands to move (and where to move them) by colour is a good way to go. It'll get too confusing to say "Put the red one across all the others so it's to the right of the orange one, then put the blue one between the yellow and purple, then put the orange one across all the others so it's next to the green one, then put the red one between the yellow and blue, ..."
Use colours like this page to show what to do, but if someone can do a basic three-strand braid, they can easily learn to do 6 strands.
If you writing up a guide, you don't actually need to do that, just edit your photos in GIMP or Photoshop to add markers as needed (if its a video, you can edit that too, though its more time-consuming). You can also do something that'll be friendly to the colorblind, like put numbers on them as well.
You could also use food colors, I guess, though kneading it in would be somewhat messy (and you'd have to handle the dough as six separate doughs). Would certainly produce a weird-looking bread at the end!
I think you misunderstood my question. I'm trying to find something to for the reader to use, not just me
@yydl: OK, then my suggestions won't work. I'm leaving my answer here in case someone else comes by (who just wants to do something similar, but doesn't need his readers to do so as well). I'd go with toothpicks, then; but I'd put numbered tags on them (possibly in addition to colors), to avoid problems with colorblindness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.256347 | 2011-05-24T23:00:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15012",
"authors": [
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6252",
"yydl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15970 | There a Difference between Chinese parsley and cilantro
Is there a difference between the two? It looks almost like cilantro?
It is just another name for cilantro AKA coriander, Latin name coriandrum sativum. There is another herb also labelled "Chinese Parsley," but it does NOT resemble cilantro. This herb is Salt Helioptrope, Latin name Heliotropium curassavicum.
See the picture below for comparison to cilantro:
And coriander looks like this... http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominiqueb/3826070761/sizes/z/in/photostream/
Sorry, the picture IS NOT Chinese Parsley.
The weblink below shows the difference between Chinese Parsley and Corriander (cilantro).
Chinese Parsley leaves are more pointy, compared to Cilantro leaves which are rounded.
http://tsgcookingschool.com/2015/04/difference-between-chinese-parsley-coriander/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.256539 | 2011-07-06T01:53:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15970",
"authors": [
"A.D.",
"Chase",
"Matthew",
"Rubidium 37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"ibrabeicker",
"kenn",
"notthetup"
],
"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
} |
16040 | How long should you cook lamb steaks?
I saw some posts about lamb. but they were related to lamb leg steaks, etc.
Any way, how long should i grill these lamb steaks?
I want them to be a medium? Or should they be served rare (i'm not sure how they're typically served in restaurants) ?
They're about 1/2" thick and they're (two) both about 0.7 lbs each.
Lamb is medium at 55°C, and you can eat it rarer than that if you want to. I have no idea about the time your steaks will need to reach it, I roast my meat by the thermometer, not by the clock. Read this article about good lamb: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/the-food-lab-perfect-rack-of-lamb.html
I think they usually make them medium at the restaurants, but you could get rare if you like.
Anyway, with a .7 pound lamb, you could probably warm the oven up at 120C for 10 minutes, then put in the lamb, and turn the thermometer up to 180C for round about half an hour, and it should done to a turn.
Leastways, that's what I did.
FWIW in France you get odd looks when you order your lamb medium. Don’t try it. In fact, once the cook flat-out ignored my request and got served a rare chop (“rosé”) with apologies from the waiter. I was grateful afterwards.
While lamb's flavor is distinctive from beef, I find that using the internal temperature and cooking durations for beef to work well for lamb.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.256654 | 2011-07-09T00:03:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16040",
"authors": [
"George Ushan",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"dinesh",
"gramma shirley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19150 | What is in eel sauce?
I've always love eating this dark eel sauce that goes with eel rolls at our favorite sushi restaurants. It's got a dark color it's sweet, a little salty, and slightly savory.
What is in eel sauce? What makes it sweet and so concentrated with flavor? Also, why is it called eel sauce?
Components:
sweet -> sugar+mirin (rice wine)
salt -> soy
savory -> soy+mirin+eel bones
At home, you probably won't be able to manage eel bones boiled down into stock. Ignoring that, it's all a matter of mixing and reducing.
Sugar+soy+mirin, reduce to 1/3, revel in the joy of caramel and salt and sharpness.
You could also just reduce teriyaki or tempura sauce if you have them lying around - they're all pretty similar in taste, minus the eel bones.
You could also possibly add some powdered dashi stock, for savory - it's not eel but it is made from fish and tends to add an umami flavor.
@TheDude I edited the answer to reflect this.
The preparation is called Kabayaki, hence the Eel sauce is also called Kabayaki sauce.
Ingredients list:
Hon Mirin: Alcohol & sweetness
Naturally fermented soy sauce: Umami & saltiness
Eel / fish bones: flavour(smell)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.256801 | 2011-11-26T03:25:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19150",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Billie F.",
"Chefxtian",
"Dave Zych",
"Lewis Hall",
"Lisa Beck",
"Preston",
"Yamikuronue",
"curt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15995 | Storing Green Onions?
What is the proper method to store green onions? Additionally, how long can it be stored in the chill chest?
Whatever you do, don't forget to toss the roots in a container or jar with fresh water -- they'll grow back 1-2 times, depending on how vigilant you are with keeping the water clean.
The easiest thing to do is to chop them up, and preserve them in an acidic solution that you allow to ferment a little. Then, just keep it in the fridge as long as you like. Additionally, the onions will become tastier, easier to digest and will have an improved nutritional profile.
The acidic solution can be any mixture of water with salt, sugar, vinegar, spices, whey, yogurt, wine, beer, lemon juice, etc...The options are endless. This is called your brine and people have been using this method of preservation for millions of years.
As far as storing fresh onions, your best bet is to keep them in the refrigerator's crisper drawer which helps keep vegetables fresher longer.
I wash them and take off the outer skin part and cut off the roots, of course. I chop them into half inch pieces. Put them in a tupperware with a paper towel underneath. Put the lid on and put them in the fridge. Keep it loose, don't stuff them in there. I sprinkle them on everything I eat. Change your paper towel if it gets moist.
You can plant green onions all year, from seed. Just find a spot and plant the seeds. They winter over and if you plant them at different times you will have green onions all year long. Any pot will do also, put a dozen in with your geraniums or other pots.
I wrap them in some paper towel, and then put them back in the bag I bought them in. Then, put them in the crisper drawer. Most herbs tend to last longer for me like that.
agreed ... I can get a week out of leafy herbs this way, and even longer out of hertier herbs such as green onions.
Lately I have been putting them in a glass with an inch or so of water in it, loosely covering them with a plastic bag, and putting them upright on a shelf in my fridge. I've found that they can easily stay fresh this way for a week or two provided I change the water sometimes (or add more when necessary) and occasionally shake out any condensation that may accumulate on the bag.
Have you ever tried dehydration method of preserving herbs?
Green onions don't lose their flavour and colour if dried properly, and they last for long time if stored properly in airtight container.
Try drying them even if you don't own a dehydrator it is simple. Just chop them up in cubes, put some baking paper on a tray, spread the chopped pieces on the paper and let them in an oven with its fan turned on. Or simply leave the tray in cool corner of your kitchen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.257046 | 2011-07-07T02:09:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15995",
"authors": [
"0x2b3bfa0",
"Dave",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9721",
"kim",
"logen",
"maureen",
"stevvve"
],
"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
} |
32689 | Why does melted asiago impart a strong numbing mouthfeel?
I've put asiago in a couple dishes as of late (mac and cheese as well as a risotto) and always tend to get a strong taste accompanied by an almost ... numbing sensation in the mouth. Is this normal of asiago?
I've never experienced this. Could you have a mild allergy maybe?
Perhaps you are experiencing and allergic reaction.
I got a numb palate and lips from eating sourdough with generous flour on the outside, never had that before. On googling this, it seems it's a form of intolerance. Dry flour baked on a loaf is not the usual way to ingest wheat, and there was a lot of it! Glutens and gliadins in wheat, casein in milk products as well as many other proteins can react with sensitive skin like the mouth.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We avoid health-related topics on our site because our area of expertise is cooking, not medicine. I do agree that an allergic reaction may be involved here, but we are not in a position to judge how serious it may be. Please check out our FAQ if you want to learn more about how our site works: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq
For what it's worth, there are some foods that do cause numbness or tingling on your tongue (like Sichuan pepper) but I don't think asiago is anything like that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.257293 | 2013-03-15T01:58:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32689",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DeathOfTime",
"Preston",
"Stephen Surls",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75573",
"marregrande",
"user11490922",
"user75573"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19207 | Sesame soy vinegarette
There is a restaurant called Merci Mon Ami in Toronto and they had a really good salad dressing. I don't live in the area anymore, so I want to try to make it myself.
The only thing I know about it is really just the name. It was a bit sweet and tangy. I don't think it had soy sauce in it, because it was light in color (gold). So, I am guessing soy is referring to soybean oil? So, my best guess is toasted sesame seed oil, soybean oil, and some kind of vinegar and possibly honey (sugar?). I would appreciate any suggestions.
If the oil and vinegar don't separate, you also need an emulsifier. Many vinaigrettes use mustard, try to remember if it was in the taste profile. If not, you will have to use an additive.
When you are making a vinaigrette you essentially make an emulsion from a liquid and an oil. That this liquid is also acidic does help with the formation of the emulsion and does wonders for the taste, but is not necessary.
The reason I am mentioning this is that emulsions look a lot like long chains of lipids under the microscope, held together by the emulsifier, and keeping the liquid in place. That does a number on the refraction of light and might make your, generally rather dark-ish, soy look golden in the process. Not all soy oil (as opposed to soy sauce) is black, by the way, the taste of soy in oil can be even stronger than that in sauces.
Lastly, if the recipe is anything like the soy vinaigrettes I have done, it's 6 tablespoons of mirin to a cup of tamari, three tablespoons of sugar, four tablespoons of rice vinegar (the unseasoned kind), and a tablespoon of fresh lemon juice. Sometimes I substitute half the honey for the sugar part, since honey is an effective emulsifier above and beyond the tamari.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.257439 | 2011-11-29T03:53:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19207",
"authors": [
"Vincent Carril",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"pmackay",
"rumtscho",
"user1824987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19239 | How do I scale serrano chile?
I'm following a recipe that calls for 2 chiles serranos and serves 6. The dish is not hot/spicy at all, and I wouldn't want to lose this when scaling.
I need to scale by 6, and the dish should serve about 36 persons. Should I now use 12 chiles serranos?
They will be cooked with the rest of the ingredients, adding some flavour. Unless I'm missing something about this recipe, you are not supposed to eat the chiles!
This is the recipe I'm following. It's from a Diana Kennedy book.
I don't want the dish to become super hot!!!
I would follow the age-old cooking rule that says you can always add, but you can never take away. In other words, I'd add, say, 6 chillis, see how that tasted, and add more if you think it needs it.
This is important with chilies as they can vary considerable from batch to batch.
@dmckee: But the variance will be reduced in larger quantities. If it's been not-spicy with two chiles several times, surely that's enough data to be confident it won't when scaled up. Also, in this case, you can't add. The chiles are being used mostly for the flavor; they're whole so the seeds and membrane aren't exposed to the dish, and the flavor comes out as they cook for half an hour.
@Jefromi In some chilies a substantial part of the variance derives from the conditions the plant was subjected to while growing. This can result in whole crops being unusually hot or mild. This is a big deal in New Mexico, where a dry year implies scorching hot chilies. I suppose that commercially provided chilies may come from mixed crops, but I wouldn't count on it.
I don't really understand why you think it'd get hotter if you scale the serranos the same as everything else. You certainly could play it safe by starting with less, but given the recipe, you wouldn't be able to add more in later. I would definitely use 12, so that you get as much of their flavor as you do in your normal-sized recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.257612 | 2011-11-30T06:54:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19239",
"authors": [
"Azure",
"Cascabel",
"Felipe Skinner",
"Harlan Nelson",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41875"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19301 | How do I optimize my chicken stock for the best flavor at the lowest cost?
I want to make amazing chicken stock, but I want to spend less doing it than I have in the past while still buying "natural" or "organic" chicken parts.
I have made stock in the past following America's Test Kitchen's recipes, which call for cleaved up legs. While legs are among the cheapest cuts of chicken meat, I know this can be done for cheaper and with less wastage (I don't want to toss meat nor make chicken salad).
Using just legs makes for a thin flavor. Just chicken backs taste like Campbell's. My favorite so far was half backs and half necks. I also try to sauté everything beforehand to add some roasted flavor.
What combinations work best for you? Wing tips? Backs? Necks? Is it worth it to include a more expensive cut in the mix? And can you qualify the differences?
NOTE: I'm not looking for recipes so much as which cuts to use.
I buy chicken backs at what's normally a pretty expensive grocery store for $1/lb. I've also asked a neighborhood poultry butcher for chicken scraps for stock, though I never actually looked at what they charged me.
Chicken stock (or any stock) is made from bones; that generally means backs, necks, and carcasses - which are generally the cheapest "cuts" because they have almost no meat and aren't useful for much else. Sometimes, if you approach a butcher with high turnaround, you can get them at a steep discount, well under $0.50/kg, because they just end up throwing most of it out.
If you add any meat whatsoever then you are essentially making a broth, not a stock. I repeat, stock is just bones, simmered long enough to denature all or most of the collagen, usually no less than 8 hours.
I find that most people (myself included) prefer brown stocks, so roast them first. You can sauté, but it's not as effective as a slower roast because the heat doesn't really penetrate far inside the bones. It also helps to cleave the bones before simmering (after roasting) to expose the marrow; it makes for easier extraction, although some people don't like the marrow flavour as much.
The least expensive way to add more flavour is probably to add the dry stock mix or bouillon cubes filled with salt, MSG, and other flavour enhancers. Of course it won't really taste like a homemade stock if you do that. If you want a good stock then the traditional way to flavour it, which is also very inexpensive, is to use a mirepoix, which is just a 2:1:1 ratio of chopped onions, carrots, and celery. You add this about 1-2 hours before the stock is done and remove it before clarifying.
Going up the cost/taste scale is a bouquet garni, which, although the herbs that go into it can get fairly pricey, the amount you use is minuscule, so it costs practically nothing if you have other uses for the remainder of the herbs.
Don't even think about trying to put "expensive cuts" of meat into a stock to improve its flavour. You'll just be wasting the meat, which loses most of its flavour when boiled/simmered, and turning your stock into an unsalted broth, which makes it less versatile and generally perceived as blander.
Now if you want to make a soup with better cuts of meat, that's great; in that case, the texture matters, and I'll occasionally poach some boneless thigh or breast meat to use in a chicken soup (made from the aforementioned stock) for the sake of convenience. But I emphasize that this is done after the stock is made. The soup will also have other ingredients added such as chopped vegetables and of course plenty of salt.
Stock isn't supposed to have an exceptionally complex flavour, that's why it's called "stock" - it forms the base of other dishes such as soups, broths, or anything that calls for flavourful liquid (like a risotto). Focus on making a good clear stock from just bones and mirepoix; it gives the best result because you tweak it later according to how you use it, and it costs you almost nothing besides the energy it takes to keep the pot heated.
I didn't realize there was a difference between stock and broth. Now I must ponder which one I'm actually trying to optimize. Bravo, sir!
I've had no trouble going to my butcher and getting bags of chicken keels on the cheap, they're essentially leftover "garbage" from making boneless, skinless chicken breasts... but eminently suitable for stock-making.
Aaronut's answer is great. I have one thing to add for the budget-minded chicken broth maker. Costco now carries a 1lb (or close to it) jar of Better than Bouillon, the organic, reduced sodium variety. This product did very well in America's Test Kitchen taste test, about equivalent to Swanson's canned broth. It (like Swanson's) is pretty insipid by itself, but it works great to stretch or enrich homemade broth. I can't remember exactly what Costco charges, but it's less than the small jar at the supermarket.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.257803 | 2011-12-01T21:55:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19301",
"authors": [
"Becky Rimar",
"Chris Macksey",
"Det",
"Jayson Minard",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Robert Atkins",
"Taj Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91754",
"jalanb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105739 | My drink electrocuted me
I combined acacia gum, apple cider vinegar, l-glutamic acid, egg white protein, flaxseed oil, and blackberry / citrus selzer water in a closed container.... it electrocuted me when I tried to drink it! Why did this cooking reaction happen?
I researched hydrophilic and hydropholic reactions with seltzer water but I'm still confused.
What is your question?
Why did this cooking reaction take place?
First of all, electrocuted means injured or killed with electricity. We're you actually injured or just surprised? Secondly, even if you had made a chemical cocktail that could operate as a battery, drinking it wouldn't create a circuit that could shock you. Sounds to me like a fizzy, acidic drink that caught you off guard and kind of felt like a shock.
Maybe you were just charged by walking on a carpet (or wearing sweater) and when you touched glass the spark jumped. Happens all the time.
You should ask this in Chemistry SE
what was the container (material) ?
maybe this question was a post from the ghost
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.258189 | 2020-03-09T02:04:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105739",
"authors": [
"Croves",
"Max",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sobachatina",
"The Photon",
"dabdownforstackexchange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81585",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124876 | Bubbles/foam on refrigerated maple syrup - safe to eat?
There are bubbles/foam around the edge of my refrigerated maple syrup and I'm wondering if it's safe to eat. The maple syrup came from a can and was transferred into a dispenser like the one shown in the first photo maybe a week or two ago. The lid does not seal hermetically. The bubbles were not there when it was originally transferred.
Was the first picture intended? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with maple syrup. It also doesn't look like a quick snapshot from your own kitchen. How is it related to the question?
Perhaps the image was included to show which type of dispenser is being used, as the second image is a closeup of the bubbles which does not show the container.
@rumtscho I edited to clarify the purpose of the first image which is as IconDaemon said.
Assuming the can and the syrup were in good shape when opened, it's not going to mold in the refrigerator in a week's time.
Although you say the bubbles weren't there when transferred, do you just mean they weren't on top like this? Whenever I transfer syrup, I make lots of bubbles inside from the pour. In addition, many of the pour bubbles are tiny, so they rise very slowly (hours to days).
I think those are bubbles created from the transfer that took a few days to reach the top. Surface tension holds them to the side of the container. Unless there were some other oddity (changed color, changed smell, changed taste), nothing in that photo worries me.
Do you have anything else in your refrigerator that would cause the maple syrup to be unsafe to eat? Unless you're putting raw chicken above your unsealed jar of maple syrup, or you have a serious mold problem, there is no reason why the syrup would be unsafe to eat.
As to why the bubbles formed in the first case, I would guess a combination of quarague's and BowlOfRed's answers: When the syrup was transferred, a bunch of tiny tiny bubbles were created. They slowly merged and floated up, and then in the refrigerator the liquid and sugar on the bubbles froze or crystalized giving you spheres of air coated in sugar.
Additionally, molds that do grow on maple syrup are non-toxic and can easily be removed. Simply inspect the surface of the syrup for strange floating substances, remove them, and transfer the syrup to a clean container.
Check how solid these bubbles are. Maple sirup is essentially made of sugar and water. My guess would be that a little bit of water evaporated and the bubbles are mostly sugar crystals. In that case the bubbles would feel relatively hard and crunchy (so very different from for example soap foam). Similar effects can also happen in liquid honey, part of the sugar just crystallizes. If this is the case this is totally harmless and safe to eat.
Sorry, are you saying that bubbles of steam spontaneously formed in the interior of the maple syrup? Why would they do that?
@Sneftel If the bubbles spontaneously formed when pouring, this would disprove my guess. OP just wrote the bubbles weren't there when they put the maple sirup into the container. If my guess is true the bubbles would have formed gradually over the week the maple sirup was in the fridge.
But why would they form at all? The OP's question was why there are bubbles and whether they indicate an unsafe condition. I can think of a few theories, but "spontaneous boiling" isn't one of the top ones.
@Sneftel there is neither sponteneous nor boiling. One of the ways the bubbles could have formed is through water evaporation and sugar crystalization. This is easy to check. If this is the case the bubbles are harmless.
That's not how evaporation works. Evaporation only occurs at the surface of the liquid, so it cannot form bubbles.
This answer doesn't make sense I'm afraid.
I agree with this answer, that looks exactly like solid sugar crystalized around little round voids that were once bubbles. I have seen identical sugar crystals in jars of honey and on the wall of a pot while making candy. I think the critical folks are a bit too focused on how the bubbles themselves formed - bubbles appear in syrup during normal use. The main thing in my mind is that those are clearly solid sugar crystals in the picture.
@MackM "How the bubbles formed" is the OP's question, in the sense that it determines whether the syrup is safe to eat. "Are the bubbles crystallized" is not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.258327 | 2023-08-02T18:13:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124876",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"IconDaemon",
"MackM",
"MarcGuay",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81810",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115863 | Does the inside of a lid used to cook rice or steam vegetables have anything besides water on it?
After cooking rice or steaming vegetables the inside of the lid used to cover the pot has water droplets on it - is it just water or do elements of the food make the lid "dirty" and require washing?
Edit: I should have mentioned the assumption that the food has not made contact with the lid and that if the lid is removed after cooking and placed on the counter, the next day it has no visible residue on it.
I feel like this question was posted by my kids, trying to get out of washing an extra dish.
Easy test: do you smell something during cooking? If yes, that means some volatile compounds have been removed from the food and transported by the steam, and are very likely to be deposited (in trace amount) on the lid. My guess is that for both, you can smell something while it's cooking.
Most likely yes, it has stuff besides water. Although I wouldn't lay my hand in the fire that it has it every single time.
The first scenario is the bubbling from starchy water, as Chris H already explained. This is not ruled out by "the assumption that the food has not made contact with the lid", since here it is the cooking water that makes contact with the lid, not the food pieces, and while it doesn't happen every time, you cannot tell that it hasn't happened when you lift the lid.
The second scenario is the steamed vegetables. The first suspect would be matter on the vegetable skins. Even if you are very thorough in washing, you probably won't remove all traces of whatever clings to them, be it dirt or the vegetables' own waxes. But even without this stuff on the outside, plant matter is perfectly distillable, that's how we get essential oils and many alcoholic beverages. Even if you steam whole vegetables with intact skin, the cooking process itself is sufficient to damage the cell walls and stuff starts coming in contact with the steaming water. Some of it is part of the water that condenses and drops down to the bottom (have you ever noticed that the water is green after steaming spinach or broccoli?) and some of it is dissolved into the water that becomes steam and starts clinging to the lid.
Even if you cannot see any residue visually (which is a rare case), there is probably stuff deposited there that is not water.
Starchy foods, like rice, tend to bubble and splash. They will get starch on the inside of the lid. If you don't let it dry out, you might decide a quick rinse is sufficient, but if it dries it will probably need a proper wash to remove the starch.
Steaming is more interesting. There shouldn't be any splashing above the level of the food, so it should just be clean water on there. I'd rinse it before drying and putting away.
That's a minimum; I would just put mine in the dishwasher; there's often a space when it's otherwise full that wouldn't be much use for something really dirty.
If I forget to drop my clear glass lid in water & instead let it dry out, it's covered in pale white-ish residue. I'd definitely clean it specifically, even after steaming.
@Tetsujin if washing up by hand, I'd rinse it in the water I need to run before the hot comes through (it's a long pipe). In practice it just goes in the dishwasher.
Most of mine get washed by hand - often the next day ;) Rice & veg lids definitely aren't 'clean' though after use, even if it was just a steamer.
Thanks for your answer. I should have added the assumption that the food itself has not made direct contact with the lid. If I remove them after using and simply place them on the counter, the next morning there is no residue on them, leading me to believe it was simply water.
Also: foods cooked in oil, or an oil/water mixture, tend to throw droplets of oil onto the lid.
@FuzzyChef I can't read oil into the question though
Yeah, that's why it's just a comment.
Yes. My rice cooker has an internal removable plate located in the flip-up lid. It always ends up with something slimy on it, detectable by touch. I definitely would not put the cooker back in the cabinet without washing the plate (same story with the little moisture trap on the back). Also there is some kind of flexible gasket inside the top lid that accumulates moisture; I wash this as well, but it already feels a bit slimy so I'm not sure it actually has additional deposits. Although given that the above-mentioned plate is immediately adjacent it seems like a reasonable guess.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.258690 | 2021-05-28T14:10:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115863",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"MarcGuay",
"Najkin",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89704",
"miken32"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107328 | Ciabatta with no air bubbles
My first time making Ciabatta...
Any ideas why my ciabatta is lacking air bubbles? It tastes nice and light.
It also didn’t rise as much as I’d expected.
I proofed airtight for 90 minutes then open air on a baking sheet for about 35 minutes.
I did notice the initial mix was really wet. Maybe a tad too much water I’m thinking?
Edit:
Recipe - I halved it and followed it exactly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/easy_ciabatta_98431
Ciabatta is supposed to be very wet, and stay very wet as well. It's also very sensitive to rough treatment once proofed, if you could edit and add details on the recipe and method you used we may be able to help. Did you add more flour than the recipe said?
Edited. I followed the recipe exactly for half the yield.
Hmmm. The recipes I’ve used in the past have started with a biga, rested overnight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biga_(bread_baking)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.259087 | 2020-04-06T04:33:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107328",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83171",
"justin️"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108787 | What type of chocolate is used for molding?
I failed to melt chocolate bars in order to make chocolates in mold. I tried twice using water bath and microwave but it wasn't as runny as I had expected but much like paste. When I continued heating it, it was broken, becoming like cookies dough.
Was it due to the type of chocolate I used?
By the way, what should I do with broken chocolate?
Thank you for your help.
Most chocolate bars should melt fine. There could be several things wrong with 'broken' chocolate, such as accidentally getting water in the chocolate, or overheating it. It will be hard to tell without pictures or more details about your method (for example, how long and at what setting did you microwave the chocolate).
please see my comment below. I doubt the type of chocolate because when I replaced with couverture chocolate (more expensive brand) it worked perfectly fine.
The dough-like texture you mention makes it sound like you burned your chocolate. Remember, a bar of chocolate will melt in your pocket so it really doesn't require much heat to melt.
To use a microwave, break the chocolate into small pieces and stir every 30 seconds even if the chocolate is still solid since the microwave will heat the pieces unevenly; it shouldn't take more than about 90 seconds in total.
Using a water bath, make sure that the bowl is not in contact with the boiling water (to be honest once the water has boiled you should be fine leaving the bowl in place and taking it off the heat, letting the residual heat warm the chocolate).
Additionally, I would recommend 'How to Cook That' and its YouTube channel for good clear videos about how to melt and then use chocolate. In particular if you want to mould your chocolate you will need to learn about tempering it, and the guide on that YouTube channel is comprehensive and reliable.
Personally, I don't think it was burned because it was not grainy at all and was perfectly fine when I added cream or butter to make ganache. I also didn't heat it all the way, just little by little, take it out and stir every 10 seconds
I doubt the type of chocolate because when I replaced with couverture chocolate (more expensive brand) it worked perfectly fine.
Normally, couverture chocolate (real chocolate) is used for molding. However, I've actually seen compound chocolate (once) successfully used for moulding too.
Regarding what happened to you, there's the possibility that 1) water/steam got into the chocolate while melting, causing it to "seize" (check the internet for "seized chocolate" 2) you were using compound/imitation chocolate (basically cocoa powder mixed with some vegetable oil) 3) overheating (chocolate should not be heated above 50 C. In my case, I normally just heat chocolate to around 45 C) or 4) a combination of the above.
Broken or seized chocolate can still be used for baking and other such recipes.
Note on why couverture chocolate (more expensive) is different from compound (cheaper) chocolate:
Compound chocolate is basically imitation chocolate. It's basically cocoa powder mixed with some form of vegetable fat (palm oil, vegetable oil, etc). Couverture chocolate however is made from cocoa/cacao beans and cocoa butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.259307 | 2020-06-01T20:33:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108787",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"Nguyen Ngoc Long",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84032"
],
"all_licenses": [
"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.