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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
48933 | Are beets related to turnips?
We recently made fresh beets, which was a new experience for me, and I was surprised to discover that a freshly cooked fresh beet tastes quite like a similarly cooked turnip. Is there any connection between the two foods?
There is probably an earthiness and sweetness in both vegetables that makes them similar when cooked.
Not quite an answer to the question but there is a pickle called lefet very common in the Middle East made of turnips pickled with a beetroot. The beetroot changes the colour of the turnips to a bright pink colour. It's served as a condiment and is very common in falafel sandwiches.
From a scientific standpoint they are not closely related. They aren't even in the same order. Beets are order Caryophyllales and Turnips are order Brassicales.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.324273 | 2014-10-14T19:26:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48933",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Kreinbihl",
"Dennis Carillo",
"Jeffrey Logan",
"Max",
"NRaf",
"Raven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46564 | Do I have to wait for frozen steak to defrost?
If I have several frozen steaks I wish to cook (and eat) is there some easier way to do so than by just waiting for them to defrost?
You can cook steaks from frozen, it is just a matter of adjusting cooking times.
They will take longer to cook. But you have saved several hours in defrost time.
I take my frozen steaks and sear on both sides, then finish them off in the oven for about 16 mins depending on cut, or with a thicker cut for about 18 to 20 mins.
America's Test Kitchen has experimented with this idea and says that the steaks taste better cooked from frozen (see here on youtube).
I have to watch the temperature otherwise the steak might get a little tough, but I always preheat the oven. For me, 180 °C.
Great, great video! +1 Excellent advice on the freezing technique, watch the video all the way through, folks.
Great video indeed. A few things I noted. 1. They have perfect cuts of beef. 2. They are measuring the inner temperature in the oven, accounting for resting. This is not your average dinner procedure.
That surprises me; i'll have to watch that when I'm at home. The big risk of cooking from frozen, if I recall correctly, is that due to the temperature differential they'll overcook on the outside before the inside is correctly cooked more so than usual - this is why it is recommended to bring your steaks out of the fridge for half an hour or so to let them come up closer to room temperature (though I've always thought that was a bit silly, since it's only 25% of the temperature difference at best).
I just followed the instructions on the video (including freezing technique) for an inch thick sirloin. At 18 minutes (+7 minutes to rest), the steak was perfect for me, which would be a bit rare for most. I used a 275F (135C) oven. I can now get the family pack of steaks and actually use them up! YAY!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.324386 | 2014-08-21T14:18:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46564",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Denise Madison",
"Joanne Rickenbach",
"Joe M",
"Jolenealaska",
"S Jackson",
"Sue Grey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"kisha m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46612 | Measurement for 3 sheets of crushed graham cracker
My receipe calls for 3 sheets of crushed graham cracker. I bought pre-crushed graham cracker. What is the cup measurement for 3 crushed sheets?
Jefromi answered this related question How much is a cup of graham cracker crumbs in crackers and weight? with the information that there are 7 or 8 crushed crackers in a cup. So, 3 crackers would be about .4 cup crushed.
I'm closing as a duplicate, because there is really no sense in answering it for 1 cup, 2 cups, 3 cups... etc. once the ratio has been established.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.324577 | 2014-08-23T23:24:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46612",
"authors": [
"Jaime Ayala",
"Michael Phokungoane",
"Phil Jones",
"Sonyia Woolnough",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"winston white"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49746 | Sous Vide Pork Butt Char Siew (Chinese BBQ)
I want to make Char Siew (Chinese BBQ pork). I also want to try it sous vide up to medium rare, then finished under the broiler to get that nice caramelized outside while basting. This way it ends up medium. My question is, I'm using pork butt, but it's pork butt that I've broken down into long strips about 4" wide and 1.5" thick. I was planning to cook these about 2.5-3 hours in the water bath at 135 degrees Fahrenheit.
Is this not long enough for this cut of meat, even at this thickness?
My main concern is safety, but I also want the meat to have enough of the fat rendered and meat at least somewhat tender.
How much tendon/sinew/grizzly bits are there?
pork butt is pretty tough meat. you might consider something more like 12-72 hours (no typo), as if it were short ribs
If you're concerned about safety, then 135 degrees is definitely not "safe". The FDA recommends pork be cooked to 145 degrees farenheit, and due to the law of thermodynamics your pork will never reach that temperature. You'd need to make sure that your broiling would finish cooking your pork to a safe temperature. Of course, the FDA guidelines always err on the side of caution, but it all depends on what you're looking for when you mean "safe" :). However, according to this site (http://www.sousvidesupreme.com/en-us/sousvide_cookingtemperatures.htm), your alloted time seems safe. The nice thing about sous vide is, as long as there are no hotspots, your meat will only ever reach the temperature of the water (135), and so won't overcook, so you can err on the side of caution
Another concern I have is, at this temperature the fat will not be able to render out properly at this temperature/time. Not a huge problem, but perhaps a problem nonetheless.
Lastly, the best part of char siu is the wonderful smokey flavour and the glaze you get from grilling it for an extended period and basting repeatedly. I'm not sure how successful doing this at the end with just a broiler would be.
However, I will say I've never tried making char-siu this way, and these thoughts are only based on my own experience, so I would be very interested to hear how this turns out!
safety for pork means killing trichinellosis worms: 145F at the center, or 20 days in the freezer. http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/trichinellosis/gen_info/faqs.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.324665 | 2014-11-13T20:34:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49746",
"authors": [
"Joan Everitt",
"Lisa Nelson",
"Ming",
"Richard Senez",
"Tommy Cohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"rbp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49438 | Baker's Percentages for Baked Doughnuts?
I recently purchased an electric doughnut maker and am about to embark on a baked doughnut spree. Having consulted the few recipes included with the machine along with some online options, I have noticed considerable variation in the recommended batter composition. I was wondering if anyone has seen or established a reliable set of baker's percentages for baked doughnuts they could share.
The two most consistent ratios among the recipes I've seen are:
Flour - 100% (naturally)
Sugar - 50%
After that, all bets seem to be off:
Fat (some combination of butter/oil) - 20%-35%
Egg - 25%-35%
Liquid (some combination of milk/buttermilk/sour cream/yogurt) - 70%-80%
I'm not concerned with the salt, spice, and leavening amounts - I'm more interested in the variations of the ingredients that contribute significant weight to the recipes.
Aside from the King Arthur and Epicurious recipes I found, no other recipes were able to supply weights so the percentages I supplied above are mostly estimates based on the assumption of a 5 oz. cup of flour (which I know is not universally applicable). My guess is that, as with most quickbreads, the recipe is probably robust with the amounts supplied more likely to correspond to simple volumetric measures and whole egg inclusion rather than weights (I'm pretty sure that the King Arthur recipe is based on volumes and the weighted versions you can query online are just conversions to weight based on their own established system - for example, in King Arthur's world, a cup of flour always weighs 4.25 oz.).
Anyway, can anybody offer me a reliable set of baker's percentages or weights for baked doughnuts that you have tested personally? I like to have these things worked out before I try new things.
Given the lack of answers -- I would just note that after you asked your question a couple weeks ago, I did spend some time looking up doughnut formulas in at least a half dozen professional baking/pastry books (which are most likely to give baker's percentages). While I came up with quite a few formulas for standard fried doughnuts, I couldn't find a single baked doughnut recipe/formula in those sources. I'm not saying what you look for doesn't exist, but if the pros do this by weight, I assume they'd use a standard cake batter or quickbread formula/recipe.
Thank you very much for the input. I also checked a LOT of books and came to the conclusion that any doughnuts that are non-yeasted, non-cake, or non-fried are probably just considered "un-professional" - I prefer fried doughnuts too but they aren't practical on a small scale. I jumped-in anyway with 100% flour, 50% sugar, 80% buttermilk/sour cream, 25% egg, and 25% butter/oil with some baking powder, salt, and vanilla. Tasted great, but I always love to hear from people with more experience - hence my query. Thanks again.
Places I've worked that made baked donuts generally used either a muffin or poundcake recipe. The only thing that really differentiates baked donuts from any other small baked good is the shape, so any other quickbread recipe you like should work.
I'm a big doughnut fan. I've watched a lot of Unique Sweets episodes and it seems that the shops with the best doughnuts usually use a standard brioche recipe as it is rich in flavour, but also yeast risen... Thus it gives you the perfect texture and flacvour.
I wouldn't use ANY bread recipe that it measured in volume. Weight is far more accurate, especially for something with sensitive chemistry like bread.
Just the "measure by weight" alone deserves an upvote! Welcome to the site!
A brioche recipe might work for fried doughnuts, but if you used it for a baked doughnut, you'd end up with .... brioche. I would expect you'd have to go with something more cake-y for baking.
This is the ratio I am currently using after consulting the internet for recipes, a few experiments and comparing to my normal bread ratio.
Ratio
Bread flour (10) : Full cream milk + Egg (6) : Butter (1)
Weigh your eggs first, then weigh the milk to get the correct ratio.
E.g for 300g flour, 180g milk and egg (120g milk, 1 60g egg), 30g butter.
For 300g of bread flour, I use 2 tbsp of sugar and 2 tbsp of yeast.
Notes
The recipes I've found seem to vary a lot. Some use almost double the amount of butter, all seem to understate the amount of yeast needed. Some will use whole eggs, others 1 whole egg, then yolks only for 500g of flour.
Also, I have only tried this with just bread flour. I think a combination of bread and plain would give a better result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.324977 | 2014-11-01T19:51:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49438",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Daniel Boycott",
"Gennaro Transport Training",
"Joe",
"Paul Smith",
"SourDoh",
"Stephen Eure",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
48999 | Reliable Cookie-to-Butter Ratio for Crumb Crusts
I'm trying to find a general and reliable Cookie-to-Butter ratio (or weights) that I can use when I make crumb crusts for no-bake pies.
My old baking textbook, On Baking: A Textbook of Baking & Pastry Fundamentals (Third Edition) by Labensky, Martel & van Damme gives the ratios for a basic crumb crust as follows: 4 parts cookie crumbs to 2 parts sugar to 1 part melted butter. So, for a single 9" deep dish graham cracker pie crust, they recommend going with 8 oz. graham cracker crumbs + 4 ounces sugar + 2 oz. butter (blah, blah...food processor...pressed into the pie plate and baked at 350° F for 10-12 minutes).
OK, I have a few problems with those amounts: (1) 8 oz. of crumbs is WAY too much for a single pie crust (5-6 oz. is plenty), (2) using half as much sugar as crumbs is WAY too much sugar for my taste (I go with more like a quarter), & (3) I can never seem to get a crust to hold together with that amount of butter. Lately I've been going with 6 oz. cookie crumbs + 2 oz. sugar + 2.5 oz. melted butter - I'm pretty sure I can do better than that.
Ignoring my first two complaints - I can get the cookie and sugar amounts right w/o a problem - does anyone have a reliable Cookie-to-Butter ratio that works well for cookie crumb crusts in general? I don't want links to recipes (there are recipes out there with butter ranging from around 15% to nearly 60% of the cookie crumb weight), I want to hear from people who have had repeated success with specific crumb crust formularies (in weights, not volumes).
In a perfect world, I would love to hear of a trustworthy Cookie-to-Butter ratio that applies equally well to most cookie types (I almost never use graham crackers - I'm more of a Nilla Wafer and Animal Cracker kinda guy who dreams of one day branching out into ginger snap territory).
I'm with you: I've never understood why anyone would use a graham cracker crust when there are Nilla wafers available. I mean, as a make-do, I suppose graham cracker crusts are edible, but why would anyone ever make that their first choice?
I don't know that this is a perfect ratio, but I will say it's my favorite crumb crust. It's from America's Test Kitchen's Lemon Cheesecake.
5 ounces Nabisco Barnum's Animal Crackers or Social Tea Biscuits
3 tablespoons granulated sugar
4 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted and kept warm
So, 5 oz crumbs, 1.5 oz sugar, 2 oz butter.
That's one of their recipes I hadn't consulted. That would give a ratio of butter to crumb of 40% - the amounts I have been using weigh-in at just over 41% so maybe I'm not doing so badly. ATK really has a terrible variability when it comes to graham cracker crusts - their NY Style Cheesecake recipe goes 4 oz. graham to 2.5 oz. butter (62.5%) - their Lemon Chiffon recipe goes 4.5 oz. graham to 2.5 oz. butter (55+%) - those are almost drippy ratios. Thank you for weighing-in on this (pun intended).
It's really tasty. All in all, it's a very good, foolproof recipe. I've made it many times.
I just made a crust the other day that was one of my better crusts. 1 1/2 cups crumbs, 1/3 cup sugar and 5 tbsp. Butter, melted for no- bake crust and 6 tbsp. for a baked crust. If I use Nilla wafers, I don't add sugar, in which case I reduce the butter to 4 tbsp and see how well it holds together if I squeeze a little together. If it's too crumbly, I melt half a tbsp more and mix that in. I can still add the other half if it isn't enough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.325330 | 2014-10-17T19:12:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48999",
"authors": [
"Carrie Medford",
"Imsa",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Mary Watzlavick",
"Sophia",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"meds digital"
],
"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
} |
49151 | How to Judge the Appropriate Feeding Schedule for Immature Sourdough Starter
I am a week into the development of sourdough starter. I initiated the starter on spring water and a flour mixture that is 1/2 whole grain rye (Hodgson Mill) and 1/2 whole grain wheat (King Arthur). I am maintaining the standard 100% hydration in a kitchen that stays around 70° F - I have been maintaining it by discarding half the starter each morning and replenishing that part with fresh rye/wheat flour and spring water.
After the initial craze of bacterial activity where the starter more than doubled overnight, it is now bubbling reasonably well and increasing in volume by about 20% in a 24 hour period. With bubbles and a great smell, I assume things are going well. I'm not in a hurry - I know these things take time.
After reading through numerous books by all the bread authorities, I still have a few questions that I wanted to parse out to the contributors on this site for advice.
(1) For an immature starter like mine, is there an advantage to feeding twice a day as opposed to once a day? My understanding is that a mature starter will rise and fall - the fall being precipitated by the exhaustion of food for the yeast. If my starter hasn't developed sufficient yeast to consume the available food within 24 hours, is there a compelling reason to re-feed it after only 12 hours? Basically, will the yeast multiply to form a mature starter more quickly by receiving fresh food more frequently (at the cost of discarding half of the starter).
(2) From my reading, I gather that the "float test" for starter is the most reliable way to judge when it is mature enough to support yeasting a loaf. When the starter gets to this point (again assuming a constant 100% hydration), will it also reliably double in size at some point between feedings? Should I wait for doubling behavior before float testing or might I eventually pass the float test without getting anywhere close to doubling?
(3) I am following the discard-and-replenish-half approach to starter development. Some sources recommend a more aggressive discard policy. Intuitively, I would think that replacing a larger percentage of starter would require a longer time for the yeast to multiply into the new medium - I assume that means the period of refreshment would be longer (and probably that it would ultimately serve to amplify the lactobacillus activity in the starter). My question here: are there any yeast-development-related arguments to support discarding and replenishing more aggressively in an immature or mature starter?
(4) Overall, my plan has been to continue feeding my starter daily while monitoring appearance and smell. I was only planning to move to a 12-hour feeding schedule if my starter rose AND fell within 12 hours (yes/no?). I'd love to hear from people like me - people who don't work in a bakery or live next to a bakery - about how long it took them to develop a reliable mature starter - I'm figuring on a month but would love it if things worked out sooner than that.
This question involves a lot of sub-questions that don't have simple answers, so this response is a bit long.
From my experience producing dozens of starters from scratch over the years, I have to disagree with some of the details given in the other answer. There are two goals in the early days of a starter:
Produce an environment hospitable to the growth of yeast and lactic acid bacteria, while discouraging growth of other nasty things that could take over your starter and cause it spoil.
Begin producing a "rhythm" of feeding that will encourage the natural cycle of yeast and bacteria growth. Generally speaking, yeast will grow quickly after a feeding (the rising phase), but their waste products and other changes will allow bacteria to take over and start growing strongly afterward (the "sour" phase). If the culture gets too sour before the yeast are well-established, and feeding schedules are infrequent, it can take weeks to establish a starter (if ever). If a culture isn't sour enough, bad things may begin to grow and spoil your starter. The trick is finding a middle way, and a feeding schedule is a major part of that.
(1) Feeding your starter more than once per day is, in my opinion, a useful tool for guaranteeing a high success rate in the first few days of a new starter. At a minimum stirring at least a couple times per day will inhibit mold and other microorganisms from getting established on the surface before the culture becomes sour (i.e., acidic). It is true that feeding too frequently may not allow appropriate levels of sourness to occur in the first few days, but this can be overcome by two methods.
One solution is to add artificial acidity. After many, many trials, various forums online have discovered pineapple juice is a near-ideal addition to bring down pH and add acidity in the first 2-3 days of starter growth. Use it instead of water. (Note that this process can be done with feedings every 24 hours or more frequently.)
The other solution is to only add partial feedings for the first couple of days (for example, following a regimen like this one). To explain this method in more detail, rather than doubling the starter with each feeding (and discarding half), you would add the same amount each time for the first few feedings without discarding anything. Thus, the first feeding would double the quantity of starter, but the second would only add 50%, the third would add 33%, the fourth 25%. Each addition will provide fresh food to encourage yeast growth, while simultaneously concentrating the acidity.
(2) The "float test" is good for mature starters, but I don't think it's good enough to assess when your starter may be ready for bread. A very strong starter will take off and rise significantly within a few hours after feeding. I would wait until this happens.
(3) First, there is no reason to be wasteful. I have no idea why many starter recipes start with a cup of flour or whatever and waste pounds of flour in the first week. I've often started with 10-20 grams of flour. And then I follow a regimen like the second link above or something like suggested in the second page of discussion on the pineapple juice solution, where you only need a few tablespoons to get going and you don't need to discard anything for at least the first few days. Working in small quantities won't delay the establishment of your starter, and if you're only using a tablespoon or two of flour for each feeding, it's not a lot to discard.
As for ratios for feeding, as I said, many prefer a solution that actually doesn't discard anything for the first few feedings to produce adequate acidity. After you start seeing a yeast response with lots of rise (not just small bubbles which may be due to bacteria activity or the large surge in bubbles which usually happens in the first 48 hours, due to bad bacteria activity before the culture becomes sour), you can begin to discard and replenish. Many people double the culture with each feeding at this point, but I've had better results doing a 1:1:1 feeding (1 part starter to 1 part flour to 1 part water by weight) at this stage, as long as the yeast are clearly showing some activity, even if they might be slower.
Once the starter is mature, you can be more aggressive with discarding and replenishing, or alternatively planning ahead and only saving small quantities of starter for the next batch, so you don't have to discard much at all. I find the 1:1:1 feeding strikes a good balance (effectively equivalent to discarding 2/3 of the starter and replenishing the rest). Saving smaller amounts of starter will tend to produce a more mild starter, while doing your method of discarding half can lead to a somewhat more sour product, which some people prefer. Doing a 1:2:2 feeding or even using smaller quantities of starter at each feeding can also have benefits, but it requires a strong, mature starter. (For some discussion of various opinions on feeding ratios, see here. In general, the right ratio is what seems to work with your starter and to produce bread you think tastes good.)
(4) You can get away with a 24-hour period between feedings for the first few days, but as I said, I'd at least stir it every 12 hours or more frequently to avoid mold settling. The pineapple juice links above recommend against feeding more frequently in the first couple days to avoid diluting the acid. I agree with that advice if you were using water and discarding and doubling the starter with each feeding, since you wouldn't be allowing proper acid development. But if you follow the juice method or the other method outlined in the links, the acidity will become concentrated with the initial feedings, rather than diluted, and more frequent feedings can allow the yeast to "catch on" quicker.
Once established (and the 12-hour rise-and-fall cycle is a good benchmark), I would definitely recommend a 12-hour feeding cycle when sourdough cultures are kept at room temperature, unless you prefer a more sour bread result (and potentially a weaker culture). It really depends on your room temperature, your feeding proportions, and a number of other things -- sourdough can work with a lot of different conditions. I tend to use my sourdough for a variety of breads, and I rarely actually use it to make very sour "sourdough" bread, so I like to keep it very mild-flavored for adaptability reasons. Feeding every 12 hours at room temperature (or even every 8 hours in warm temperatures) will do that. When I'm not baking for a while, I put the culture in the fridge and take it out to do at least one feeding before reviving.
Again, a little thought can avoid waste. There is no reason to keep cups and cups of starter lying around, discarding half every time you feed it. When I save culture in the fridge, I generally save about 1/9th of what I actually need for my average batch of bread (which may only be a couple tablespoons: I often keep my starter in a tiny jar left over from Dijon mustard or something). Then I remove it the day before, do a 1:1:1 feeding, 12 hours later do a 1:1:1 feeding (not discarding anything, so it's now 9 times the original starter quantity), and I have a very mild and active starter ready to go. If I haven't used it in a while, I'll do a 1:2:2 feeding or even higher ratio to dilute the excess acidity that tends to build up.
To answer the final question of how long it takes to develop a reliable starter: I'd say with a 12-hour feeding schedule following a regimen like the one in the second link above, I can have a somewhat reliable starter able to bake bread in about 3 days, assuming good quality rye flour. Depending on conditions, it can sometimes take another day or two, but a couple more days of regular feeding regardless will ensure it's really strong. I've done this method over a dozen times, and I've never had a failure. Before that, using a 24-hour feeding cycle, I've had multiple failures (by which I mean mold or other things happened), and it would usually take at least a week to establish a culture. I haven't actually used the pineapple juice method (only water), so perhaps it is more reliable using a 24-hour feeding cycle in the first few days.
(Note that the reason I say I've produced dozens of starters over the years is because I've found these methods so reliable and not wasteful that I often don't even bother reviving an old starter I've neglected for months -- it's almost as easy to make a new one.)
Rye flour, I've found, is really useful, even if you eventually plan to switch to wheat for normal feedings (which you can do once you get the rise and fall in a 12-hour window). With whole-wheat flour, I've often had starters take much longer to get established.
(1) Feeding your starter more often than once a day is usually counterproductive. If you do not give the microorganisms plenty of time between feedings to grow and reproduce you will just end up wasting a lot of time and flour. One of the crucial steps for sourdough yeasts to be happy and reproduce with limited competition is the acidification of the starter. If you remove part of the starter and bring it closer to neutral pH by adding flour and water too often the starter will not acidify sufficiently. If you really feel the need to do something active, try stiring your starter every 8-12 hours. This will disperse clumps of yeasts and bacteria, bringing them into contact with new food sources as well as oxygen, and it will not reduce the acidity of the starter.
(2) When I started my sourdough culture 8 years ago I tried the float test, but I don't remember it being a reliable way to judge the leavening ability of the starter. I tend to follow the notion that a sufficiently active culture will double within 8-12 hours of feeding. Getting to that point should take no more than a week of daily feedings. If your starter isn't doubling in volume you might need to try again, some wild yeasts and bacteria are strong enough to take hold in a starter but just don't have the right stuff to leaven bread. Before you throw it out and start over, make sure you aren't missing the doubling. If you only check it once every 8-12 hours the starter may have doubled (or more) and fallen without you seeing it. Check your starter jar/bowl for a tell tale ring of flour goo where the starter has risen, left its impression and fallen.
(3) See answer #1. Once your starter is well-established you can cull larger than a 50% portion of it for use in recipes if needed but don't go too crazy while it's young and vulnerable.
(4) Unless you are trying to produce a large amount of starter in order to make a lot of bread, there isn't a good reason for a home baker to feed an established sourdough starter more than once a day. If you aren't planning on making bread every day you can keep it refrigerated and you really only need to feed it once a week or 24 hours before you plan to use it. You should expect your culture to be active enough to leaven bread within 7-10 days after it first starts bubbling. After that point the flavor and activity of your starter may continue to change for 30-90 days as it matures and microorganisms reach a balance point. If you transition your starter over to white flour, don't be surprised if it's activity declines for a few days.
Thank you for taking the time to address my questions in such detail.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.325601 | 2014-10-22T11:46:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49151",
"authors": [
"Celia Cheeseman",
"Niall gerard Mulligan",
"Stephen Eure",
"Subha Thogarchedu",
"akisha lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"sam abrahams"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49889 | Ingredients vs. Temperature Control in Chocolate Fudge
In reading through a LOT of different approaches to making fudge, I am wondering about how the non-sugar ingredients affect the issue of temperature control (both heating AND cooling) and, therefore, the results in the recipes.
First of all, a question about heating the sugar solution - am I correct that in bringing a sugar solution to the soft-ball stage temperature, what you are doing technically is boiling-off water to the point where the sugar concentration is appropriate for the re-crystallization properties desirable in fudge? So, the temperature gives you an indication of the concentration of sugar in solution and different concentrations behave differently when cooled, is that right? Basically, the temperature is documenting sugar concentration achieved by way of evaporation.
If that is true, then I can buy that in heating the sugar and milk or cream or condensed milk to make fudge, the temperature would still be dictated by sugar concentration in the water part of the milk-product. So if we think of a a milk-product as water + solids + fats, the sugar concentration is still reliably documented by the temperature since the sugar will dissolve in the water of the milk and is (basically) unaffected by the solids and fat content. Is that, more-or-less correct?
Continuing along this same line of reasoning, would it also be correct to assume that as long as you add to the pot only ingredients that contain NO water, that you would preserve the integrity of the relationship between the temperature of the ingredients and the concentration of sugar in solution? So heating the chocolate or marshmallow (or whatever) with the milk/sugar solution won't fundamentally alter the relationship between sugar concentration and temperature?
Then what about adding ingredients during cooling? Most recipes where you heat all of the ingredients together (except butter and vanilla) instruct you to let the mixture sit undisturbed until it cools to (like) 110° F - I thought that the goal there is to have the sugar in a supersaturated state so that crystallization will occur rapidly when you stir.
But some recipes instruct you to add other ingredients after bringing the sugar/milk to the soft-ball stage - I would think that adding ingredients during cooling could induce a temperature change that could screw-up the supersaturated state and give you grainy fudge. Most of these types of recipes contain marshmallow. So, since marshmallow is mostly corn syrup, is the corn syrup controlling the re-crystallization properties of the sugar? If that's true, do you need to be careful with a marshmallow fudge during cooling at all?
Do these concepts help? The saturation point (the maximum concentration of sugar in water without crystal formation) is influenced by the temperature of the solution. It is possible to cool an unsaturated solution to a state of supersaturation. And vice versa, it is possible to heat a supersaturated mixture to an unsaturated solution. -- ex-Michelin star chef Peter Coucquyt
I understand that the saturation is tied to the temperature. My main questions involve (1) whether the addition of ingredients aside from the sugar/milk alter the relationship between temperature and saturation, & (2) does the ton of corn syrup in marshmallow affect the crystallization properties to the point where the care in cooling is not an issue. As far as the re-heating is concerned, I believe that a fudged fudge can be remedied by carefully re-heating it to dissolve the sugar again. Like pushing it up the hill and letting it roll back down.
The uphill bit is a kick here, as that is definitely how it feels. Thank you for condensing your points of inquiry. I'll continue to try to unravel your meaning, (not that any of that is your fault), with hopes of being some help.
I think you may well be over thinking this just a little.
Water boils at 100c at sea level, sugar raises this temperature to around 110c depending on sugar content.
Specifically, adding 1 gram molecular weight of nonionizing solute (like sugar) to 1 liter of water increases the boiling point by 0.52 degree Celsius (C). 1 gram molecular weight nonionizing solute per liter =0.52 degree C increase in boiling point.
So when you boil your sugar syrup to soft ball 116c you've essentially, boiled all the water away and your left with sugar. Heating it to this temperature changes the shape and direction of the crystals. Adding fat to this generally allows it to set (plus flavour). Just as butter would.
The reason you don't add chocolate as it's warming is water plus chocolate ends badly. You also don't add it at 116c as you will burn your chocolate. Again not a good thing.
Make sure the temperature of the chocolate rises to between 104° F. and 113° F. when melting. Do not heat above 115° F. (milk and white chocolate) and 120° F. for dark chocolate, otherwise it will burn.
The reason you add water to sugar is to allow more control over the heating. If you have no water you'll find the bottom part will burn while the top part is still solid crystals. Which considering you only need 116c, is again... Bad.
Try boiling 1000ml water with 100g sugar and see how quickly it takes for the mixture to reach 110c (5min?) and then see how long it'll stay at that temperature before hitting 116 (30-40mins I guess). Then leave it and watch how within moments of hitting 116c it's suddenly hit 176c and then your pan turn black and your kitchen full of thick yellow smoke :-).
Heating and cooling is one of the trickiest subjects to baking right after tempering eggs and plain old understanding the product you are working with. One thing to remember with chocolate is that it will literally melt in the palm of your hand so high heat and chocolate don't mix. You can temper chocolate although by bringing to 110 degrees Fahrenheit and then cooling it back to room temperature. Any way more information than I was originally going to share. My advice tour a bakers kitchen of a experienced chef w/ 25+ years. Books are great but first hand mistakes and accomplishments are the only true way to really know.
A rainy day can change the outcome of your recipe!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.326548 | 2014-11-18T18:52:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49889",
"authors": [
"Eric McGerr",
"Jeff Dick",
"Paula Campbell",
"Ricky Trate",
"Stephen Eure",
"Thomas Raywood",
"art prieur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47397 | What is the best way to infuse mint into a tomato sauce?
I want to create a tomato based mint sauce. I have access to fresh mint. What is the best way or the best time while cooking the sauce to incorporate the mint? Are the flavor components in mint water or fat soluble?
What a horrible thing to contemplate doing to a poor, innocent tomato. //shudder
Mint likes oil. And it likes water. And it likes alcohol. Like most complex flavors, mint is complicated.
The greener, vegetal notes are going to be from compounds like chlorophyll, and will be alcohol and very weakly water soluble. The astringent, sharper notes are going to from compounds like menthol, which are oil soluble.
In general, the faster flavors, the ones that hit fast and fade faster, are water soluble, while the ones that linger are oil soluble. Mint flavor is sold both as an extract, in a base of water or alcohol, and as an essential oil, in a base of... oil.
As for cooking, I would skip the tomatoes entirely, and do a mint and parsley pesto with walnuts and olive oil. Why? I like mint.
Kudos for detail, but I'd like to see a summary other than "skip the tomatoes". I think the lesson that can be drawn here is: the flavor's complex, and is damaged by heat, so cook it as little as possible if you want to retain that characteristic minty goodness. Which means adding fresh mint at the very end of cooking or just before service.
Great suggestion on the pesto. Thanks for detailed explanation.
Mint is closely related to Basil and can be treated in the same way. So for a tomato sauce you will probably get the b est results by adding bruised mint leaves towards the end of the process. Too much cooking will boil off the more subtle aromatic flavours and you will end up with something a bit harsh and medical.
It may even be best to add ripped mint leaves to the warm sauce just before serving as this will give you the subtle and fresh flavours you want without it ending up like tomato toothpaste.
It depends on what you mean by "tomato based mint sauce." The tomato sauce that is one of the classical French mother sauces contains ingredients that probably don't pair well with mint (bay, thyme, and pork come to mind). I assume that you intend your "sauce" to be more of a simple Italian tomato sauce or perhaps a salsa?
I would definitely recommend using your mint without cooking it - I would chop it and mix it with your other ingredients immediately prior to service to take full advantage of its magnificent aroma.
If the tomato part of your dream sauce needs cooking, keep your cooking time to a minimum to make sure your tomatoes don't lose their bright acidic taste - throw-in the mint at the end. I don't think that mint would taste as good with long-cooked tomatoes (they'd be too sweet) and I really don't think your fresh mint would cook well into your tomatoes. Ultimately, I think that your fresh mint would go best with uncooked tomatoes.
For me at least, the taste of tomato and mint immediately brings to mind tabbouleh salad. Take away all the parsley and bulgur wheat (they certainly aren't very sauce-y) and the remaining ingredients really form the basis of a salsa fresca - sort of a minty pico de gallo.
Going with that idea, I'd recommend a salsa made with crushed or chopped tomatoes, minced garlic, very finely chopped onion or shallot, lemon juice, olive oil, your fresh mint, maybe some fresh basil, salt and pepper - maybe even some very fine lemon zest? Run it through a food-processor if you want it more smooth - personally, I'd leave it a little chunky so that the different ingredients surprise the palate and the aroma of the fresh mint doesn't get lost.
I think this concoction would taste great on bruschetta or crostini, on fish, maybe with poached eggs and toast?
That's the best recommendation I can make w/o knowing more about the plans you have for your tomato-mint sauce.
Tomato and mint certainly pair very well. Just because they are not frequently combined in Italian cuisine doesn't mean that they are bad together. It goes with any type of tomato cooking, long or short. And also with sweet, sun-ripe tomatoes. You don't need them to be sour to fit the mint.
I would cook the sauce and toss in the mint at the last minute, right before you use the sauce. I don't think you want to heat/cook the mint, as it might result in too much of a vegetal note. Of course, more mint and/or more surface area (chopped) would produce more flavor...depends on your use of the sauce.
Depends on what you are planning to serve the sauce with, you could consider a mint jelly which is mildly sweetened and would not overwhelm the tomato flavor , it would save you from sweetening the tomatoe sauce. If you don't have that particular item right now , go with mint leaves directly into the sauce when it starts to simmer, leave it there for a couple of minutes (2 to 5 minutes) but make sure you can remove them easily (cheese clothe, a small mint branch with leaves attached), the longer the mint simmers with the sauce, the stronger mint taste you'll get. I would not put it at the last minute as your sauce might overcook as you try to transfert mint flavor to it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.327389 | 2014-09-24T23:09:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47397",
"authors": [
"Brian Martin",
"C. S. McKenna",
"Dave Uggla",
"Gregg Brent",
"Israel Tmesgenn",
"Louise Miller",
"Marti",
"OfLettersAndNumbers",
"Philip V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46700 | Why does my bread smell like vinegar?
I have some bread that should still be good for few days that now smells like vinegar. There is no mold, ect. on it that makes it look bad. It is store bought whole grain bread with some oatmeal, if that matters.
Personally, I've never known bread to smell like vinegar, even when it has gone bad. So what would cause it?
Did it smell like vinegar when it was just opened? Or did it develop the smell over time?
It just developed the smell over the last 2 days. Before that it didn't have the smell.
I also emailed KAF my question. They think ferment time is culprit. I will have to give it a try.
Could it also maybe be combo of time + yeast? Bread is still tasty; I
am still experimenting.
stephen
Here is reply from KAF:
Hello Stephen,
Thank you for contacting us here at King Arthur Flour.
The vinegar-ish smell you describe is from the acids of your fermented
dough. If it bothers you, you might try fermenting your dough in a
slightly cooler room, or for a shorter time. This should help.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance or if you have
additional questions. If you need immediate assistance, feel free to
contact us directly at 800-827-6836.
Thank you again and have a great day!
Sincerely,
Jaydl
King Arthur Flour 800-827-6836
Vinegar is acetic acid. It is made when yeast eat starch and produce alcohol which is then consumed by acetobacter bacteria to make acetic acid.
I have a hard time imagining a bread smelling strongly of vinegar but all the ingredients are there. The bread was fermented by yeast and did contain alcohol before it was baked. If the bread was a little underbaked and picked up the right bacteria it could be trace amounts of vinegar.
Other options are that the bread picked up a normal sourdough-esque bacteria and just smells sour without having actual acetic acid.
Either of these options would require the bread to be under baked or very moist.
Anything beyond this would be conjecture.
Maybe the bread was baked with vinegar in it?
The bread is very moist. It almost seems more moist now than when I last used it two days ago, though that may just be memory bias.
Regarding the moisture, I have had the same thing happen a few times. Each time it was store bought bread that had gotten drier after keeping it a few days and then it changed and got pretty moist. I never have really tried to figure it out but, it didn't smell like vinegar, it just had a somewhat yeasty smell.
I have seen some breads use vinegar as an ingredient - used as a "preservative".
If I leave store bought bread out in my kitchen during the summer it eventually gets wet on the bottom. I left a piece of this out a little longer to see what happened, and it started to rot not too long after. Not bread mold, but actual (bacterial?) rot with a smell a bit similar to rotting vegetable matter.
I'd like to suggest that over-proofed bread produces a very yeasty smell, like the smell of half fermented beer. Easily mistaken for vinegar.
Then a low- less than normal - baking time for this might well produce the smell you are describing. At a relatively fresh state, the bread scent overpowers the residual from the beer brewery.
Source: I fell asleep during the last proofing one time. My kitchen smelled like I was in a beer brewery
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.327855 | 2014-08-27T18:42:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46700",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Cindy",
"Divij",
"GeezerGeek",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karmin Mcnew",
"Kelly Poole",
"Lawtonfogle",
"Lee Monteith",
"Michelle Washington",
"Neha Sawhney",
"Nick A.",
"Suzanne Flippo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45605 | How to reduce the bitterness of tonic water in a non-alcoholic citrus drink?
After having a good fizzy lime drink recently, I decided to try mixing up some non-alcoholic drink options. Being completely ignorant of fizzy waters in general, I decided to go with tonic water to mix in some citrus drinks (I didn't even know tonic water was bitter, this was really a spur of the moment decision with no research). I've had some success mixing it with some strong drink mixes, but the sourness and sweetness had to be really strong to cancel out the bitterness of the tonic. Too strong really. I really think I should have chosen club soda instead, but now I'm stuck with a gallon or two of tonic.
Instead of disposing it, I was wondering if there is any way to cut down/mask/hide the bitterness in a non-alcoholic drink mix.
P.S. Not sure about the alcohol tab, as tonic isn't alcoholic, but its primary purpose from my knowledge is to pair with alcoholic drinks.
You can't reduce it unless you add less tonic water, otherwise you can only balance it with something else.
EDIT: My original version of this answer came from my incomplete recollection of a chapter in Kevin Liu's Craft Cocktails at Home on flavor balancing. Now that I have the book in front of me again, I'm adding more relevant detail and revising the parts I got wrong. In all fairness, salient points are already covered in other answers, but I think the science here is neat.
Bitter flavors in general are fairly difficult to mask. This is possibly an evolutionary adaptation - bitterness can be an indication of toxicity in wild plants, so a sensitivity to bitter compounds in very minute quantities may have helped our ancestors avoid being poisoned. In order to produce flavors of roughly equal intensity (using a perceptual measurement technique known as the Labeled Magnitude Scale), it takes about 3000 times the concentration of sucrose (sweet) to equal one part of quinine sulfate, the principal bittering agent in tonic water. (It takes about 1500x relative concentration for sodium chloride and 50x for citric acid).
Relative concentrations aside, you get some interesting effects when these flavors begin to interact. (Liu reproduces a number of figures from a fascinating paper published by Green et al. at this point.) Perceptually, sweetness is also very difficult to suppress (another likely biological preference, since sweetness often indicates a concentrated source of energy in the form of sugar) and it will tend to dampen the perception of other flavors. This is one of the reasons why commercial tonic water typically includes a pretty hefty amount of sugar or corn syrup (somewhere around 30 grams per 12 oz). Adding sourness to the mix will suppress bitterness further; fortunately you're already doing this by using citrus. Finally, salt will substantially reduce the perception of bitterness, while remaining barely detectable in the final mixture. Salt also has the unique effect of "leveling out" sourness and bitterness when added to a solution that contains both (compare the rightmost two groupings from this figure) and as a result, Liu concludes that "Salt = magical fairy dust". Yes, that's a direct quote from the book.
The lesson to draw from all of this makes intuitive sense: since bitterness is so difficult to cover up, you want a lot of other flavors in combination. Adding sugar for sweetness will help, and including acid from citrus will too; it sounds like you've discovered this on your own. The counter-intuitive part is that adding salt will further suppress bitterness and mellow out the acidity as well.
I would add a couple other observations from personal experience. Because bitterness is detectable in low concentrations, you definitely don't want to add any more. Steer clear of citrus that has a significant bitter component (like lime or grapefruit) and be careful to avoid introducing pith (the bitter white part of the peel). If you're adding sugar, you can be much more liberal about the amount of salt you add; sweetness has a strongly suppressing effect on saltiness. You could probably get away with a teaspoon or so in a gallon of tonic water if you're adding a couple tablespoons of sugar too. As others have mentioned, this will all be much easier to combine if you make solutions of the sugar and salt (for simple syrup and, ah, salt water respectively) and then combine those into your tonic instead of just adding the dry forms.
Finally, don't give up on the tonic too soon. It's a bit of an acquired taste, but I find that slight bitterness can lend some depth to mixes, and some guests really enjoy that; there's a reason why the gin and tonic is so popular. If the quinine is really too much for you even after extensive modification, try diluting with additional seltzer or club soda. Don't toss it out; instead, try using it in small dashes in other drinks as you experiment. Trying new combinations is the absolute best way to learn what you like.
While sugar can help to overpower bitter tastes with sweetness, salt actually reduces the perception of bitterness. It doesn't take very much: just a tiny pinch of salt can reduce the perception of bitterness in coffee. I'd try throwing in a pinch when you mix your drink.
+1, should've refreshed before adding my answer (deleted it and promoting this one instead,) this is a better answer than "you should use seltzer water instead" which isn't the point of OP's question.
The bitterness is caused by the tonic. The quinine. You can add simple syrup, but you're still going to have a quinine flavor.
You want to use seltzer water instead. That provides the bubbles without quinine.
The quinine is bitter, yes, but it also adds a flavor beyond bitterness that I for one really enjoy. Seltzer feels very bland in comparison. Plus the question refers to tonic that he already has, he mentions that he might choose club soda next time.
@Jolenealaska frankly, I like it too. :)
Add sugar, simple as that. You probably would want to make some simple syrup since straight up granulated sugar would be challenging to get dissolved in the cold drink.
You might like the flavor of agave syrup or honey too.
One mix I had that worked out okay was extremely high in sugar (~25g per 4 ounces). Any chance a zero calorie sweetener could be used to avoid having to up the calorie content greatly?
@Lawtonfogle, funny you should ask me that, as I have been experimenting with the ultimate non-caloric sweetener. That needs its own Q&A, it's too much to put here, I'll do it soon. In the meantime, try splenda or any of the full-strength sucralose products. Alternatively, any non-caloric sweetener that you like would work, just dissolve any powdered forms first.
It is taking 3-4 tablespoons of Splenda per 12 ounce of Tonic to take the edge off, and the tonic already has lots of sugars in it. Think I'll still have to go for just dumping it and getting some non-bitter fizzy.
@Lawtonfogle Again, funny you should say that. To make my very sweet iced coffee, I use this and Acesulfame potassium. About 1/16 of a tsp perfectly sweetens an entire pot of iced coffee. But again, that's too much for here.
Just don't throw away that unopened tonic yet!
Also not a massive fan of tonic water, however, thought I'd risk it as I'm now a lot older than the last time I tried it.
Ended up going with a Seedlip Grove 42 which has fruitier citrus notes than the other Seedlip's, a wedge of lime squeezed in and an additional wedge as a garnish. The lime should cancel out some of the quinine bitterness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.328180 | 2014-07-15T23:10:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45605",
"authors": [
"Drew Dormann",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lawtonfogle",
"Ming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248"
],
"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
} |
115242 | Can one use butter to replace cream or milk in drinks?
While many liquids exist that serve as an alternate to milk for the lactose intolerant, I'm wondering to what extent can butter melted and mixed with water serve as a milk substitute, even if an imperfect one. Specifically I'm considering drinks, such as coffee, hot chocolate. Drinks that often don't require cream of milk but which personal preferences often include adding some or replacing water with it.
If I'm out of almond milk or non-lactose creams for my coffee, would mixing in a little butter make it creamier?
If I'm making hot chocolate and want it creamier than when made with just water, would a little butter help?
I've read questions on here that there is limited success mixing buttermilk and butter to get cream but it doesn't work for all uses, but that seemed to be focused on baking and whipping cream and not drinks.
I suppose you have to decide what exactly "serve as a milk substitute" means to you. Melted butter does not have the same flavor as cream, and melted butter mixed with water definitely does not have the same flavor as milk. But would it taste good? I don't enjoy it, but you might.
No, it won't help you at all. Butter won't mix with any drink short of vla*. You will end up with a cup of coffee with a puddle of greasy melted butter swimming on top, or a chunk of butter if you are using iced coffee.
I've read questions on here that there is limited success mixing buttermilk and butter to get cream
The only question I have seen here which claims successful mixing uses milk (not buttermilk) and butter, emulsified with a vintage hand-operated device. If you had the device, there would still be two big problems left:
it is made for milk + butter, not water + butter
having the emulsion be stable under heating is quite a requirement - after all, even real cream separates in coffee if it has been standing around several days (if yours doesn't, it probably has added carrageenan).
And if you find out that it works nevertheless - are you really prepared to search for that kind of device on second-hand markets, have it take up space in your kitchen cabinets, and then, just when you are frustrated because your morning coffee is brewed but you have no cream, spend half an hour cranking?
If I were you, I would store a few sachets of powdered non-dairy creamer.
* I am now expecting a number of comments listing drinks which will mix with butter after all. My hunch is that none of them will be the kind of drink to which people add milk after serving.
What about soy lecithin-ade? That mixes with butter!
@Sneftel If you prepare a large glass of soy lecithinade and drink it in one sitting without gagging, I will personally give you a prize, sculptured out of pure butter!
OK, I'll take the bait: butter coffee. Most recipes I've seen use a blender to create a foamy emulsion.
@Juhasz interesting, I didn't expect it to work so well. (I was thinking of whether the combination is possible, but actually going into the direction of a classic liaison). I considered deleting the post, but I think that it is better to leave it here to be downvoted, since the assumption of nonmixing may be common, and it will be good to recognize that it is incorrect.
Oh, I think it's a fine answer (that downvote didn't come from me). On the main, I agree with you: you can't add butter to coffee and expect it to work like adding cream to coffee. Butter coffee, as the name implies, is quite different from coffee with cream or milk. It requires special preparation and gives you a different result.
@rumtscho - Juhasz's linked article implies that it is just melted butter on coffee in most places, so not really like cream/milk with coffee, where there is some intermingling of the ingredients.
I certainly have no first hand knowledge of this, but I have read that the people in Tibet put yak butter in their tea.
Also it looks like someone else has come up with your idea (cow's butter in coffee):see
https://ilovebuttercoffee.com/
!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.328753 | 2021-04-12T18:31:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115242",
"authors": [
"Juhasz",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86478 | Why stud an onion?
Why do some recipes call for studding onions, i.e., cutting little slits in the onion and putting cloves in?
For example, when I cook a big piece of meat like cow's tongue, what difference would it make whether I put cloves and onion separately in the broth or studded?
Is this just a convenience thing to make it easy to fish out the cloves after cooking? Anything else I'm missing?
It's convenience, and actually doubly so:
It helps to find the cloves (biting down on a clove is horrible, imho, much more than on a stray peppercorn) and it especially if you are using onions with the skin on helps in keeping the onion together. Not as much as leaving the root plate intact, but at least prevents the papery brown skin from drifting off.
If you know you will be straining your soup or sauce anyway, feel free to just dump everything in separately.
Cutting a slit is optional, btw., if you have "pointy" cloves you can just push them in. I prefer making a hole with a toothpick over stabbing the onion with a knife, the cloves "stick" better.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.329057 | 2017-12-17T17:25:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86478",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40624 | Replacement for Appenzeller?
A recipe for a spinach casserole / gratin calls for topping it off with Appenzeller before putting it in the oven. I cannot find Appenzeller in the store.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appenzeller_cheese distinguishes between classic, surchoix, and extra Appenzeller, but the recipe doesn't give that much detail; it just says Appenzeller.
What cheese would you recommend instead?
Cook's Thesaurus calls Appenzeller creamy and pleasantly stinky :) As a substitute they recommend Emmentaler, Gruyère, Raclette, or Fontina so I'd just pick one of those you really like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.329168 | 2013-12-27T22:05:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40624",
"authors": [
"Ailavsarang",
"Scott Nicholson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94542",
"netlander"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54739 | How can i achieve the same texture as Soft baked Pepperidge Farm cookies?
I have tried their Soft baked Nantucket and Captiva Dark Chocolate Brownie and i really like the texture of it.It's sticky (or chewy),you can almost fold it and it'll bend rather than break.I don't know if i call dense or not but in the inside, there's no evidence of any air pockets that come from creaming method at all.
I try to mimic it at home but can't achieve the same result. My cookies came out cakey and thick.
for more info, I used melted butter and high brown sugar ratio, 1 egg+1 yolk and i used AP flour.
Thank you
ps.http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2012/09/pepperidge-farm-cookies-slideshow.html#show-269994 here how it looks like.
Leave out any raising agent and add more egg.
whole egg or just yolk? Isn't egg white make it more cakey?
I haven't had this particular cookie so I can't say for sure, "undercooking" cookies less can often make them more gooey. I like to watch for when the edges of the cookie are cooked (like 1/2 to the center is cooked) and then take them out and leave them on the hot pan to cool. PS: Note to self, don't answer cookie questions when hungry.
I don't really TRY to bake soft cookies, but in my experience the easiest way to get them is to use margarine or shortening instead of (or in addition to) butter, which is consistent with the package label. Additionally, putting them in an airtight container while they're still warm will have the effect of steaming them, which will result in a softer texture.
i'll try to put in some shortening next time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.329249 | 2015-02-14T18:28:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54739",
"authors": [
"Andrea Hoare",
"Cherie Bolyarde",
"Chuck Gushlaw",
"Doug",
"Jemmeh",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Susie Robinson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26971"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37701 | How to make crackle top chocolate chip cookies?
Is it sugar, leavening agents or amount of flour used that will promote the crack on top of cookies?
The crackled texture on top of cookies is more common on softer, moister, cake like cookies such as chocolate crinkles or ginger bread cookies. Here, in this image, it is accentuated because the raw dough was rolled in powdered sugar:
This affect is achieved by balancing the baking temperature and amount of moisture in the recipe so that the outside of the cookie will set firmly enough that it cannot expand before the inside of the cookie heats through.
When the inside of the cookie heats gets hot enough to activate its leavening and it expands, the outer shell cannot expand with it, and so it cracks. The fissures are from where the inner cookie shows that the broken shell of the inner surface.
A second, different phenomenon occurs in other types of cookies. In one of your other questions, you linked to a recipe with this image:
This is achieved by allowing the cookie to over-rise, and then collapse back upon itself. There are two ways to do this:
Over-leaven the cookie with baking powder. They will rise up and then collapse in the oven. This requires a moderate baking temperature so that they don't set before collapsing.
Under-bake the cookies, so that they are not fully set when they come out of the oven, and then collapse under their own weight as they cool.
The second one is want it want to achieve. I have tried Under-baking technique but i still got smooth surface all over my cookies. Next time i try putting in more baking powder.Thank you very much.
I'm not a fan of underbaking though. In advertising, many foods are undercooked to achieve a specific color in the product. E.g. fried chicken. But the principle is correct. Make the cookies rise and let them collapse as they cool. Keep it on the baking tray so the undersides set firmly.
I find that using these tips help me achieve the crackled texture on my cookies.
Chill your dough for AT LEAST one hour before putting in the oven.
Make sure you don't use old raising agent. Sitting in the cupboard for too long may make it lose its properties.
Roll them into balls and DON'T press them down before putting the in the oven. If you chilled them before, the should spread out and give you that crackled texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.329422 | 2013-10-18T04:22:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37701",
"authors": [
"Sukanok Donot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39670 | Melted chocolate inside the cookies
What kind of chocolates are used to make the lava-cookies?
How can i keep it in liquid state inside the cookies?
Thank you.
ps. Sorry, my English is as bad as my baking skill.
Assuming the cookie you mean is basically a filled chocolate chip cookie baked in a muffin tin with a chocolate filling:
With one exception all of the top recipes call for chocolate chips as the filling (the exception using a commercial fudge product). Some used regular, one used milk chocolate chips. Given the way the recipe works, any chocolate chip—or for that matter, chopped bar chocolate—will work, although you will want to select quality brand that is actually true chocolate if you can.
You cannot keep chocolate from re-hardening when it cools. This recipe is meant to be eaten warm from the oven, when the chips are still melted.
If you have used a brand of chip that is true chocolate (with cocoa butter, not a replacement fat), you may have some success reheating them in the microwave, to remelt the chocolate. The fat in the chocolate chips will absorb microwaves better than the surrounding cookie dough, so the chocolate should melt relatively quickly. This may or may not work with chips where the cocoa butter has been replaced with other fats.
I think the OP is trying to ask how to make something like chocolate lava cake in cookie form, and just assuming it's some special kind of chocolate.
@SAJ14SAJ reheating cookies in microwave will make my cookies go soft, right?
@Jefromi I thought that, but on googling, there are a family of recipes called "lava cookies" that are as I described at the top of the answer.
The only way that I know to get them to have a near-liquid center would be to either warm them back up, or to use something that's already liquid at room temperature.
I don't know if I would recommend this to someone without much baking experience, but for someone comfortable with baking and who wants to experiment ... I'd try the following. (note, this is pure conjecture, I've never done this myself) :
Make a fudge sauce that's liquid (or at least gooey) at room temperature
Chill it enough so that you can shape it, or find some molds of a decent size
Pipe it out onto a chilled sheet tray to make blobs of your intended size
Make your cookie dough, and chill it down.
Assemble the cookies and bake them.
... it's quite possible that they won't keep for very long without chilling them (so you'd have to let them sit out to get back to liquid again, or warm them up through some other means).
Also possibly of interest -- I've found that letting a container of chocolate chip cookies sit in a closed car for an hour or two brings them back to that just-slightly-melted quality that you get from fresh baked cookies.
I think Nutella would be perfect for your method.
Make chocolate sauce with FOS (Fructooligosaccharide) liquid. FOS does not recrystallize like sugar. I thus helps to maintain the chocolate smooth and in liquid state at room temperature.
Gently melt together '2 tbsn Butter+ 4 Tbsn FOS+ 6 Tbsn cocoa powder'. (Add more FOS for sweetness, if required).
Its liquid at room temperature. Freeze and then add to cookies, while rolling out. The chocolate is in a molten state even at room temperature.
A ganache filling would work well. Ganache is simply a mixture of heavy cream and chopped chocolate. I think a 1:1 ratio would work, meaning equal amounts (by weight) of chocolate and cream.
Chop some chocolate into small pieces and put in a large bowl. (You can also use chocolate chips if you'd rather.) Heat the heavy cream until it is steaming but not boiling. Pour over the chocolate and let it sit for a minute or so. Then stir until the chocolate and cream are completely mixed. This will take several minutes. Chill in the refrigerator.
Scoop out your cookie dough as you normally would. Take a piece of the cookie dough and wrap it around a small scoop of the ganache. Roll it around in your hand to even it out and make sure the ganache is completely covered. Repeat with the rest of the cookie dough. Then bake the cookies.
The ganache will stay soft even after the cookies have cooled. The filling won't be liquidy (like "lava") but soft and fudgy. You can experiment with different ratios of cream and chocolate to make the ganache thicker or thinner.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.329744 | 2013-11-23T08:38:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39670",
"authors": [
"Anne O'Brien",
"Butch Hall",
"Cascabel",
"Horvat",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SayedMaheen",
"Sukanok Donot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92101"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43577 | What is instant pudding mix used for in baking cookies?
In some recipes instant pudding mix/cornstarch are called. What is the main point of adding these two ingredients in your dough.
Thank you
Flour is basically a mix of gluten and starch (about 10% gluten to 90% starch for all purpose flour, the ratio varies for other types). Whenever a baked good asks for the addition of pure starch, it is made under the assumption that you have no easy access to low-gluten flour types. Its purpose is to reduce the gluten-to-starch ratio.
Gluten makes dough tough and is also the substance which makes it hold together. With less gluten in your dough, your cookies will be less tough, have more of a tender texture. They will also crumble more easily.
Instant pudding is an ingredient which is more common in some kitchens than pure starch, so it is used as a substitute. It usually has sweeteners and aromas in addition to cornstarch. It is less controllable than using pure starch and adding the best amount of sugar and the desired flavoring itself, so it trades quality for convenience. In my experience, recipes which call for instant pudding also cut corners in other respects, and are unlikely to be of high quality overall. So I prefer to not use them. If you want the low-gluten type cookies, choosing a recipe with cornstarch (or directly cake flour instead of a mix of AP flour and starch) will probably give better results.
"under the assumption that you have no easy access to low-starch flour types", do you mean high-starch (or low-gluten) flour types? We're adding starch, after all...
with less gluten in my cookie dough mean it'll spread more, right?
@SukanokDonot generally yes, you got the direction of the influence right. However, there is very little gluten development in normal cookie dough, nowhere near enough to pull it elastically together the way it does in bread. So I suspect that the difference will be negligible in practice.
@SukanokDonot generally higher gluten flours actually spread more in cookies. Cookwise has a section on flour types in cookies.
@sourd'oh interesting. I even cited Cookwise the last time I answered a question of Sukanok, but it seems I have forgotten the details :(
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.330094 | 2014-04-18T17:17:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43577",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Arjan",
"Caroline Potter",
"Chris",
"Kat51",
"SourDoh",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Thomas Peterson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22479",
"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
} |
45268 | How much food for a tasting event? How big of samples?
I am participating in my first tasting event. The event coordinator says I need to make enough food for about 400-600 people to sample. How big should a sample be? About 2 tablespoons? 1 ounce? Does anyone have a ballpark for how many pounds of food sounds about right?
Right now it looks like I'm buying about 50 pounds of meat, not including the remaining ingredients. That seems high.
What are you making?
By "tasting event" do you mean you and many others have a booth and people will wander by? So everyone who tastes your food will have had a lot of other things too?
I'd think it'd matter how many other groups are participating -- if people are sampling from 30+ different places, you'd want smaller portions than if from only 12, so there's less food wastage. I'd recommending contacting the event coordinator and asking them for advice.
I am making four different things (yes, I know that is probably a terrible idea) but it represents my menu. All four dishes taste better after the flavors have melded, so it's a matter of scooping a portion of each onto a plate in an appetizing way. So I'm trying to figure out whether it should be a teaspoon size of each, a 2 teaspoon size, etc. Yes, I am at an event where people will be milling around in gardens and there will be 30+ other vendors.
Do you perchance have the time to do a "dry run" with some friends? You may find it useful to initiate a series of platings with structured feedback questions that can be answered easily (yes/no, on a scale of 1-4 rate X...), and maybe a free response if you feel like it. Serve in the environment closest to where people will eventually be eating the food(outside ?) Change one "thing" or variable each time you present your quartet. For example:
Series 1- This will be your "control" plate. Present this with no frills...or like you had to whip up 30 extras on the fly
Series 2- Variable to change: portion size/shape (increase/decrease/change shape)
Ask: Did you want more? (Y/N)
Could you fit all this in your mouth at once? (Y/N) What were your initial impressions?
Series 3-Variable to change: plating time prior to consumption (+2 minutes)
Ask: Is this food at a pleasant temperature? Was it too hot/cold? Did you notice any textural/color/flavor changes 2 minutes/5 minutes after it was plated?
I'm sure you get the picture. My thoughts are that small mock-release could provide you with some fast and practical information. I would hate to realize that the portion size/presentation adversely impacted consumer experience, or that some other delicate service nuance could throw off your culinary compositions. Good luck.
That is very helpful. Yes, I plan to make the dishes tonight and see how well it works. Thanks for suggesting the variables, as I hadn't thought of that!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.330295 | 2014-07-02T20:19:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45268",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Courtney Whitmore",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyle B",
"Spammer",
"aleks1217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user107791"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45542 | Are olives always salty
I've just bought olives in foil bag in Lidl (name Baresa Aceituuas verdes) because I like to eat olives. This is probably the 1st time I eat them with no other products (not in salad etc.)
They are so salty that I can hardly eat them. In country where I live it's not possible to buy fresh olives. So my question is: are olives from shops always very salty. Are fresh olives salty?
Fresh olives aren't salty, but they are very bitter. Thus they almost always cured and fermented to remove the bitter compounds. Salt is the most common curing medium, hence olives that you buy in the shops are usually salty.
This doesn't quite answer the question, which is no, they can be cured without salt, but very rarely are
Biologically, they can't be salty when fresh. The tree would die if its internal juices were salty.
As Elendil said, fresh olives are practically inedible, or at least have a very unpleasant taste. This is why you can only get pickled olives, never fresh ones.
But olives differ by salt level. The worst offenders are probably Turkish stafidaki style olives (for some reason, they are saltier than Greek stafidaki style). They are small shrivelled black olives sold dry (without a brine). On the other end of the scale, you get some black Mamuts which are pretty bland. Markets with multiple olive types will sometimes note unusually high or low salt content on the label.
I find that many olives are not too salty to be eaten by themselves. They are salty, sure, but not more so than some dried meats. You may have gotten one of the saltier styles. You can try another style next time.
When you buy olives without knowing how salty they are, and they turn out too salty, you can remove the brine and keep them in clear tap water for 2-3 days, then eat.
good hint with keeping in water
EDIT: after keeping in tap water in the fridge for 1 day my olives have no taste
@MarianPaździoch yes, there are olives without any taste on the market, just as with any other fruit and vegetable. Try getting better quality olives, small ethnic grocery stores (for example Turkish ones) tend to carry good quality, while the large brands in the supermarket like Kattus are rarely good, and the discounter house brands are frequently terrible.
If olives from a jar are bitter, I found that replacing the brine by my own water-balsamic-salt brine helps improve their flavor.
When I was in the UK I tried buying green olives from everywhere, cheap and expensive (tesco, whole foods, waitrose etc.) they are all super salty compared to the Greek ones I buy in my home country (outside europe), maybe there's a rule in europe that dictates the minimum amount of salt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.330543 | 2014-07-14T12:50:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45542",
"authors": [
"Axel Rodriguez",
"Marian Paździoch",
"Omu",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/507",
"papin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47112 | How long to steam fish for?
I bought a Homemaker Food Steamer. How do I steam Fish (Ling Fillet) in it? How long should I steam the fish for?
I'd read the instruction booklet or google it. The instruction manual here says 15 minutes: http://www.taylorusa.com/media/IBs/AS1510BL_ib.pdf
When I steam fish, I usually steam it whole, but here are the steps I used to check for done ness
Are the eyes of the fish white? A cooked fish's eyes will harden into white balls as the proteins in the eye coagulate
Can you separate the fish meat from the bone easily? Cooked fish should just barely stick to the bone and should come off very easily
Is the flesh easily separated? Using a chopstick or some other implement, the fish should "flake"; you should be able to easily separate the "sections" you see in the fish without much force
Is the flesh a solid colour or translucent? Cooked fish should be a solid white/pink/whatever colour and not slightly translucent like it is when uncooked
Of course, only the last 2 steps will probably apply to your fillet, but hope this helps!
Hey @Daniel, thank you for this answer! We ended up just "winging it" and I'm not dead or anything so I think we cooked it right but this answer is really helpful, now I know we're not gonna die lol
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.330777 | 2014-09-14T00:50:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47112",
"authors": [
"Andrew Norris",
"JulianLk",
"david agness",
"gemma szakacs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"jay_t55",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45639 | Par-fry potato chips or Par-boil?
I'm considering par-frying instead of par-boiling my chips. I'll still soak them in vinegar and water to get some of the starch out. I'll be par-frying the night before a large fish fry (70+ people). Thoughts as to if par-frying is better? I'm tired of having my chips so full of water on fry day that the temp drops.
I'll be using a modified approach from http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/09/the-food-lab-extra-crunchy-homemade-potato-ch.html)
Thanks!
Joel
What is the result you want to get? What are you trying to do?
The primary reason for the parboil is to be to lighten the color of the potatoes and prevent off flavors by flushing away excess starch. It's not strictly necessary to get a decently crispy chip. That said, par-frying isn't likely to be as effective for this purpose, per this passage from your linked source:
...heating up starch granules in the presence of water causes them to
absorb water and expand. Eventually, like little water balloons, they
burst, expelling the starch into the water where it can be safely
dumped down the drain.
With frying, you might wind up bursting some starch granules, but because the starch isn't getting flushed anywhere, it will remain in the potatoes. This may actually further the development of browning and off flavors by raising the concentration of starch (though you may denature some of the enzymes that are also responsible).
I think you're also likely to see some unintended side effects from par-frying. For example, partially cooking and doing damage to the cell walls could cause the chips to leach moisture and starch. As it cools, that could cause the chips to stick together if you're not very careful about keeping them separated. It might also cause some of the excess oil from the surface to seep into the interior, making your chips greasy.
If your objective is first and foremost maintaining a consistent oil temperature (which is a worthy goal) then the best solution is to fry in smaller batches and allow the oil to come back up to temp after each batch. This will take longer, but it will still probably be a time savings over doing a whole bunch of par-frying the night before and then finishing them off at the event.
Good luck!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.330922 | 2014-07-16T19:30:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45639",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45650 | Tempering raw cacao for coating
I have a 2-pound block of dark no-sugar-at-all chocolate, and I want to use some of it as coating for candies or popsicles. It's 100% raw cacao, so I'm thinking of melting some and using honey as a sweetener (from a previous experiment I know it'll take a lot of honey!), because I think powdered sugar or any other sweetener will have a hard time dissolving in it. I was thinking of using the cacao/honey mixture to coat the final product, but I'm doubtful if it'll work like that.
I've never worked with raw chocolate before, so I'm wondering if it's advisable to temper it, and how to do it, or just try and use it as is (just melted, that is). Also, if anyone could advise on the honey as sweetener I'd appreciate it. I once tried stevia, but it took a lot of it and the difference was not very noticeable. I also read somewhere that using agave or corn syrup would not work because of their high water content, so I'm hoping honey works better for this purpose.
Thank you in advance.
I think most chocolate is already tempered when you buy it. Assuming that's the case with yours, you just need to be careful not to break the temper when you melt it. That means not letting it get too much warmer than its melting temperature. If my memory is correct, you have to keep it below 125 deg. F to avoid breaking temper.
Coincidentally, I mixed pure cocoa powder and honey earlier this evening (in a glass of hot milk). I found that to get it to taste good, I had to use about 3 Tbsp of honey to sweeten 2 Tbsp of cocoa. Honey is usually about 17% water. I don't know for sure whether that will cause a problem for you, but I suspect it would. As you have already discovered, it takes a LOT of sugar to make chocolate sweet. I don't think you'll be able to make it solidify using honey.
I'm curious why you seem to be avoiding sucrose (table sugar). I guess there must be some reason why you got no-sugar-at-all chocolate. Are you interested in stevia because it is lower in calories? If so, you might consider pure sucralose. It's not usually available in stores, but you can order it online. I recommend pure sucralose instead of splenda so that you don't have the extra maltodextrin filler getting in your way. 1 gram of pure sucralose is enough to sweeten 250 grams of cocoa powder, so if you know the ratio of cocoa butter to cocoa solids in your chocolate, you can calculate the right amount of sucralose to use. I guess if you're thinking of using honey, you must not be worried about calories, though. If you're just looking to create a little more exotic/different flavor, you could use turbinado (e.g. Sugar in the Raw) instead of regular sugar. I think it will solidify a lot better than honey.
By the way, how are you planning to coat popsicles in chocolate? Won't the molten chocolate cause the popsicles to melt and turn the whole thing into a mess? Maybe if you got the popsicles down to liquid nitrogen temperatures before dipping them it might work....
Concerning pure sucralose: Holy crap, pure sucralose and pure acesulfame potassium are available on Amazon. Mixed 50/50, these sweeteners are amazing.
@Craig I don't worry much about calories, but I do try to stick to more natural ingredients, so I'd try to avoid sucralose if possible. About your last question, I haven't tried the popsicles yet (partially because I haven't made the chocolate work), but you're right, it would be messy; so I'll think of another use for it as soon as I can get a bittersweet version out of it.
Turbinado is less processed than regular white sugar, so perhaps it is sufficient to meet your definition of natural.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.331113 | 2014-07-17T03:18:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45650",
"authors": [
"Craig",
"Jolenealaska",
"brunn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29473",
"susan heaps"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45852 | How to replace Bouillon cubes without making them on my own
As far as I noticed the Combination consisting of Bouillon Cube, Wine and spices can make up a good basis for many vegetarian dishes, for instance with Pasta or Rice.
I am using a particular sort of Bouillon Cube and without using it I cannot reproduce the taste. I am suspecting that this sort uses glutamates (or functionally similar substances) in order to give the dish a certain depths.
Now I am in a dilemma since I am trying to use as much natural products as possible. Do you know any good (and rather easy to make) substitutes for Bouillon cubes?
MSG is a natural product.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12351/what-is-a-good-vegetarian-source-of-umami-flavour
Bullion cubes are basically just dehydrated stock. You can just make your own and replace the correct amount of liquid in your recipes
@draksia Generally, they are more accurately - a simulation of dehydrated stock
The examples you gave - pasta and rice - are presumably using boullion cubes and water. The cubes are basically supposed to be dehydrated broth, so you can just use whatever kind of stock or you prefer instead of the water. Often boullion cubes are saltier and have more umami than the stock they'd replace, so you may find you want to add back in some salt and some other source of umami (MSG or a more substantial ingredient), especially if you're using vegetable broth.
Depending on what your objection to bouillon cubes is, you might also like a vegetable stock base (Better Than Bouillon is a common brand). It's basically the same thing as the cubes, except in paste form.
But in any case, the bouillon is basically stock (minus water) so you should look to stocks for your substitutions. The primary two concerns will be salt and umami, but you probably are benefiting from some more subtle flavors too - and even if the bouillon cubes are lacking in that department, a good flavorful stock will be a welcome improvement.
The packaging for your favourite bouillon cubes should have a list of ingredients that will give you a place to start. Theoretically they are dehydrated stock, but unless it's a particularly fancy brand, they're usually mostly salt. Using wine, or even just water, is often a fine substitute if whatever you're cooking has plenty of its own flavour, though you might want to increase the salt. What else you could be missing is the savoury aspect that would come from the vegetables or meat that would go into the stock. You could possibly make up for this with something like Worcestershire sauce (not vegetarian). If your dish doesn't have much in the way of onions or herbs (common stock ingredients), then saute some onions at the start and add some herbs at the end to substitute.
If adding a commercial sauce isn't as "natural" as you'd like and the onions/herbs isn't the issue, I'd suggest reconsidering just making some stock and freezing it in ice cubes or silicon muffin cups (then pop out into a bag to store). If you are vegetarian, making stock IS actually pretty fast... it really only takes 15 minutes of boiling some veggie trimmings to get a tasty stock. If not, while it does take time to make meat-based stock, very little of it is "active" time and you can make a LOT in one batch (assuming you have freezer space to store the results).
A quick google for the ingredients of the Knorr bouillon cubes suggests that the main flavour-affecting ingredients are probably not the actual stock elements, but salt, MSG, and sugar. MSG enhances the savoury/umami flavour, and assuming you want to avoid MSG, there are lots of good alternatives. Worcestershire sauce, as I mentioned, or fish sauce can help if you're not vegetarian, otherwise seaweed, mushrooms, walnuts, or aged cheese can all help increase the savoury aspect of your dish.
I generally agree, except while salt msg and sugar may be the big flavor ingredients, it's easy for other things to make a difference too, even in small quantities, and that will come through especially in simple dishes like the rice and pasta that the OP mentioned. It's maybe roughly the difference between cheap bouillon and good stock.
re: msg/umami - I've found that grinding dried shitake mushrooms and seaweed (wakame & kombu are the two I keep around) into a powder and then adding it can provide a great flavor boost. The dried ingredients are a bit stubborn, so you'll need to grind for a while and then sift the results to remove the larger pieces. Dried kombu is especially difficult and the yield (of powder) is small.
You could make a little vegetable stock. Onion, garlic, carrots, celery, herbs, and a decent amount of salt. That should replace both the liquid, flavor, and salting functions of a bouillon cube.
Mind you, making stock takes TIME, but not much effort. You can also make use of veggies that are a little past their prime that you'd otherwise throw away.
My mom would keep a bag in the freezer of veggies that were past their prime, plus parsely stems, parmesean rinds and other flavorful items, then toss it all in when it came time to make stock. (and chicken necks, but the question was about vegetable stock)
"parmesean rinds" - Umami, but using themwould make the stock technically not even vegetarian. Also, consider adding mushrooms -NOT ones past their prime! Frozen work best here because they will more easily melt and give off flavour. If in doubt, though, treat the stock like a mushroom dish from a food safety standpoint. Strained soak water from dried Shiitake/Maitake seems to be common for asian style broths but I found the taste can be VERY sharp and/or ammonia-like, and according to the english language instructions on the package you are not supposed to use it like that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.331381 | 2014-07-24T17:05:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45852",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael E.",
"TFD",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45924 | Infrared on regular gas grill
I have a regular gas grill (Brinkmann) and I'm trying to find a way or a workaround to have an infrared on it, have any of you tried that? is it possible to use something like this by placing it on grill?
To clarify - by "an infrared" you mean indirect heating over part or all of the grill surface? Or, are you wanting to measure the heat of the grill with a touchless IR thermometer?
I mean indirect heat
I'm guessing that the 'ceramic tiles' are the equivalent of adding lava rocks, like we used to have in gas grills.
YES!! You can do this!! It's even Brinkmann/Charmglow who offers the solution.
Brinkmann produces a "drop-in sear burner" that bolts to the side of typical stainless steel barbecue grills. It's called:
Charmglow Brinkmann Stainless Steel Built In / Drop-In Sear Burner 814-6805-S
This comes in a "Dual Fuel" model or a Natural Gas model.
See: https://www.amazon.com/Charmglow-Brinkmann-Stainless-Natural-814-6805-N/dp/B00FY5038K
These get upwards of 800 degrees F, plenty hot enough for searing those steaks.
I have a 10-year old 3-burner-plus-side-burner Altima/Sonoma grill that this bolts to the side of. I'm sure it would also bolt right onto my Charmglow 4-burner + side burner unit I got at Home Depot 7 years ago, probably fit even better.
This assumes that your grill has a side table or side burner that is bolted to the side of the main grill unit, and can be lifted off and removed after loosening the mounting bolts a little. After removing the "stock" side table from your grill, you slide this one on and snug up the bolts. OK, all that is if you get lucky and the bolt holes line up. In some cases, you will probably need to drill some holes through the side of your existing grill in order to mount this as a side table/burner unit replacing one of the factory ones. Still, relatively a piece of cake.
You can get it either in dual fuel propane/natural gas model ($150 at time of writing) or in a natural gas only model (under $100 while it lasts). If you go with the propane fuel version, you may need a second tank and regulator. Still, a small price to pay for the safety and performance of a sear burner and enclosure designed to work together.
Why cobble together a potentially unsafe "Frankenburner" retrofit of a sear/infrared burner into a grill it was not designed for, when you can do this instead? With this sear burner and enclosure were that designed to work together, you neatly avoid the fit and safety issues that can arise when trying to mix and match replacement burners from other "real" infrared/sear burner grill models into an enclosure that was not designed for it.
On top of that, you still have all the normal functionality of the regular burners on your grill.
When this side sear burner encloser is bolted to the side of your grill, you can still use it as a side table when the burner top is closed.
See this product:
https://www.amazon.com/Charmglow-Brinkmann-Stainless-Natural-814-6805-N/dp/B01CGX5H8I/ref=pd_sbs_86_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01CGX5H8I&pd_rd_r=BXAWZZS0VHB7HDE4EX3X&pd_rd_w=EOx2B&pd_rd_wg=Ox1hP&refRID=BXAWZZS0VHB7HDE4EX3X&th=1
P.S. Sorry if I sound like a salesman, I'm just happy to have a solution that is safe, takes so much of the guesswork out, and lets me sear thick steaks without affecting/compromising any of my grill's other functionality.
The tiles you linked to are a part of an infrared burner, but they would not produce the same effect just by being laid atop a grill. As it states here:
Even if you're fond of DIY projects, keep in mind that placing a ceramic, metal or glass plate across your standard grill won't turn it into an infrared grill.
As Joe mentioned in the comments, they would heat up and emit some IR, similar to lava rocks, the radiant heat plates (AKA "Flavorizer bars") included in most modern gas grill designs, or aftermarket add-ons like grill grates.
Depending on the style and design of burner in your current grill it is likely that retrofitting an IR burner into the fire box would be difficult, dangerous or impossible. You'll probably be better off looking for a stand alone unit like those available from Brinkmann or Solaire. If you just need an ambitious (and possibly dangerous) DIY project, you could try contacting a manufacturer like Micron Fiber Tech to see if you could order a burner that would fit within the dimensions of your grill's firebox and come pre-plumbed to connect to a gas regulator.
Generally for indirect heat on a grill, you have the heat source on at one half or one third of the grill, depending on the size and the other side is the indirect heat area. The effect only works when the cover of the grill is down.
IR burners are used for high heat, direct, radiant heating... not as indirect heat sources. What you have described is indirect cooking via convection.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.331926 | 2014-07-27T22:28:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45924",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Gues912389",
"Hawaria Hagos",
"Joe",
"Manuel Salcedo",
"Ruby Winter",
"Shel Musiker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"vasvaseh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46062 | Misto nozzle leaks
While trying to clean my Misto, the nozzle came off. I pushed it back on, but it leaks and now I can't get any pressure when I pump. How do I replace the spray nozzle so it fits tightly?
If you can't get any pressure, it's something more than just the nozzle at the end of the tube ... it's something deeper in the mechanism (triggering the over-pressure release), or an issue with the gasket and threaded top.
Try turning your sprayer over for a few seconds, then back right-side up and pump to pressurize the sprayer quickly about 2x more than your typically would, to intentionally over-pressurize it. Then listen for a hiss, and look for anywhere that might have bubbling or other signs of a leak.
If it's in the gasket, you can try cranking down the plastic ring tighter, turning the gasket over, or replacing the gasket. If it's coming from somewhere else, you likely have to replace it.; they typically last 2-4 years (I've had some last longer, lots of people have reported failures after a few months, so read online reviews before picking a brand)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.332287 | 2014-08-02T19:24:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46062",
"authors": [
"Mara Frum",
"Suop",
"Suzanne Pierson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109907",
"johnfernow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46103 | Where to find a large individual brownie pan?
I'm looking for a large baking pan for cooking individual square brownies, preferably at least 8cm x 8cm (3.14 inches) but I can't find anything anywhere!! Can anyone suggest where I can get something like this from? Or am I missing something?
I don't want to go for a large tray and then cut them because I want all the brownies to be identical.
Thanks!
Does it have to be square? Or can it be a loaf shaped rectangle of 64 square cm?
It's more about each individual brownie ending up the same, ie even sizes and amount of crispyness around the edge. And square is the design I'm going for.
I can find a ton that are rectangular, several that are square but smaller than you are looking for (about 5cm X 5cm). One more question, do you want individual pans or multiple indentations in a single pan, as in for a muffin tin? OOH! How about this? It's a bit smaller than you want, but not much.
@bbeckford I too like brownies that are all edges. As jolenealaska pointed out you can get one online, and I suspect your local kitchen wares store sells a similar pan. However if you have a muffin pan, try your recipe in that first. Mine taste good, but the edges did not turn out how I hoped.
Amazon has some individual brownie pans that are, I believe, what you may be looking for.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=individual%20brownie%20pan
I found some, using a search for "square muffin pan":
http://www.bonton.com/shop/home/kitchen/bakeware/cake-pans/wilton-bakeware-12-cavity-brownie-pan_423622.html
http://www.chefsfirst.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=FATMFN-SQR&gclid=CMvVjOKu1cACFcRbfgodyI4AQQ
You might also check a local restaurant supply.
Look up at comments to the OP.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.332412 | 2014-08-04T22:15:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46103",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Katie Davis",
"Kristin Woods",
"Megasaur",
"Nischenseiten Portal spam",
"Plaza Group",
"Profile Spam Account",
"bbeckford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74578 | Are screwed on pot handles an indication of quality?
Is the use of screwed on handles any indication of the quality of a pot?
What determines the choice of screws versus rivets or welds?
Briefly, no. Screwed on handles usually are found on cheaper cookware, but it doesn't necessarily mean the pan overall is of poor quality.
There used to be a contention that riveted handles were the strongest and an indicator of quality cookware. Also, welding and various screw attachments (which frequently also contained welds) used to fail more frequently.
But in cookware that's manufactured now, it's really a design choice. Some people like the traditional look of rivets, while others find them annoying to clean. And many cheap manufacturers now use cheap steels for rivets, meaning in some cases they're just as likely (if not more likely) to fail as other constructions.
Screwed on handles are generally used on cheaper, lower-quality pans, but not exclusively. They can take a number of different forms, sometimes screwing onto a base that is welded to the pan (and thus creating more points of failure), sometimes screwed onto a base that sticks out but is manufactured from a single piece of metal with the pan, and occasionally screwing directly into the side of a pan. The biggest problem with screwed on handles is that they're generally more vulnerable to coming loose. On the other hand, when they do come loose, they can often be more easily tightened and thus repaired than welds or rivets (which would generally need to be sent out for a specialist repair). Also, on cheaper pans, the handle materials tend to be cheaper too and may crack and warp over time, so a screw attachment can make it much easier to simply buy and install a replacement handle yourself.
The key is just being conscious of screwed on handles and tightening them if they ever start to wobble even a bit. (You do not want a pan or pot handle to ever come off unexpectedly while moving boiling hot food around.)
Unless you're talking about unusual pans (particularly very heavy pans, like thick copper) or unless you tend to fling your pans around with a lot of force (like if you love to do the "saute toss" repeatedly every day with a fully-loaded skillet), most methods for attaching handles can function fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.332570 | 2016-10-08T05:47:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74578",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86920 | How clean should the outside of pots and pans be scrubbed?
I’m the official pot-scrubber in our household. I have a question on how clean one should scrub the outside of stainless and copper pots and pans and whether this is merely an aesthetic choice.
I note that cast iron cookware shouldn’t be scrubbed at all.
Does keeping the outsides of stainless and copper pots and pans serve any purpose other than aesthetics? For example: might heat transfer be better if the bottoms were shiny instead of blackened?
Unless you cook over wood, the bottoms of pans shouldn't turn black except from burnt-on residue. If they do on a gas hob something is wrong with the burning and you should get the stove checked.
I think the black is from grease and food that spills over the side of the pans and then gets roasted by the burners.
Heat transfer is actually improved by being blackened, rather than shiny.
I think this is purely aesthetic. The outside of my stainless cookware looks terrible. The oils polymerize and are really difficult to clean after that point. I don't worry about it too much, though I have a friend who takes great care to keep his stainless shiny. I doubt the buildup is enough to impact heat transfer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.332777 | 2018-01-06T09:14:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86920",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"RoboKaren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44432 | Breakfast protein options
I want to cook different kinds of breakfast but I always use eggs because I feel it is easier to digest in the morning. What other kinds of protein could I use instead of egg? Some people recommend me to not consume any protein at all, but I feel I need protein in the morning, but something that is not heavy on the stomach.
Why not just have a glass of milk with whatever other breakfast you want? Cereal and milk, toast and milk, etc.
Sorry, but we don't take this kind of question. We focus on solving concrete problems; in your case you want a list of suggestions, any of which is as good as the others.
Buckwheat is also high in protein if you don't want to eat quinoa. It pairs well with fruits, nuts and raisins and can be a good alternative to oatmeal if you are sick of that.
How about fresh fruit with muesli/granola (which contains nuts and seeds) and yogurt (either dairy or soy)? That's my daily breakfast.
For example, this fruit, nuts & seeds muesli by Dorset Cereals (which used to be my favorite kind until I started making it myself) contains about 7g protein per portion (70g), and my favorite soy yogurt contains 5g of protein per portion (125g). Together they contain as much protein as 2 large eggs, and it's less of a hassle to prepare.
I like a high protein breakfast too. You could try nuts, or fish instead of eggs and meat. Easy to digest seems to be very subjective, but I've heard that fatty meat and eggs are harder to digest than fish, nuts and drier meat (like veal).
If you let go of some cultural restrictions around what's ok to eat for breakfast you could be very happy eating sashimi, or even a nice curry in the morning.
I've also seen an interesting quinoa based breakfast (quinoa is relatively high in protein).
Fish sounds very good, i hadn't thought about it, do you know how to cook it for breakfast?
Tuna is best served raw @userC
Gagh is best served live @iwein
Revenge is best served cold. @sobachatina
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.332920 | 2014-05-26T23:14:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44432",
"authors": [
"Charlene Hauser",
"Elizabeth Alden",
"Federal Management - London",
"Preston",
"SlMeriwether ",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Tim Browning",
"adybose",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"iwein",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus",
"userC"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44520 | Pizza dough is way too wet, already in the oven. Fix?
I'm cooking some pizza with homemade dough, using rice flour. I put all of the toppings on the pizza already, and put it in the oven. It's been there for quite some time, but the dough is just way too moist for it to cook properly. It's just a mushy mess.
I turned the oven off and it's cooling down now. The tomato sauce and cheese on top is almost burnt already.
What are my options to salvage this mess?
Thanks!
"using rice flour"? Rice "flour" is not flour, it is pure starch. Pizza dough needs lots of gluten. Unless you are using a proper gluten free recipe with lots of thickeners, there is just no way to make pizza dough with rice flour. I guess you could make a kind of hard crust by drying it out substantially first, but it will not taste like pizza.
You're probably out of luck trying to save it as a pizza, but one thing you might try is finishing the cooking on the stovetop. Put in in a big skillet or even on some foil and start with medium heat. It's worth a shot. Good Luck.
Agreed, most gluten free pizza recipes are mostly rice flour and require significant pre-baking before adding any sauce or toppings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.333115 | 2014-05-29T18:16:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44520",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Hector",
"Marriam A.",
"Prime Truck And Trailer Spam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"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
} |
49585 | How should I clean my metal mesh tea strainer?
I have one of these teeli tea strainers, and it's wonderful. It's a very fine metal mesh basket with plastic frame. I've had it for perhaps 10+ years and it's still working well after brewing thousands of cups of tea.
The Problem:
However, it seems that the metal mesh is slowly becoming "clogged" or something. The tea still infuses fine, but it's more prone to spilling and dripping because water doesn't pass through as quickly. How should I clean this thing?
What I've tried...
I generally don't bother to clean it (just empty and reuse...) because it doesn't get "dirty" as such. Occasionally, I'll give it a rinse in the sink, or a scrub with regular dish detergent and sponge. Sometimes when bits seem to be stuck, I'll take a toothbrush or other dish brush to scour a little more thoroughly. I've also tried soaking in water.
What "They" Say:
The teeli web site doesn't seem to have any suggestions for cleaning; hardly surprising since it's not needed any significant maintenance in 10 years of service.
Searching for this yields a lot of links. Many are about strainers with larger holes, or bigger mesh (closer to a regular kitchen strainer), or about removing stains. Others suggest what I've tried, and I'm not sure about the other suggestions I've seen:
a couple posts say to soak in vinegar. I am afraid this might corrode the metal or make the plastic (and all further cups of tea!) taste like vinegar...?
eHow even suggests to soak in bleach?? Yikes.
Before I start soaking my beloved tea strainer in various household chemicals, I wanted to see if anyone here had this problem and has a good solution? Long-term soaking? Boiling? Vinegar? Baking soda? Special brush? Alcohol? Compressed air? BLEACH?! Anything that you've tried that should I avoid?
There's no way that vinegar is going to significantly corrode the stainless steel mesh. Chemically, it just doesn't happen. Moreover, the plastics used in these kinds of products won't be affected. If you make sure to wash off the vinegar (or other cleaning solution) thoroughly, there won't be any taste effect. Promise. I'm a chemistry professor.
Thanks to all for the suggestions. I hadn't even seen the "dishwasher safe" comment; whoops. I generally don't put anything plastic in the dishwasher, but seems like a reasonable plan in this case. I also hadn't considered that it might be scale. I'll throw one of these at it at a time and report what seems to work. Thanks again!
Did you ever figure out what works? We'd love an answer from experience!
@Jefromi - Done! Answer below. Thanks again to all for your help.
Soaking in bleach is indeed a very convinient and effefctive way to clean tea stains from strainers (as well as glasses). Simply soak the strainer in water with a bit of bleach added and let it sit there till it shines back. Rinse well afterwards.
Good news: I finally got 'round to cleaning the strainer, and it's clean and works well again. Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions.
I ran it through the dishwasher (twice), with no benefit; still clogged.
Next, I put dishwasher detergent (not dish soap) and the strainer into a small cup. Then I added boiling water and let it sit overnight. The residue came off easily with a toothbrush. Bingo; clean and clear.
Works well now! Thanks to all.
Pictures follow!
But it still looks brownish?
A denture cleaning tablet, used as instructed, followed by a little brush action does a pretty good job of cleaning up a tea filter cup! I've also used it on my tea cups to clean the insides.
If you push baking soda through a mesh screen it unclogs and cleans it really well too.
Thanks, and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Do you mean dry baking soda, or mixed with a bit of water into a paste? I've never heard of this, but perhaps I'll try it next time.
If you are washing it every day, you should only need to use a kitchen sponge after beating out the leaves lightly. You should not need vinegar and should never use bleach, as bleach can cause many metals to rust. if this strainer was sold with the teapot, treat it like gold - sometimes it can be hard to find a strainer that fits in your tea pot PERFECTLY and can be stored there, too.
Probably reasonable for daily cleaning, but it sounds like in the OP's case it's gotten dirty/clogged enough that a sponge isn't going to do it, so something a little more aggressive might be necessary.
Yes, agreed in general: minimal intervention is best! I've used little more than water to clean this thing over the past 10 years. This strategy works for my "other strainers" that are married to the tea pot; they're a coarser mesh and need even less maintenance. This particular model (link in original post) is much finer-gauge. Thanks for the thoughts, and stay tuned for results. I've heard the saying, "A good pot needs no leaves to brew tea," though I can't immediately find that phrase anywhere.
One of the only thing that seem to chemically dissolve tea deposit is acetone. Soak overnight and brush gently. Be careful, some plastics are attacked by acetone.
I use my strainer for chai. So in addition to tea, there are spices I grind to add to the tea. The strainer clogs pretty quickly. I finally remembered the device used to clean fine crud from tight spaces. I use a disposable electric toothbrush and sprinkle baking soda on the mesh (and water). I do this regularly and my mesh is starting to regain its original color and I have no clogs.
Put approximately 3 heaping Tablespoons of baking soda into a bowl with boiling water. Soak filter for about 3 hours. Scrub with a toothbrush.
Here is what one panel looks like after cleaning:
I do not use any cleaning solutions to clean mine! And i use mine regularly! I go by the Japanese principle that the tea stains over time lends a prized patina to the object. I let the leaves dry in the filter, then knock them out by turning it over on its lid and tossing the dried spent leaves. Then rinse in hot water from the faucet and let air dry. I may, every so often, GENTLY scrape the sides and the bottom with a toothbrush to loosen any debris, and rinse in hot water. Still no chemicals. N.B. stay away from the powdered teas. No self-respecting tea would be powdered; they would be rolled leaves.
Lemon juice hot water soak overnight. Rinse in morning. Safe and very effective.
Given the effort that the OP put into this question, please provide a more robust answer, and sources if you have any.
It seems like the only thing missing here is the ratio of lemon juice to water. I think we can assume that the author has done this, so their source is simply direct knowledge that it works.
Use Viacal: immerse the strainer overnight, rinse thoroughly next day and wash with washing up liquid; rinse again. The used Viacal can then be put back into its container, and used again. In fact, Viacal is a more effective cleaner than other proprietary kitchen and bathroom cleaners – though care should be taken in terms of possible skin allergies or respiratory problems that may affect some people. But again, it's often worth experimenting with cleaning products: for example, spray window cleaners are perfect for cleaning book covers! Solvents can often remove stains that no other cleaners will, but as these are highly flammable, great care should be taken in their use.
Use oxi laundry powder. You can buy this cheap in pound shops. One scoop in a jug plus boiling water soak strainer for a few minutes This will remove all stains.
Please Use Extreme Caution
Looking at the item I would say use caustic soda lye. Place the item in a stainless steel pot or container and add 3/4 of the capacity with water and 2 tablespoons of caustic this should start to get hot.
DO NOT use any aluminium or alloy container as this will be dissolved by the the solution.
WEAR SAFETY PROTECTION ideally such as shoulder-arm Neoprene gloves as well as safety goggle's: caustic soda lye is very harmful to human skin when at full strength, let it soak for half an hour then hold container with filter under running tap and dilute all the caustic solution away drain and rinse with vinegar to neutralize any caustic that is left over on the strainer then rinse with water again and the item will be as good as new.
There is a small recipe, soak the tea strainer overnight with white vinegar, baking soda, dish soap, and water. Bring PVC protective gloves the next day to clean the tea strainer.
Protective gloves for vinegar and dish soap? Or residual tea?
protect your hands :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.333278 | 2014-11-07T14:58:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49585",
"authors": [
"Aesthetic Dose",
"Bruce White",
"Cascabel",
"David Johnson",
"Geoff Hutchison",
"Guy",
"Henry Ren",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"Mike Mingay",
"Patrick Snyder",
"Quiana Sheen",
"Sheila Nesbitt",
"gnicko",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96375",
"jackie speirs",
"laurie lu",
"zazoo210 Sherwood"
],
"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
} |
45129 | Do alcohol and salt help in preservation of dehydrated vegetables?
I dehydrate vegetables and keep them in glass jars for a long time. Is it a good idea to put a small amount of alcohol 70% in the jar before I insert the vegetables, in order to kill the bacterias? Is it a good idea to put some salt inside? Does it prolong the shelf life of the dehydrated vegetables? Does it have any side-effects (besides a small effect on taste)?
No specific mention of salt or alcohol, but there are some techniques for preservation described here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18036/preserving-dehydrated-fruits-and-vegs?rq=1
Where would you get pure alcohol? Medicinal ethanol is usually galled to prevent drinking, so people can't use it as a loophole around alcohol taxes. If you add something like vodka, which is 40% alcohol and 60% water, you are rehydrating your vegetables.
I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.
Food, or at least vegetables, is spoiled by bacteria (sometimes also mould). Bacteria need quite a few factors to maintain homeostasis and live. They can't live if 1) a toxin is present, or 2) their living conditions are not met.
When you preserve food, you remove one of the conditions bacteria need to live. In the case of dehydrated vegetables, you remove the water needed for all the biological processes in their cells. From now on, each bacteria which falls onto your vegetable will die without multiplying. You will never get a bacterial colony on your dehydrated vegetables.
Pickling vegetables is another preservation method. You can use for example a salty brine. At sufficiently high levels, salt is a toxin for every organism. If you want pickled vegetables, you can put them in a brine with sufficient salt levels and keep them there. Again, any bacteria which fall in there will die.
Using both at once on the same vegetable is useless. You have no bacteria living on it any more - you don't need a second way to kill them. Putting salt on dehydrated vegetables is like putting rat poison on the moon - it doesn't reduce the rat population, because it started out with zero rats.
Food safety wise, dehydrated vegetables will last forever (and if they don't, you didn't dehydrate them properly) - so why would you want to extend their shelf life?
If you don't want to eat ancient dehydrated vegetables, this is probably because of their taste. They are not unsafe, the aromatics in them have decomposed with time. This is also a kind of "shelf life" - but it gets shortened, not prolonged, by adding prodigious amounts of salt, alcohol, sugar or other preservatives. With them, your vegetables taste worse from the start.
The logic here is that, maybe my dehydration isn't perfect (because nobody's perfect), so I would like to add another level of safety.
"Putting salt on dehydrated vegetables is like putting rat poison on the moon" just made my day - in addition to being a reasonable analogy.
I never heard/read that using alcohol would help?! I've seen it used mostly for fruits.
Salt is used (and has been used) to keep meat and fish for a long time , but I never heard about using it for vegetables; Me think it would not really change anything on the long run; but when using the dried vegetables for a recipe, you will need to be extra careful about the extra salt (either do not add more, or rinse in fresh water before using it.
A quick google suggest that keeping dried food stuff in sealed containers in cool and dark places will be enough for a long shelflife.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.334282 | 2014-06-25T13:46:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45129",
"authors": [
"Cannabis delivery",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Linda",
"Pierre 2001",
"Sunrise Glass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"matthieu",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47024 | Vegetable "jam" with salt instead of sugar
My bread baker has a program for preparing jams. The recipe says to put 3 cups of fruit with 1 cup of water and some lemon juice. This tastes great and it is also preserved well for over a year.
Now I would like to use the baker for preserving vegetables in the same way. I can use the same recipe and have sweet jams of vegetables like tomatoes, onions or carrot. But I would also like to have salty-flavored "jams". So my question is: can I just replace the cup of sugar with a cup of salt? Can a jam prepared like this be preserved for a long time?
No! A cup of salt is an enormous amount and would be dangerous for anyone who ate it, although they are unlikely to be able to swallow it in the first place as it would taste awful.
Preserving vegetables can be done with or without preservative agents like sugar, salt, and acid but you won't be able to use your bread machine's jam making function. I would highly doubt that the jam made in your bread maker would be good for a year anyway, as long-term preservation requires canning and processing which isn't going to be done by a bread machine.
From a practical standpoint, you won't be able to get a full cup of salt to dissolve into a "jam". The solubility of sodium chloride (table salt) is much lower than that of sucrose (sugar) and it doesn't change much with additional heat. So while you can add a (relatively) huge amount of sugar, get it to dissolve, and be left with a stable and pleasantly jammy texture, salt simply will not do this. Try to replace sugar with an equal amount of salt, and you'll be left with overly salty pickles floating on top of an undissolved pile of salt crystals. Preserved, yes, but maybe not worth preserving.
I would suggest instead that you look around at "savory jam" recipes which focus on less sweet flavors. You'll notice that these still contain a lot of sugar - this is done for texture and to help balance out other flavors. It's very difficult to completely eliminate sugar if your end goal is a jam because it does much more than just add sweetness.
Perhaps a better comparison than pickles is preserved lemons, though those obviously have some acid in them that you'd be missing from the vegetables.
It is possible to preserve vegetables with salt via lactic fermentation but as GdD mentioned, 1 cup is way too much. I believe lactic fermentation is your best bet however, either dry salting or brining. If you're dry salting the maximum you'd use is 20 - 25% by weight but the vegetables would require several rinsings to get the saltiness down to a tolerable level. At the low (and more common) end, where you're brining, you'd use about 2 - 5% salt by weight. Just don't go below 2% or you risk ruining your batch by inviting other stuff in.
I would look at a few recipes for lacto-fermented tomato sauce and modify one to suit your preference. Just remember that fermentation will continue for as long as you let it. Don't use a tight-fitting lid or gas buildup will create an explosion hazard. The flavor will also continue to get stronger over time. Storing it in your fridge or a cool place will slow the fermentation enough to give you several months with it tasting more or less the same. I've heard of people pasteurizing their ferments in jars to extend the shelf life further but have no personal experience with it.
Jams and jellies set up due to the presence of pectin, which is essentially the plant version of collagen/gelatin. Pectin requires sugar and acid to form a stable gel, so those ingredients are pretty much required. That's why your bread maker's instructions recommend adding lemon juice as well as sugar.
It would definitely be a cool experiment to try making a vegetable jam or jelly using some form of tasteless sugars and additional pectin and acid, but that's more of a chemistry experiment than a recipe. My veggie nomination is tomatoes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.334566 | 2014-09-10T07:12:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47024",
"authors": [
"Angeliki Gkli.",
"Cascabel",
"Des Atkinson",
"John Walton",
"Marvic Spiteri",
"Pete",
"Samantha Griffiths",
"Susan Bullas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47248 | Storing onions and potatoes in the same cellar
Potatoes and onions have the same storage guidelines: store them in a a well-ventilated area in the pantry.
However, I have read that onions should be kept away from potatoes as onions will absorb moisture from the potatoes, causing the onions to spoil.
Since my cellar is quite small, I wonder what distance should be kept between the onions and potatoes so that they don't hurt each other?
I keep them in separate (yet adjacent) solid bins that do not share airflow, though I agree with the above that the ambient air and humidity are more influential than the intermingling of off-gasses of the actual onions/potatoes.
I prefer a drier pantry (40% humidity). But since everywhere is different try a few different spots and see what works in your house.
I believe that advice is mainly meant for people storing a large quantity of potatoes and onions (like two 10lbs bags) for long periods of time (like 2-3 months). I can't imagine it applies to a few potatoes and onions stored in a basket.
I have a pantry which is consistently between 60F and 68F, with a humidity of 60% to 80%. I have stored potatoes and onions together in a hanging wire basket for up to 4 weeks at a time. While the potatoes will turn green and sprout in that time (I buy organic) the onions are still good (although somewhat stronger after a month).
So my answer is: ignore that advice.
Actually, I do intend to store a large quantity for a long period... this is why I asked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.334872 | 2014-09-19T11:38:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47248",
"authors": [
"Chris Hartel",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Jay Jackson",
"Stephanie Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"robert hobbs",
"коля"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47118 | Sweet potatoes: to cook or not to cook?
I would like to dehydrate some sweet potatoes. Here I found a recipe for dehydrating fresh sweet potatoes in low temperatures without cooking them first. But here they say that fresh sweet potatoes contain toxins and should not be eaten without cooking. So what is the truth? Is it safe to eat dehydrated sweet potatoes that were not cooked first?
The act of dehydrating will denature some things in the sweet potatoes (in many ways dehydrating/freezing will have the same effect as cooking). I can't say if the enzyme you're worried about will be destroyed (hence this not being an answer).
*enzymes rather toxins
How can one ever eat raw sweet potato? Usually pressure-cook it, cook in the steam for consumption. I don't get it, why do you opt to dehydrate?
@bonCodigo: usually, raw vegetables contain some enzymes and nutrients that are destroyed by cooking. So my default option is to eat raw. However, there are some vegetables that must not be eaten raw because they contain toxins. Hence my question.
I would prefer cooking them first. Sun-dried sweet potatoes do exist in some parts of Asia as a snack. They are chewy chunks rather than crispy slices as shown in your link. There are also freeze-dried ones around these days. Anti-nutrition contents are not overwhelming in sweet potatoes to my knowledge. So, uncooked should be fine. I think you will get better texture and avoid browning by cooking them first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335025 | 2014-09-14T07:25:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47118",
"authors": [
"Charlene Damion",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Niall",
"Paula Hart",
"Tiffany Taylor",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105429 | The bread is brighter than usual
I have a Morphy-Richards bread-baker which is about 30 years old. It still works fine, but the latest bread I baked is brighter than usual. I use whole wheat flour, so the bread is usually browny, but now its color is more near white.
Is the bread edible in this situation, or is it still unbaked?
Does it mean that my bread-baker is no longer strong enough for baking, and I should replace it?
Is the color change in the crumb (the inside), the crust, or both? If the crust, all sides or just some?
Could you add a picture?
How is the internal texture? Is it baked as usual?
@Sneftel it is in the outside, at the top part. The bottom part is still browny.
@Tinuviel I already put it in a standard oven and baked it for 15 minutes and it became browny, so I do not have a picture now. I still wonder why it did not came out browny in the first place.
Did you change the brand of flour?
@Bee no, I always use whole wheat flour
Different brand though
@Bee actually yes, it is a different brand! I did not think that a change in brand can cause such a substantial change in color.
From the comments - you used a different brand of whole wheat flour this time around. My best guess (and really that's all anyone can do with something like this as there are way too many factors) is that this new brand is the reason for the difference in the bread.
Just because they are the same type of flour, it doesn't mean they are all milled, sieved etc. the same way.
It may be this new flour is:
More coarse or finely ground
Different additives
More of the wheat husks are sieved out
All these factors can effect how the bread cooks as well as how much liquid the flour absorbs.
I would say it is very unlikely that your bread machine has broken since it sounds like the bread still cooked!
It's also unlikely that the bread will cause you any harm. An enriched plain loaf bread mix can be eaten raw (not that you'd want to).
Please feel free to edit my list with any other changes flour can have between brands.
I am going to give you rather technical answer to check your Bread maker if its working properly.
Do you own a portable thermometer? try checking the bread maker's temperature for complete time period of cooking/ baking, the temperature mustn't drop a lot.
if possible check the amperage rating on the equipment and check if it is drawing the current accordingly. (you need some knowhow of ampere meter)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335174 | 2020-02-21T13:08:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105429",
"authors": [
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Gamora",
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103238 | Ice-cream-on-a-stick in refrigerator temperature
In the summer, I used to make ice-cream-on-a-stick in various flavors. Some examples:
Chocolate flavor: melted cocoa + honey + coconut oil + almond butter.
Banana flavor: bananas + peanut butter + cinnamon + soy milk.
I just mixed them, put in a mould, put a wooden stick in each hole, and put in the freezer. Then, I could grab one in the morning and eat on the way to work as a breakfast.
Now, winter is coming and it is unpleasant to eat at freezer temperature, so I wonder if I can achieve the same effect in refrigerator temperature: is there an ingredient I can add to the mixture, that will make it freeze, and stick to the stick, in the refrigerator?
"Freeze" obviously doesn't work in the refrigerator. You might discard the stick idea, and do something in a cup...like a panna cotta, or other gelatin based product. A very firm gel might adhere to a stick, but I doubt it would be pleasant to eat.
@moscafj - Freezing in physics/chemistry terminology just means turning a liquid into a solid through decreasing temperature. Some liquids freeze at freezer temperatures; others freeze at much higher temperatures. OP seems just to be looking for ingredients that would create a phase transition to solid ("freezing") at refrigerator temperatures.
I'd look at making a cheesecake on a stick.
It is stable at fridge and room temperature;
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335383 | 2019-11-02T20:46:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103238",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35700 | storing liquor in cabin for the winter--quality loss?
I stocked up on a few mid-range "nice" whiskeys, scotches, and cognacs ($50-70 bottles) while visiting my summer cottage this summer but will likely not finish off all the bottles before I leave in a few weeks. I know they're unlikely to freeze (not totally impossible we'd hit 30 below, though 20-25 is more common; but not likely inside or for an extended enough period to really freeze them), but will their quality be affected by being between stored over the winter? Likely to have some short periods of below zero nights and possibly not getting much out of single digits during the day, at the worst; it'll usually be less severe than that (southern Maine).
I don't think that this temperature range should be a problem for the spirits. If there is a significant amount of air in the bottles, though, you might want to decant them into smaller ones to reduce oxidation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335506 | 2013-07-31T01:32:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35700",
"authors": [
"Carlos E. Tejada",
"Snails62",
"Star",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83598",
"radlinsky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35776 | How do I tell the freshness of raw chicken?
I just bought some fresh cut meat from the local market. I've cleaned it and put it for brining. The chicken is smelly and has a yellowish color. I also got a lot more fat than usual while cleaning it.
I know that storage affects chicken quality, but this is fresh cut meat. Could fresh cut chicken be bad? How do I tell the best quality chicken and what factors affect the quality?
generally, smelly meat means not fresh. it could have stayed a carcass for a while before being cut. so the cut is fresh :)
@MandoMando Stayed a carcass? The local market here keeps live chickens which are cut on customer request. It still doesn't seem fresh. What I'm concerned is that could it have a disease or something? Could it be a result of chicken not being given proper feed?
The yellow color could be just a sign of what it was fed. According to the USDA:
THE COLOR OF POULTRY
What is the usual color of raw poultry?
Raw poultry can vary from a bluish-white to yellow. All of these colors are normal and are a direct result of breed, exercise, age, and/or diet. Younger poultry has less fat under the skin, which can cause the bluish cast, and the yellow skin could be a result of marigolds in the feed.
You could have an older chicken that had marigolds in what it was fed.
On the flip side, I was always taught that if any meat smells bad, it isn't good to eat. If it was my chicken in the kitchen, I would take it back to the store or just throw it out.
If you are still debating on if it is good to eat, you could always take it back to the store where you purchased it, or contact the USDA Poultry Hotline.
here they forcefeed (or used to, not seen them much in recent years) maize to some chickens in order to fatten them up. Turns their fat and skin a sickly yellow. Some people prefer it that way, especially for cooking soup.
Some chickens are deliberately bred to have a yellowish colour. Apparently people associate it with free range or organic farming.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335618 | 2013-08-03T15:46:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35776",
"authors": [
"A P",
"Centimane",
"Kshitiz Sharma",
"MandoMando",
"Steven Tomlinson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84304",
"jwenting",
"sayed.allamah.iqbal",
"thirstingknowledge"
],
"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
} |
36158 | Why is my chicken all rubbery?
I'm an (very) amateur chef who's just started cooking chicken. I've tried cooking chicken by boiling and frying it.
I've managed to cook it right by boiling. The chicken is soft and tender.
But no matter what I try I just can't seem to cook it right by frying.
My fried chicken is all rubbery. I thought I'd increase cooking time to cook it more from inside. But that burnt it from the outside.
Does rubbery mean it is under cooked? Is it possible to make this rubbery-ness go away by frying it more?
(I am currently deep frying my chicken. Would frying it with less oil make a difference?)
Rubbery chicken is normally a sign that it is overcooked.
Frying is a challenging method to cook chicken, because it is very rapid, and easy to overcook the chicken.
Some of this, you will simply learn by experience, based on the typical size of the parts you are frying, and the type of breading you use. You will learn to recognize from the pattern of bubbles and how the breading looks when it is done.
In the mean time, if you have a quality instant read thermometer, you can take a piece out and measure its temperature.
White meat should be about 158 - 160 F, dark meat about 165 - 170 F (depending on your preference).
I agree about frying being hard. I am thinking of boiling it to cook it properly and then frying it to get a little crispiness. Would this combination method work?
Boiling is actually an extremely aggressive method of cooking, as the specific heat of water is very high. It is easy to overcook this way. Modern sous-vide methods are effective, but not practical for everyone. Poaching is another method that can be effective, as the heat is much more gentle. However, for crispy but not overcooked, there are easier things to do. I recommend oven roasting dry. Approximately 45 min to 1 hr (depending on size of the chicken parts) at about 350 (for white meat) to 375 (for dark meat), skin side up, can do wonders. But the trick is monitoring.
I had the same problem many years ago, not with frying chicken but making curries. No matter what I did, my chicken would turn out very rubbery and dry. Thr trick was to use the right kind of chicken pieces, at least it worked for me! I was using chicken breast and over cooking it would just make it very dry. So I started using chicken thigh and it has never disappointed me. My chicken is still very moist and delicious now that I am using chicken thigh.
As this link explaines, chicken thigh has more of both fat and collagen than the chicken breast and so their cooking temperatures and times are different.
Having said that, you still should consider the nutritional value of both:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/nutrition-chicken-breasts-vs-thighs-1815.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/418813-the-nutrition-of-chicken-breasts-vs-thighs/
Dark meat chicken is ammenable to higher temperatures and longer cooking times than is white meat, but even it will become rubbery if sufficiently overcooked. I do agree it is a better and more flavorful candidate for many curries and similar type dishes.
I brine my chicken before frying or roasting, and that keeps it oh so tender and flavorful. Overnight brining will give you the best ever results but if you're in a hurry, 2 hours is acceptable. In the brining solution, I add salt, sugar, peppercorns, bay leaves, coriander seeds, and lots of crushed fresh garlic (because I love garlic). Make sure the whole chicken (or cut-ups) is covered. Cover tightly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.335816 | 2013-08-20T13:44:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36158",
"authors": [
"Frank Marien",
"Katie",
"Kshitiz Sharma",
"Paul S",
"Pedro TresPeros",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85348",
"markdon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36165 | How long will whole coffee beans last in the freezer?
I was gifted several bags of great coffee beans, which I won't be able to use all at once. If I store them in the freezer, how long will they last without losing flavor?
I know some have noted that they can last months in the freezer, but I seem to notice a difference in taste after just a few weeks.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4641/3649
Related: As an additional comment this question has been proposed here: Area 51 Coffee Proposal. You may find some other interesting questions there.
They will technically last a long time in the freezer - up to many months - but this is not the best way to store them as they lose flavor quickly (as little as 5-6 uses). Even though the beans will last, storing them in the freezer is not ideal. It affects flavor for a number of reasons. (See below)
If you haven't opened the bag, store the bag in the cupboard, away from sunlight, heat, and excess humidity.
The best way to store coffee beans after being opened is in an opaque, airtight container at room temperature (unless you have a resealable bag with a degassing valve designed for storing coffee). After being opened, the beans are considered fresh for 2-3 weeks, although if you are strict about the storage you may be able to get up to 5 out of them. (When I say fresh, I mean with minimal flavor change/loss)
Why the freezer is bad:
Freezing beans severely lowers the humidity in the bag or container. This causes the beans to become stale very quickly. In effect, you are slowly freeze drying them. Also using cold beans in a grinder can mess with grind due to the oil on the beans being in a more solid state, which in turn affects the brewing.
If you do decide to store them in the freezer, put them in an airtight container and when you go to use the beans let the container warm up to room temperature before opening. This way you do not mess with the overall humidity content of the container too much. Especially let them warm up to room temperature before grinding.
Sources:
I am a Barista in a cafe and a lover of coffee at home. I have tried both methods of coffee storage and have dealt with many customers who have tried both.
In my store we follow these regulations:
Beans that go into an opaque container that is not totally airtight are fresh for two weeks max.
Packaged beans with a degassing valve are fresh for six months or longer in the bag.
Beans, once ground, cannot be used after two hours (that being said, ground coffee starts losing flavor immediately).
Obviously, the sooner you use everything the better, but we follow those guidelines.
So in terms of flavor, the freezer is actually worse than room temperature?
@virginia precisely
I am not a barista, but I have been into good coffee for several years. Some of the statements above are contrary to conventional wisdom - as summarized in Babbie's rule of fifteens. Most home roasters agree that packaged beans with a degassing valve are fresh for about fifteen days in the bag. I have verified this based on personal experience. If you want to keep them longer than that, you MUST freeze them. Once the beans are ground, they start losing flavor in fifteen minutes.
@RickG I completely disagree with this rule of fifteens. Most rules in this format (survival rule ie: 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water, 3 hours without shelter) are false. They are conveniently packaged like this so that they are easier to remember while sacrificing accuracy. Based on my professional and personal experience freezing beans is a terrible idea. Every training manual and guideline that I have read recommends against this. My coworkers who have 5-10 years of experience also recommend against this. Other cafes that roast their own beans recommend against this.
@RickG Furthermore, about this rule of fifteens, coffee doesn't go stale at a specific instant in time. It gradually goes stale. Ground coffee starts to lose aromatics within seconds of being ground, if you want to get really technical about it, I would say that ground coffee can be considered 'stale' after 1-2 mins. Extracted coffee must be served within fifteen seconds? This is absurd. Of course it is going to depend on what form. You can't drink drip or perc coffee after fifteen seconds of extraction unless you want second degree burns.
@RickG Further-furthermore, espresso is the only thing that must be served immediately. It's freshness is extremely time-sensitive. Even a straight shot of espresso done in a pre-heated cup needs at least 30 seconds to 1 minute to cool off before the majority of people would be able to drink it without burning themselves.
According to Home Barista, freezing coffee is pretty controversial.
He has, however, performed blind tasting experiments and concludes (emphasis added):
Two months is safe: Freshly roasted coffee that is immediately frozen
after roasting in a near airtight container in a very cold freezer,
can be kept undisturbed in the freezer for at least 2 months and be
expected to produce espressos that are not obviously inferior to those
made from fresh coffee that has never been frozen.
The article is fascinating; I recommend looking through it, even if you don't read every detail of his experimental methodology.
In the air tight containers with the degassing valve in the freezer should last till you consume them. The degassing valve was designed by Fresco to keep freshly roasted coffee for up to Six Months and gave rise to StarBucks putting branches everywhere.
Barista Champions and international competitors run a very different game than the rest of us. Some don't even check-in the coffee in luggage when flying due to the colder temperatures in the luggage compartment. They also like to let the coffee breath for a couple of days after roasting to peak flavour.
For the rest of us mere mortals, unless you have a serious espresso machine and calibrate your machine and grinder hourly, you won't notice too much degradation and can enjoy it till the end. This is because your extraction won't be optimal anyway.
Even after a whole year the freezer, good coffee that were frozen fresh will taste good to most coffee enthusiast. Left outside, however, you will notice it much more.
Make sure you pull the bag out of the freezer and put in the hopper (grinder hopper) a couple of days before grinding.
In the end, you'll notice that there are more forces at play here and as a home barista you can't control them all. So just focus on enjoying the coffee.
In the past, I thought you should thaw the coffee before grinding it. Most people on coffeegeek and home-barista disagree. Based on a few experiments, I changed my mind. Now I take the coffee beans from the freezer and grind them immediately.
@RickG the 2012 award winning roaster that we get our coffee from recommends thawing it for a couple of days. My thought is that the cold beans will sweat humidity from the air and start 'brewing' in the grinder. Also, unless one's measuring the grind to sub grams and correct tamping pressure, none of this stuff matters as the extraction will be off anyway.
For espresso, I measure out 16g of beans and put them in 1 inch plastic bags BEFORE freezing. So I only place that small amount of frozen coffee into the grinder - it thaws VERY rapidly.
@RickG It's not about rapid thawing, it's about the beans having a few days to once again reach an equilibrium in humidity that they had when they went into the freezer.
Don't ever freeze beans. Quality will be compromised and flavours destroyed upon freezing. Better idea is to put freshly ground coffee into pre sized packages. Use as needed.
And where do you store these little packages? In the freezer? How would that be different from freezing the whole beans? Or do you mean keep those little bags at room temperature? I feel like it wouldn't keep fresh as long as whole beans, if that were the case.
Grinding it before you need it is way, way worse than freezing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.336097 | 2013-08-20T14:42:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36165",
"authors": [
"Anita Huntley",
"B N",
"Cascabel",
"ESTHER MMESOMA",
"Kareen",
"Kurbo Weight Watchers",
"MandoMando",
"Mauricio Lazo",
"Patrick Sebastien",
"Rick G",
"Staph",
"ggsp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84820",
"virginia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36173 | Poached eggs dissolve while cooking?
I typically use a little white vinegar to hold my poached eggs together better while cooking (plus, I like vinegar).
Recently, I ran out of white vinegar and swapped in red wine vinegar instead. The egg white nearly dissolved while cooking, leaving behind only the yolk.
Is this due to the change in vinegar? Or might there be other issues at play (heat, pot, egg quality, etc.)?
The likely contributing factors are (and probably more than one, and perhaps all apply):
Older, weaker red wine vinegar, which didn't sufficiently acidulate the water to denature the egg white proteins quickly, thus removing their ability to dissolve
Older eggs, with weaker, looser whites that spread more easily in the poaching liquid, and thus dissolve more easily due to greater surface area
Lower heat of the poaching liquid which would also slow the cooking of the white, allowing it more time to potentially dissolve before the proteins are denatured from heat, and thus can no longer do so
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.336761 | 2013-08-20T20:22:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36173",
"authors": [
"Dlrawson20 ",
"Donna Rayyan",
"Jakub Judas",
"Marcia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84837"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83157 | Mushrooms taste FUNKY
I made this today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9gncvPpQKA
The first time I made it, the mushrooms and steak came out great. First cooking the steak, then cooking the mushroom in remaining (steak juices + oil) + butter + thyme on high heat. The mushrooms were a bit shriveled and not plump. They had a nice crunchy texture.
The second time, I decided to cook mushrooms without the steak juices. Also instead of putting the butter and thyme in immediately after the mushrooms, I fried the mushrooms in olive oil on high heat first, then put in the butter and thyme.
This time the mushrooms were disgusting... there was a very strong earthy taste , like the juices inside the mushroom weren't cooked out... Except the problem is, the mushrooms were also starting to get dry, so I couldn't cook them any longer.
What made the difference the 2nd time around that the mushrooms tasted so bad, and how can I avoid dry / earthy-juice mushrooms in the future?
There are three possibilities:
Your mushrooms were bad, if they are a bit off the result isn't likely to be good
Your choice of mushroom was different, with a different flavor
Olive oil burns on high heat, creating off flavors. My money would be on this being your problem. Next time reduce the heat a bit if you want to use olive oil, or use a higher temperature oil like canola (rapeseed). You could also try a bit of water or stock, steak juices are mostly water, not fat, and that would reproduce the conditions of the pan more closely
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.336875 | 2017-07-22T06:07:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83157",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87513 | Does shaking carbonated water before use increase the carbonation?
I'm trying to make the perfect Egg Cream, which requires maximum carbonation. Should I shake the bottle before opening it?
What will help is chilling the soda water as much as possible. Gas is more soluble in water at lower temperatures, and the difference is appreciable over a relevant range (drinks fridge at 8C vs the coldest part of your fridge at 2C). Be sure to leave it long enough that it's well and truly cold, and handle gently.
No. Shaking will create a lot of small bubbles which will act as nucleation points to release the dissolved gas when the container is opened and the pressure released.
It makes things worse. When you shake the liquid, it allows the gas to escape more easily, making the liquid less carbonated when you actually use it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.337022 | 2018-02-04T04:37:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87513",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36601 | Water in the microwave to reheat pizza better
I've seen this claim various times on the Internet; for example at https://i.sstatic.net/X5jha.jpg
Put a small amount of water in a glass when you microwave your pizza to keep the crust from getting chewy
Does this really work? If so, could anyone explain why?
I have used a similar method: place a damp (not soaked) paper towel over the pizza
In my experience it works, but don't put the pizza plat on top of the cup. Leave the cup uncovered and put it in the corner of the microwave near where the perforated holes are. Put the pizza on a plate like normal in the middle of the Microwave. The water heats more normally, absorbing excesse heat that would have otherwise nuked your pizza. It will take longer to heat your pizza but when it gets to your desired temperature it will be like it just came out of the oven, or pretty close to it.
The only possible reason it could work is by increasing humidity in the oven cavity, and to do so in any significant amount, the water would have to be brought to a boil. Even so, there is no reason to believe that increased humidity would have any effect on the crust.
Otherwise, the only affect of the water is to provide an additional mass in the oven that will absorb the microwaves in competition with the pizza, essentially slowing down the heating process. It is conceivable that this might make it easier not to heat the pizza to the "rubbery crust" phase, but then the same effect could be achieved simply by lowering the power setting.
So no, there is no scientific basis for this belief other than the placebo affect.
Reheating pizza is one of the most challenging tasks, and there are many methods, none ideal.
It's not quite the same as lower power, since low power is actually just on and off, but I'm not sure I can see what that'd have to do with chewy crust... unless getting too hot even for a short time is what makes the crust chewy?
@Jefromi The power cycling is true, but averaged over time, the outcome is the same, and I didn't want to over complicate the answer.
I don't completely agree with this answer. Some water will be boiled - that's how a microwave works, even if the whole thing isn't fully boiling, and a small amount of water would reach boiling quickly. Humidifying the oven cavity does have some effect on bread crusts; steam ovens are used for baking baguettes, after all. I don't know that I disagree with the end result - odds are it doesn't have much of an effect since it's sogginess in the first place causing crust problems - but the premise of the first paragraph is largely incorrect.
Increasing humidity (H) COULD have effect on cooking item in microwave. Increasing H means microwaves are likely to contact more H20 molecules b4 contacting food. Different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (EM) will either be absorbed by the H20, reflected by H20 or transmitted through the H20. IF water absorbs some of EM, then this EM will not contact food. Thus, food is heated by different source than lower H case. IF same type of EM absorbed by H20, also contributes to making pizza rubbery, then it would make sense that increasing H would make pizza less rubbery.
I just tested 3 individual slices on the pizza setting. That setting basically just turns the heat on and off so the food heats more evenly.
I tried:
A small shot glass of cool water
A mug of cold water
A mug of warm water
They were all the same. The only thing I noticed was that the pizza was cold where the shot glass was touching it. The #2 and #3 were done with the mug underneath the plate.
Stomach satisfied, but myth busted.
I love empirical research in the kitchen too, but the experimental design didn't convince me here. The question was whether water in the microwave does anything, and all three conditions included water.
I also had a slice that was reheated without water. I also had a couple slices that were fresh when the pizza was ordered. I also had functional mouth and fingers that could tell the difference between soggy and crispy crust. I've also had this same particular pizza on multiple occasions. I also had someone else confirm with me. Unfortunately, however, I did not repeat the experiment multiple times or use different microwaves... so, still plausible! :)
@s.g. could you [edit] the info from your comment into your answer too?
I just tried it, it doesn't work. End of story.
I think the increased humidity in the microwave would help.
When baking bread, adding some steam to the oven (via steam-injected or adding some water to a hot pan beneath the bread), helps get a nice crust on the bread. I believe the theory in this case is that the water making contact with the surface of the bread allows the surface to get little hotter and cook the outside of the bread more than the inside of the bread because the water transfers heat better than the air.
I don't see why this should not apply to reheating something as well, but as @SAJ14SAJ said, the water would need to get sufficiently hot.
I have also seen when baking bread someone use a spray bottle to mist the bread with water. Perhaps this too could be done to the pizza crust.
I must disagree. When baking, the steam at the beginning keeps the surface softer for a while so that the bread can rise better & without tearing - especially combined with cuts on the surface to choose where the bread should expand. Misting with water after baking (just before removing from the oven) gives the bread a somewhat glossy surface.
Yet when I had not steamed/misted my bread I got no real crust at all. Surely then the moisture is responsible for crust's crispiness at least toward the end of the baking process. I'm no expert, but I've only ever seen the steaming being cited for crust creation which is why I would think it applies to the original question.
You're all wrong in fact. The microwave heats water particles. The exact reason you can cover a heating meal with a paper towel without it igniting. The glass of water is meant to alleviate the intensity of microwaves heating the pizza and crust, thus avoiding an overcooked, chewy crust. No myth needing to be busted.. Best way to solve it all, stop ordering a whole pizza for your lonely ass & share. No leftovers = no reheating
Some of the answers already mention this possible mechanism. That doesn't mean it actually works, though - a couple people tried it and found no benefit. Next time take the time to read what people wrote before you call them wrong.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.337137 | 2013-09-08T02:30:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36601",
"authors": [
"AMZ Kdp",
"Aaron",
"Cascabel",
"Christina Thompson",
"David Wilkins",
"Ebby Whinfield",
"Joe M",
"Marti Lyle",
"Martin",
"Nick",
"Patrik Lundquist",
"Raymond Woytowich",
"Robert Gibson",
"Ryan Mann",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85920",
"rumtscho",
"s g ",
"starsplusplus",
"user3731622"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36615 | Fennel mandarin salad
I have a recipe for a fennel mandarin salad. it says to chop the fennel bulb. I haven't cooked or even ate fennel before. I have the fennel. Do i chop the green portion or the white bulb portion? for this salad?
It is almost certainly the white bulb or root, which should be peeled as well. If you can provide the full recipe, you might get a better answer.
As it says, you chop the bulb - the white part at the bottom. The core of the bulb can sometimes be a bit tough, especially at the bottom, and you may have to remove the drier outer layer, but otherwise, that's the part you really want to use.
The bulb is juicy and easy to eat, while the green stalks are usually much more fibrous - think celery, except tougher. If you do want to eat the stalks fresh, you can try slicing them relatively thinly, so you don't have long strands of fiber to try to chew. Alternatively, they're great for adding flavor to soups and stews; you can just fish them out after they've released their flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.337682 | 2013-09-09T00:31:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36615",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36672 | How to achieve tender or crunchy toasted lentil sprouts?
A few days ago, I started sprouting a batch of lentils. This morning, I took some of the beans, now with 0.5-1 mm shoots growing out of them, tossed them in salt, pepper, and paprika, and spread them in a single layer on a pie tim, which I baked in a preheated 250F oven for about 20 minutes.
When they came out they had a lovely flavor, but were a bit gummier than I'd like. I'm going to perform the experiment again with the remainder of my sprouts tomorrow, but I'll probably change something.
What I'd like is something crunchier--I've had toasted chickpea sprouts that are crunchy and delicious, and I can only hope that a similar effect can be achieved with lentils. Does anyone have any suggestions? I could bake them longer, change the temperature, only add the salt after cooking (as one does to prevent beans in soup from toughening up)... Also, by tomorrow the sprouts will be more developed, with longer shoots. I suspect the chemical changes that take place will also make a difference.
If they're gummy, they might still have too much moisture in them. Try roasting them at higher temperatures or longer and see if they crisp up.
I soaked some Guy de Puy lentils until they had 1/8 inch shoots. Then, I coated my toaster oven tray with a little coconut oil. I took the sprouts and tossed them in a bowl with some ginger powder, chili powder, and sea salt. I spread them out on the toaster oven tray, and baked them at 250F for 60 minutes. Every 10 minutes while they cooked, I opened up the toaster oven to stir the lentils with a spatula and spread them out again. What I ended up with is delightfully crunchy with a warm flavor. I will definitely be trying this experiment out again!
In our country, Philippines, if we needed to make something a bit crunchy we would put them in a batter of egg and flour and deep fry them. I have been researching on this as well because I have a batch of lentils that I want to cook and make a snack out of. I am thinking that baking will make it either hard or soggy and roasting like on a pan might burn it so I want to try and deep fry it. Hope this helps! :-)
Please come back and let us know if this works; from your answer it's hard to tell if it's a good idea or not!
I made banana chocolate lentil balls yesterday, added the lentil sprouts, mashed banana and flour and egg and made balls with them and deep-fried in oil. The result was fluffy and soft dough and then crunchy nutty lentil sprouts inside. I'll try deep frying the lentils later and just add some spices to flavor it, I'll update as well. :-)
I think the OP is trying to make just the lentil sprouts crunchy, not to fry them inside something else. Are you saying that you think deep-frying just the sprouts would work?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.337812 | 2013-09-10T13:32:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36672",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Oneall",
"Junior Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"user125801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51884 | How can I extend shelf life of my cakes?
I need to bake a cake and send it over to a friend. It might take 5-7 days for the cake to reach him. What are the possible ways available to extend shelf life at least till the day it reaches him, especially during the transit?
My current recipe consists of dry spices, honey, sugar, white floor, eggs, baking soda, baking powder, warm water, coffee powder, almond, oil.
Increasing the amount of sugar, eggs, and oil should make the cake last longer. The sugar binds water, which slows the cake from drying out. The eggs and oil slow the starch in the flour from recrystalizing, which is what causes staling.
Good point, but I supose OP is worried about mold, too. Welcome to the site, BTW ;-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.338075 | 2014-12-23T09:51:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51884",
"authors": [
"Ann Bartlett",
"Erida she",
"Jonathan Willenberg",
"Stan Scherr",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97172 | Does this still count as "scrambled eggs"?
Being Chinese-American, I grew up on this stuff. The English name "Chinese steamed eggs" comes from the fact that it comes from Chinese cuisine, and that "steamed" comes from the word 蒸 in 蒸鸡蛋. The word 鸡蛋 refers to "chicken eggs", but the word 鸡 may refer to chicken or turkey. The word 蛋 refers to "eggs". The Chinese language has no singular/plural distinction, but contextually, we know it's eggs, not an egg, because we often use two or more eggs.
During the food prep, the eggs must be beaten. Afterwards, some water is added to increase volume. Salt may be added for flavor. Then, the eggs are set in the steamer to be steamed.
In Chinese cuisine, there is also a separate dish called 番茄炒鸡蛋, which involves tomatoes and scrambled eggs. 炒 refers to a cooking process. The Chinese definition of this cooking process is: "把东西放在锅里搅拌着弄熟". Basically, you put something in the wok and mix until ready or fully cooked. Often in Chinese-American restaurants, 炒 may refer to the process of stir-frying. In this dish, 番茄炒鸡蛋, the eggs are stir-fried, but I think the process and the finished result look indistinguishable from scrambled eggs. I mean, you really do scramble the eggs, dump the eggs in the wok, and then stir-fry the eggs until fully cooked.
Here's the tricky thing. The English word "scramble" seems to refer to the process of beating the eggs. If that is the case, then wouldn't Chinese steamed eggs be considered and classified as a form of "scrambled eggs"? Or should Chinese steamed eggs be considered/classified as "steamed eggs"? Or should this recipe fall under both categories - "steamed" and "scrambled"?
Can you explain why you're interested in classifying this? It may help us constrain our answers or get you an answer that is more helpful.
Omelettes are mainly beaten eggs but aren't called scrambled. Some are cooked without any further stirring. So maybe it could be a steamed omelette. Or maybe food doesn't categorise well even in one culinary culture, far less so across borders.
I would think the definition of 'scrambled' comes from being constantly stirred as they set, which gives the final texture; not that they start as beaten eggs.
I've heard of an egg simply dropped into shallow oil [just as you would to make a regular fried egg] then stirred in the pan to produce a similar if less homogenous result, also called 'scrambled'.
I think the letting out of the egg mixture with water, milk or cream is just to produce a fluffier result, sofer texture. I don't think they change the definition of 'scrambled'.
From your two examples, I would call the first - beaten then left to steam, closer to an omelette rather than scrambled. 'Steamed' covers the cooking method, but it doesn't tell anyone what the end result will be like. An egg poacher will steam an egg, but the result is a whole cooked egg, not a beaten one.
The second, stirred as it's cooking, you could consider a type of scrambled.
I don't think the definitions are firm enough to really quantify much further. Call them a Chinese omelette & Chinese scrambled eggs, then a 'western' audience would be expecting something similar but not identical to what they would normally have for breakfast.
The definition of the word scramble, if you scroll down to transitive verb, 2a & b, is
to toss or mix together in confusion : to throw into disorder
and more clearly
to prepare (eggs) by stirring during frying
I consider that to be the defining distinction for scrambled eggs, separate from whether it is initially beaten or whole - the scrambling is what takes place at the time of cooking.
Having read the Wikipedia page, I'd be concerned that a British audience would be very confused if that was referred to as a 'custard'. Even qualifying it as an 'egg custard' a UK audience would still expect it to be sweet. Brits, almost without fail, think Bird's custard is custard.
Late thought: If it's already known in the US as "Chinese steamed eggs", then that's what people will have come to expect.
A rose by any other name...
"If it's already known in the US as "Chinese steamed eggs", then that's what people will have come to expect."
I don't think it's that well known in the US. Chinese-American restaurants typically don't serve it. The dish is also very delicate and thus cannot be mass-produced. We just make it at home.
@DoubleU I don't think it's exactly true. With some equipment, you can mass-produce it rather easily. It's a staple in Cantonese restaurants in China and I have found it in Cantonese restaurants in the US as well. Also, the Japanese dish chawanmushi is essentially the same and can easily be found in Japanese restaurants globally. So I doubt it is really that hard to mass produce.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.338175 | 2019-03-30T01:19:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97172",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Double U",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36967 | Refrigerated lunchboxes turn soggy
When I steam vegetables or boil rice I leave it to cool off for a few hours and then put it into a plastic lunch box and then into the fridge. After a day the vegetables get very soggy with a pool of water at the bottom of the lunch box. The rice turns brittle and tastes like sand.
I don't have time to cook everyday, I try to get as much cooking done as possible on Sundays and store the result in the fridge.
I try to Google things about avoiding moisture or drying vegetables but this gives me unrelated results.
Can anyone give me advice for avoiding these problems?
Thank you very much.
From personal experience, rice doesn't refrigerate well; I tend to buy quick-cook rice that I can just microwave so it's fresh when I need it, but I hear that it freezes better, with less moisture loss. Perhaps the vegetables can be frozen as well? If you spread them out on a baking sheet when you freeze them, they should be easily portionable later, but I don't know which vegetables you're cooking or whether they are hardy enough for the freezer.
I wasn't aware that some vegetables cannot be frozen. I'll look into that. Thank you for your suggestions.
Make your rice a big batch at a time, let it cool until handleable, then pack individual servings in snack sized zipper-top bags. Throw them in the freezer. Rice freezes beautifully, I take the frozen packs and throw them straight into the microwave (it would work just the same way in a steamer basket, even simmering water, just don't open the bag), the hot product is virtually indistinguishable from fresh, hot rice. Unless you're making fried rice, refrigerating cooked rice very quickly ruins it. I freeze rice like this this all the time - trust me, it works.
[EDIT] - Oh, and if you must steam your veggies in advance, line your "lunch box" with a few layers of paper towels or a dish towel.
There's a dish at my restaurant served with rice but it's not ordered enough to justify having a cooker warming up rice all the time. We cheat by putting a serving in a sandwich bag (with no zipper-top) and folding over the top, refrigerating a bunch of those bags, and microwaving on demand (while still bagged). The end product is just as good, I think. I think it's the steaming effect specifically that works wonders. The rice is refrigerated usually only 1 day but sometimes it's up to 3-4 (over the weekend when we're closed) and I don't notice much difference.
My experience with refrigerated rice isn't good. Frozen, it lasts well for months. It seems to me that your restaurant would benefit from freezing the rice in individual portions. If nothing else, it would reduce the frequency of needing to making rice.
Thank you for your suggestions. I'll try the towel thing if freezing does not work. I'm sorry I can only pick one answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.338565 | 2013-09-20T17:00:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36967",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"janeylicious",
"user20324"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70896 | How best to store cheese long term?
I like cheese. It's delicious. Sometimes it goes on a huge sale and it's a lot cheaper than normal. I want to be able to stock up in these times.
I am wondering what the best way to store cheese is of different types (the 8oz blocks of softer cheeses or hard blocks of fancier cheeses).
It seems like I could freeze them, but I've had bad luck with cheeses becoming crumbly. Harder cheeses feel like you could refrigerate them forever without them going bad, assuming you either don't touch them or they stay unopened.
Is there a good way to store cheese without it going bad? And how long does it stay good if you store it?
See also:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45152/off-taste-from-refrigerating-cheese
Related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/17955/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20422/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/69043/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23905/67
If you use the frozen cheese in a dish where it's melted, you can't tell it was frozen (so long as it was wrapped properly , etc.) Depends what you do with cheese, I suppose, but it's an easy cure to the texture problem from freezing.
Sealed hard cheeses will indeed keep forever at 15 Celsius and below, unsealed they can go mouldy or so dry you can't cut them.
Soft cheeses can't be stored past their expiration date, they are a perishable product. (As always, the "freezer stops the clock" rule applies, but you already said you don't like the resulting texture).
In short, unless you have a dedicated cheese cellar, you can't do better than your fridge.
I think it's important to distinguish between a sealed hard cheese (waxed all over from the factory) [good] and a "sealed" cut chunk of cheese that was cut and wrapped at the store[not so good.] I'm not really sure where "sealed in a plastic package from the factory" cheese falls, but likely between the two. Proper hot-waxing kills mold spores.
I don't think I've had factory-plastic-sealed cheese go moldy, so I counted both that one and the waxed wheel as "sealed". Wrapped in foil at the store is not sealed in my dictionary, but good point - maybe somebody else thinks it is.
@rumtscho I've had factory-plastic-sealed cheese go mouldy when it's been done shoddily. Sometimes there's a tiny hole or perforation in the packaging during transport and it's easy to tell because some air gets in and it isn't airtight anymore. Bottom line, I always thoroughly inspect the packaging of the cheese, even if it's from the factory, to ensure it is properly sealed, especially if I intend to keep it for a while.
I watched a survival show once and the presenter showed that melting wax and encasing the already opened cheese in wax would keep it safe for eating.
When there is a good price on cheese we buy a lot. We will cut the cheese into sizes that were would use for the month. Then vacuum seal them and put them in our fridge. They have lasted for more than 2 years, and taste the same as when we bought it. You can also freeze it, if it has a high fat content. Saw this on a Rachel Ray show. We have had a vacuum sealer for more than 20 plus years and has done the job remarkably well.
Do you do this with softer cheeses too?
It is best to seal cheese in a Ziploc bag with the air pushed out with a damp cloth over the cheese to prevent it from hardening, then seal. Hard cheeses can have the crusted dried out part cut away and the rest is still good to eat. Cheese is best served at room temperature so be sure to cut what you would eat in one sitting and put the rest in the fridge in a sealed bag with a damp cloth over the cheese itself. This is assuming it is a high quality cheese. As for the soft cheeses, I'm not too sure about keeping them if they get moulded.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.338905 | 2016-06-22T23:56:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70896",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"enderland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"rumtscho",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37170 | Ceramic pan overheating damage
How can you tell if a ceramic non-stick pan has suffered damage from overheating?
Will there be a point at which the pan is no longer safe to use? If so how can you tell if this is the case?
Are you sure that it was overheating? Ceramic pans are heat stable to really high temperatures, they don't get temperature damaged with normal use, unlike teflon pans. But they still lose their anti-stick properties and feel damaged, even though they are not overheated.
@rumtscho I'm not sure if it this particular pan has been damaged by overheating, essentially that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm told the pan was left on highest heat with nothing in in for at least 20mintues. Ideally I'd like to see some photographs of damaged pans so I can compare visually. So far I have found it has been very difficult to find any images like this by searching on the internet as it seems as though all the different combinations of keywords I've tried have mostly ended up at the various manufacturers pages.
If it's indeed ceramic, then the pan is safe to use at least. Non-stick properties may have suffered somewhat, but ceramic can withstand temperatures much higher than what you can achieve on a normal stove since the heat is still conducted away by air, even if there is nothing in the pan.
The main issue you will see with ceramic pans is crazing (a network of small cracks) of the enamel layer from thermal expansion and contraction.
This may reduce the non-stick properties of the enamel layer and is not terribly attractive, but otherwise the pan will continue to be usable.
When you heat up a ceramic pan too quickly, it gets this cracked-looking dark brown stain on it that you sometimes see cookie sheets get after many uses.
I tried using boiling water and baking soda--didn't work. WHAT DOES WORK: Scrub hard using Barkeeper's Friend + the rough side of a sponge. The sponge did not scratch my ceramic sautée pan and my pan looks good again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.339216 | 2013-09-28T14:08:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37170",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"Griffin",
"NvdB31",
"RetinaFunk media",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87359",
"rumtscho",
"shuttle87",
"user810259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37243 | Is there any danger to letting food cook in a slow cooker for a very long time?
I've recently started using a slow cooker and I was thinking about recipes that could be cooked for days. My main concern is if there are any side effects for leaving food cooking for days that would make this plan unfeasible (dangerous to try). Since it is at cooking temperature, there wouldn't be any reason to worry about bacteria growing on the food. Liquid would be lost over time, which could result in burning if left unchecked, but if I add more every morning/night as needed, that too wouldn't be a problem. All I can see is that most recipes wouldn't end up tasting as well, but undesirable isn't equal to dangerous.
There just seems to be something absurd with the notion of leaving food cooking for 5 days or even 2 weeks without there being any dangers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what they would be.
You've answered the food safety question yourself. So why would you want to leave anything cooking in a slow cooker for five days or two weeks? It is kind of absurd.
Who would want to eat a century egg or fish that hasn't been thoroughly cooked? What about fried tongue or 'milk' from almonds/soy? What you or I call absurd another may call dinner. Beans that turn to mush? Perhaps that is a new food or part of a new dish? Perhaps something too woody to eat right if cooked regularly will soften and become edible when cooked this long? I'm not saying it will end up with something worth eating, I was just wondering if it could safely be eaten.
@Lawtonfogle Century eggs aren't made like this. Eggs or fish cooked for hours (let alone days) will be overcooked. If you're going to cook something this long there's not much point frying it, and if you're just trying to soften it up before frying, it doesn't take days. And if you want mush, you can generally get it with a few hours of cooking (at most half a day) and a little mashing. I'm not saying it's useless, but the real uses for cooking this long are fairly limited.
A note of warning about newer slow cookers with digital controls -- some of them will automatically shut off after a period of time (less than a day). If you're thinking of doing this, you want to use a slow cooker with a manual switch so you don't run the risk of it shutting off on you.
Perpetual Bone Broth is an example of when this is used. In that case the Slow cooker never gets turned off. When you take some broth out, add some water to top it up. At least once a week remove the bones, filter the stock. The idea is to leach out all the goodness from the bones, which can take several ldays. I do remove the vegies after a couple of hours. No point in overcooking them, and add and remove bones. After a week, remove the bones, filter the stock, and use this as the starter base for your next batch.
It's safe. All that matters for safety is that the food stays out of the danger zone (above 140F).
But it sounds like a pretty reliable way to overcook things. Perhaps that's why it sounds absurd to you? Slow cookers tend to be somewhere between simmer and light boil (probably at least 180F), and there's very little that won't be fully cooked after half a day at those temperatures. If you cook for days, you'll start turning beans and vegetables to mush, and may manage to make meat tough from overcooking. So at best it's pointless, and at worst it's going to mess up your food.
Additionally, the longer the food is boiled, the more of its aromatic flavor compounds will be lost due to evaporation leaving. Even overcooking just a few hours at a simmer can lead to muddy, dull flavors...
I often cook pork shoulder steaks at 60°C (140°F) for 48 hours sous-vide and as your shoulder is an intact piece of meat you really only need to be worried about any bacteria on the surface of the meat; presuming the shoulder is submerged in liquid, a cooking time of 24 hours at 60°C is long enough to pasteurise the surface and the interior. There's a good thread on eGullet that, while about sous-vide, is applicable here.
Also, in the massively unlikely scenario that the pork is infected with Trichinosis the USDA guides state that holding the meat at 140°F for 1 minute will kill the parasite
The main purpose though of cooking your shoulder I presume is to tenderise it and at temperatures of 140°F you won't get the characteristic falling apart texture associated with braised meat.
What you're suggesting was effectively a form of food preservation in medieval times -- just keep the food warm at all times.
This works best if you keep adding something to it (not just liquid), so there's something that hasn't completely turned to mush ... and you might want to hit it with a shot of vinegar or citrus to perk it back up when serving. You can also add acid while cooking to slow down the breakdown of potatoes and onions (and maybe other vegetables), but in the long-cooking you'll lose some of the brighter notes.
If you try it with stew, you're going to end up with something closer to ragù by the time you're done. Personally, I like that in a pot roast, but I know some people aren't fans.
You could also add some fresh, mostly uncooked items when serving, that just need to be warmed through. (eg, fresh or frozen peas (not canned), been sprouts, or some diced bell pepper or onion, as appropriate for the dish).
It was called Pottage, or today, Perpetual Stew
Perpetual soup, which is exactly what you're talking about here, was a staple in many old world diets. It's still done in many places around the world today. Poland, Alaska, Russia, and many of the colder environments where it's harder to get food in the winter times. There is a risk to all things cooking no matter the preparation you take.
Perpetual soup is actually less meat and vegetables and more the scrap of what you've already cooked. The bones and perhaps edible organs. If doing this in a crock pot it would be best to simply let it cook, adding water as needed.
I do this myself, my crock has been going for almost a month now. Mind you I empty it into a roasting pan clean it and then add my mix back once per week. All things considered, I've never had any problems with flavor and the broth is amazingly nutritious.
The only real issue I've seen, from my own mistakes, when I tried this a couple years ago was adding directly on top of what is already in the pot. Anything you add needs to be under what you've already cooked and only when you're done pulling from it for at least four hours. It takes time but eventually you can get down a schedule for adding to it that works for you.
This is great to see. I recently learned about "Perpetual Soup" from a video by Jas. A Townsend & Sons, on YouTube. While there is some care that needs to be taken, you are correct in that it is mostly about developing a rhythm and knowing how to address concerns with food safety.
With that being said, while not "perpetual soup", I have many times used the stock from one roast to flavor another, and continued the chain for over a week with no issues at all. With the right safety measures, something that by common knowledge would make me sick was perfectly safe time and again.
The technical answer is, as long as the food stays above 140 F / 60 C, pathogens are not going to grow. This is the hot equivalent to refrigeration. Note that there are probably no studies of holding foods at these temperatures for truly extended periods, but you pays your money and you takes your chances.
On the other hand, even with the lid on, over time, water is going to escape, and the food will begin to dry out. Even slow cooking meats like pork shoulder or ox tails can and will become overcooked and tough over time, even if there were no moisture loss.
With the fringe exception of a stock pot that is continually replenished, I cannot think of a single good reason to do this.
Even with refrigeration, a lot of food spoils after a few days. Could the same happen if you are keeping it hot?
That is the part where I doubt studies have been done, but since the idea is so absurd already for reasons both Jefromi and I have enumerated, I am not going to go looking for any such science.
@Lawtonfogle Things can grow at refrigeration temperatures; they just grow more slowly. Things can't really grow at cooking temperatures (though some things can survive, they don't keep growing).
@lawtonfogle It'll spoil from over-cooking, if you're keeping it hot for days at a time. Shouldn't be any bacteria though.
In China my friend told me they do this over the whole winter in some regions. Just add new stuff everyday and keep it hot.
The USDA recently lowered the recommended safe cooking temperature of pork to 145°F (60°C), from the long-time standard of 160°F (70°C). However, this really applies more to lean cuts like loin - for a bigger cut like your shoulder, 165-180°F (75-80°C) is probably a safer bet.
Cooking at that temperature for 24 hours should give you no problems; do test it with a probe thermometer to make sure it is the right temperature all the way through.
190°F (90°C) would have been slight overkill even before the change, and 275°F (135°C) is just crazy.
Can you explain why you think the fat content has an effect on safe cooking temperature?
Lean meat and fat conduct heat differently. That is, if you put similar pieces of lean meat and fat in the same water bath, the time it takes the heat to reach the center will differ. The connection to safety? The combination of time and temperature determines how many bacteria survive.
@ElendilTheTall using º for degree symbol looks weird, or very weird in some fonts, try ° which can be generated with °
They both look the same to me.
As for the original discussion, I wanted to add something: If you're going to do this, first test your crock pot's settings. Fill it with lukewarm water, then put it on warm, for instance, and check every hour for the temp. If its lowest setting gets higher than 140F (60C) in less than two hours, it's completely safe. On warm, mine is about 180F (about 80C), so it's fine. Low and high bring it up over 200F (about 95C), the only difference in the settings is how quickly this happens. Last but not least, for the most safety, I would briefly microwave/ bake/ saute any new solids going into the pot over time, and bring any new liquids to a simmer (microwave's fine), so that they don't drop the temperature of the crock pot. If it's a big piece of meat, just get it to room temperature (thaw in the fridge first if frozen, then half an hour on the counter), and sear the outside well before adding it. I actually have an "endless soup" going now, because of some issues with my fridge. I don't like and can't afford waste, but also can't safely store leftovers right now, so I decided to keep things hot in my crock instead. I made an initial pot of soup, and then we ate most of the solid bits with a little of the broth. I added some more water and let the little bit of leftovers sit hot overnight. The next day, I put in new meat and veggies at the time I would have put it in, if I were making a fresh crock pot meal. I also add more/ new herbs, because the scent of the herbs breaks down after being held hot for a long time. The older items do turn into a sort of mush, but they make a very rich base for your new items, which won't be overdone if you do it this way. I actually like it so much that I may keep doing this, even after the fridge is fixed! lol That said, I personally will change my "endless" pot after three meals. After all, it could end up tasting quite same-y after a while. When you work in food service, the rule is generally not to keep prepared items for longer than three days under refrigeration. Obviously, we keep things for longer in our refrigerators at home, but it's a good general rule of thumb if you're concerned about safety. And, discarding a little leftovers every third day is better than discarding leftovers every day, or leaving them to while away in your fridge, be forgotten, etc.
To the guy with the crappy crock pot:
New crock pots are not the issue. You got a cheap crock that's probably made in China, or some other place where they don't care. Get something better. I have a newer crock pot from around 2014, and it has never given me any off flavors. This is not a new/ old issue. This is a good ceramic vs bad ceramic issue. My crock pot was about $40. You don't have to break the bank, just don't get a skeezy off-brand cheap-as-dirt model. Get a crock from a reliable brand name. Mine is a Hamilton Beach. It's not the best pot ever, the rubber seal actually takes some heat damage if it's run on the high setting for too long, but said damage is superficial, not functional. Rarely sticks, can be cleaned with an SOS pad without taking any damage at all to the finish, and not a single off flavor. I actually bought this new pot because an OLD crock pot was given to me, and I was tired of that weird taste you're describing. It was very slight, but it bothered me.
If you open it every hour to check, the temperature will drop every hour.
Pork needs to be cooked throughout. It needs to be above 72°c for most bacteria to die. As long as you have increased the heat and let it alow cook above that head for a bit you will be fine. Remember that these heats are just guide lines but if you are serving it to other people then it is probably best to adhere to them.
With a new Crockpot, I did this, and the food has taken on a chemical flavor from the pot, which is nasty. Sort of like overheated heat in plastic when it contained BPA's. Even water cooked for a day or so, takes on the taste.
I think there's something unstable in the newer crockpot finishes for multi-day cooking. Those who don't easily smell things won't notice it. Those with a good nose, won't be able to eat the food.
And I am not sure it should be eaten with that awful taste in it.
Be careful.
Older crockpots didn't do this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.339437 | 2013-09-30T17:11:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37243",
"authors": [
"Blue Marlin Dive Gili spam",
"Carey Gregory",
"Carmel",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Chrissy",
"Company Laser",
"Dan T",
"Didgeridrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hussain Al Nowais spam",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Joe",
"Kevin Stuart",
"Kimberly",
"Laura",
"Lawtonfogle",
"Linda Howard",
"Maurisa Meyers",
"Melissa Moates",
"Phil Ionadi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"TFD",
"Tim Hoover",
"Tinman",
"Valerie Wood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97266",
"jaimet",
"jaustin",
"jscs",
"njeru",
"soegaard",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
} |
47357 | Is there any way to salvage an old rusted wok?
Hello Seasoned Advice: I cannot find an answer on any previous posts here relating to woks about what to do if the wok is Already Rusted. I found this wok in my husband's house when I moved in - he has no idea where it came from or how long it's been there. I have no information about this wok, other than that the faded manufacturer's label indicates it was made in Taiwan, presumably by an Asian cooking supply house - has Chinese (?) characters above, then in English: "Seven S---G Co., Ltd" (the --- indicates where the label is faded and illegible) with an address, international phone number and fax number. It is black, has a welded, hollow steel handle with a hole through it for hanging, and looks to be a commercial, or restaurant-grade wok of carbon steel, well used. It was stored in an under-counter cabinet next to a leaky sink, so I have no doubt about where the original rust came from. Has about 10 small pits on the bottom and almost half of the entire upper right side of the circumference of the wok is almost one continuous thin (not pitted) area of rust.
Previously, I had spent the better part of a day alternately: scrubbing the rust (with coarse salt and fine salt), wiping with vegetable oil and heating over a high gas flame -then repeating this process 3 or 4 times until I was sure there was no rust or moisture remaining (although it is still pitted in some places at the bottom), and then another thin coat of oil to seal against moisture, heated again, then wiped. It worked very well for a couple of weeks, but as I don't currently cook Asian-style on a regular basis, after a few weeks of disuse it turned rusty again, almost worse than when I found it.
Should I be using steel wool to scrub the rust down to bare steel first, or just the salt? Using a different oil? (WD-40? Just Kidding). Oven vs Gas burner heating? How should I be storing this? (I have limited space-so most of my equipment is hanging on the walls or on a steel kitchen shelving rack, so I don't think air-flow is an issue.)
As this looks like a relatively decent piece of equipment, I want to do more Asian style cooking and be able to use it on a more regular basis. Is this wok salvageable? I would hate to have to put it on the curb and spend the money for a new restaurant-quality wok. Thanks in advance for any guidance. P.S., I have pics, but due to a software issue with my camera, I am unable to post at the moment - will try to send pics if I get an answer to this question.
How long did you heat it for while seasoning? It takes quite a while. One thing you can do with a new seasoned wok is use it for everything until it has a really good patina. Any thing you're frying at all with any fat or oil use the wok (don't wait to make Asian food) that way you'll get to the black all over stage quicker. Also did you let dish soap anywhere near your wok. With a newly seasoned wok you might have damaged the seasoning if you washed or scrubbed it too enthusiastically. After use you just need to give it a rinse and get any bits off, rather than washing it "properly".
Hi Leigh Anne and welcome to Seasoned Advice! First let me say that you will probably get a few different answers as many of us have different ways of handling such issues.
Since you had what sounded like a pretty good amount of rust to start with, I would recommend a thorough cleaning with steel wool to ensure that you have removed all of the rust. Be sure to rinse well and dry thoroughly.
Regarding the type of oil, I would recommend a good quality vegetable oil. You could also use a good quality vegetable shortening. Make sure to apply a very thin layer and wipe off any excess, especially since you are not using the wok frequently. Any excess residue can become sticky or gunky when the pan is left to sit for a period.
As for gas burner or oven, that is really your choice. I personally would use a gas burner but many prefer using the oven.
All in all, it sounds like you already have a pretty good handle on this. A couple of other things you may want to consider, though. Even though you are keeping the pan in the open air, humidity may be a factor. Also, if you live near a body of salt water, salt in the air could be a problem. You may want to consider keeping the wok in a closed plastic bag. (I do this with any cookware that hangs or sits outside of the cabinet to ensure it's always clean and dust-free when I am ready to use it.)
Good luck! :)
http://ask-a-chinese-guy.blogspot.com/2010/02/rusty-woks.html
Sorry about above - my mistake - @CindyAskew: Great advice about the plastic bag. Will try when I find one big enough - this thing's Huge :).
@LeighAnne, it's good info but it's not something I could do as I don't have a burner that gets anywhere near as hot as a wok burner and I don't even use my wok daily, much less over and over again during the course of a day. Re the plastic bag, I use a small trash can liner and secure with a twist tie.
Yes, sorry about that - finger slipped to "enter" key when I cut the link to paste.. it wasn't supposed to show up here and, being a 'noob' here, I couldn't find a way to delete it. But, Yes.. good info if you use your wok often.
Even better than vegetable oil is flaxseed oil (the food-grade equivalent of linseed oil). It seals better and is more resistant to washing with soap because it polymerizes to a tough film.
If you have a large amount of rust, the one thing which removes it really well is lye. Just be careful when handling it. Leave it for a while in a fairly concentrated NaOH bath, then scrub off. Proceed with seasoning as usual.
We have several questions about seasoning pans and woks, this one is probably the most interesting for you: Wok preparation and caring
Perhaps "fairly concentrated" should be quantified (at least for safety purposes)
@belisarius I never actually measure it, I spread the powder in the pan and then pour in a little bit of water. It has to be at unsafe levels anyway, in the sense of: it would instantly cause chemical burns if you touch the solution. Wear gloves and googles, don't touch with aluminum utensils, don't use warm water, and dilute a lot before disposing of it, 10-20 times dilution is good, more is better.
Oh yes, don't do it near open flames, and do it in a ventilated space. It's unlikely that the hydrogen will form an explosive ratio with the oxygen from the air, but don't risk it around flames and sparks. And spills will damage most stuff around you, certainly all organics like wood or textile. It is best done on porcelain or similar, I do it on the bathroom floor. This is basic lye working safety, I hope that people who use it are aware of that and/or read the leaflet which comes with it.
You may find that your gas burner works better with a wok if you remove the grate on your stove and use a wire wok ring instead. A wire ring may position and stabilize the wok better than using the grate. The only wire ring I've found is made by Joyce Chen.
In my experience, the common rings with holes in the sides don't work well. The sides restrict oxygen flow and the holes don't allow enough in. The sides also trap the heat at the bottom of the wok; they don't allow the heat to flow up the sides of the wok.
This doesn't seem to answer the question?
Removing the rust is the first step in re-seasoning and using the wok. My answer regarding a wok ring will help with re-seasoning and usage because it will increase both the amount of heat and it's distribution.
That may very well be (and I'll agree with your assessment that the quantity of heat could be a factor). However, I don't see that this warrants being a stand-alone answer from your other one. Helpful tidbit, sure but on it's own, this doesn't answer the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.340877 | 2014-09-23T17:13:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47357",
"authors": [
"Bishnu Thapa",
"Brooke P",
"Cindy",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Ginene G",
"Jess cardenas",
"Judith Furlong",
"Leigh Anne",
"Mike",
"Nello Lucchesi",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"patricia jolly",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
} |
47611 | what shall I do about this ground meat?
I left some ground meat in the refrigerator on a plate uncovered for 2 days, would it still be good to use it doesn't look like there is anything wrong with it? Answer asap please.
Duplicate: How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
If it was starting to oxidize gray or smell funny, I would brown it in a pan (like for spaghetti or tacos) and not use it for hamburgers.
Ground meat is safe for 1 - 2 days in the fridge. Ground meat is prone to spoil fast due to the larger surface per unit of measure compared to non-ground meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.341642 | 2014-10-02T21:12:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47611",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Trice",
"Ching Chong",
"Jeffrey Kahler",
"Kathleen Mullin",
"Luc C",
"Mike",
"Treysha Thornton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64593 | Squishy raw pork - gone bad?
I bought some pork loin chops and went to open the package and part of the meat was really squishy. I repackaged it and put it in the freezer to throw away later. I didn't notice any smell but didn't get too close to it and it looks fine otherwise. The best before date is three days from now. Is it common for meat to get squishy like this? I don't think it was tenderized. Thanks!
An important part of practicing food safety on your own kitchen, is looking out for any "red flags" in raw ingredients that may have the potential to sicken.
If something doesn't smell right, doesn't look right, or as in your case, doesn't feel right; it is a red flag that you should pay attention to. It might be safe to eat, but why take any chances?
Supermarkets have been known to treat expired meat with ammonia or bleach, and then repackage it with an extended expiration date. Such despicable practices are hopefully rare, but pre-seasoning soon-to-expire meats and poultry, and repackaging with a later date is quite common.
You don't need to save the meat itself, but keep the package label (and receipt if you still have it), and bring it back to your store for a refund. Most stores will give you your money back with no hassle.
Thank you. I just called the store and they said it's fine! I'm not sure I agree though. The chicken drumsticks I got at the same place feel a bit soft too but maybe I am noticing it too much. My fridge is cold enough but possibly the store's isn't even though it's really popular.
Still not going to eat the pork chops!
If the texture is not right, it isn't fine. The store can't accurately assess food safety over the phone. If they don't make it right with you, I'd look for someplace else to shop.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.341742 | 2015-12-20T02:06:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64593",
"authors": [
"Ellie Moores",
"ElmerCat",
"Joanne Szocinski",
"Mandy Hill",
"Olive REYNOLDS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77058 | Power outage - Six hours vs. four hours
We had a power outage last night in winter that lasted six hours. I understand that for an outage over four hours things should be thrown away if they get above 40 degrees for two more hours according to this article. But I am confused, do they mean four hours or six in total? http://www.thekitchn.com/heres-what-to-keep-and-throw-out-after-a-power-outage-223425
The fridge was very cold to start and rose to 5 degrees celsius (41F) after two and three hours. So that means it could have been a bit above 5 degrees for three hours but not by much at all. (This also happens in the summer and so far things have been fine).
The main thing I am concerned about is raw pork (which I put in the freezer after about 5 hours) and milk. I noticed this advisory from the UK which uses 5 degrees vs. the Canadian 4 degrees. I wonder if we are too careful in North America? And does 2-3 degrees over make a big difference? And is cooking the pork to say 180 degrees Fahrenheit internal temperature rather than 145 degrees get rid of any extra bad bugs? Thanks! http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/business/food-hygiene-and-safety/food-safety-tips/temperature-control/Thanks!
As a note, no amount of cooking gets rid of the toxins produced in improperly stored food.
#Catija is VERY VERY right, trying to cook the 'bad bugs' out of your food does not work, you are risking salmonella poisoning, which for the very young, and infirm could lead to serious illness, even death. Throw out the pork. One sentence says it all: IF IN DOUBT, THROW IT OUT!
Okay, I will forget the cooking it out part of my question but the fridge temperature was only out by 1-3 degrees. Is that a problem? (Don't worry no one in my household is very young or infirm and if I'm not sure about something I don't give it to anyone else).
If the fridge itself was only a couple of degrees out, the food won't even have been that warm. But the surface of the food is the bit you have to worry most about, and that will have been the warmest. If you have a meat drawer they often start cooler than the rest of the fridge so it could have been within spec the whole time in there. The milk is probably nothing to worry about compared to the rest of the contents.
I have always been lead to believe the acceptable top temperature is 6c though the preferable is 3c (by food hygiene inspectors when inspecting my kitchens) so if your food only reached 5c I'd personally feel safe.
I'm not an expert on food safety, but (a physicist) as far as I understand it, the trouble with temperature is that those bugs proliferate almost exponentially faster as temperature increases, and the total amount of toxins again increases exponentially with time and growth rate, making for a very strong temperature-badness correlation. However, the relation is still a continuous function, i.e. if the temperature only exceeded 5°C very slightly and for very short then nothing happens that wouldn't also happen at 4°C, but over a substantially longer time span.
...What I would have done is to immediately fry the meat. Yes, heat doesn't destroy toxins already there, but it does kill the bacteria, and if these have started a substantial population on the surface then the most prudent thing is to burn them right there, since when the population later spreads into the interior (which it can even at 3°C) the levels quickly get really dangerous. Of course, it's a bit annoying to have that pork fried before you actually use it, but I'm sure with a bit of creativity one would find a good culinaric use. Whereas I'd feel really bad throwing away meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.341932 | 2017-01-03T01:42:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77058",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Doug",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"leftaroundabout",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104270 | Why didn't honey soy chicken breast brown?
I cooked chicken breasts in my countertop convection oven with a honey and soy sauce mixture and they didn't brown at all. I guess the honey and soy slid right off. Is marinading the way to make it stick? Or is it because they are skinless? I didn't marinade the chicken but spooned the mixture on top of them before baking. I used boneless chicken breasts and a lower temperature than the attached recipe (375 degrees in convection oven so like 400 degrees in a regular oven). Similar to this recipe. Baked Asian-Style Honey Chicken
Did you premix the honey and soy? Could be worth bringing them to the boil, add a corn flour and water mix and when thick, turn off the heat, add the chicken, toss to coat and then transfer to oven?
@Dave yes, I premixed them but it sounds like a good idea to thicken it. Thank you!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342237 | 2019-12-23T03:50:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104270",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105872 | Do restaurants use acidified pesto?
Do pizza restaurants usually make their own pesto or use commercial acidified pesto? Found pesto squished between plates this morning (about 11 hours old) and concerned about a low-acid situation and how to clean it up safely. Or this this a non-issue even if not acidified?
Forgive my ignorance, what is a ‘low-acid situation’ regarding pesto and why would it be alarming?
@Spagirl it was me overestimating the risk of botulism. Because they add citric acid to commercial pesto to prevent this.
It is possible to contract wound botulism, but this is extremely rare. Once upon a time it was a battlefield issue. These days it happens on occasion to drug users who inject. Most cases of botulism (also quite rare these days) occur when contaminated food is ingested.
first question: it depends on the pizza restaurant, smaller pizzeria might do the pesto in house, bigger pizza chains will use commercial pesto.
second question: in the case of washing, normal (very hot water and soap) washing procedure will clean up everything.
I am sure this varies widely. Some restaurants make their own, while others purchase it already prepared. Whether or not it is acidified should have nothing to do with clean up. If you are at home, scrape off what you can, simply soak in warm, soapy dish water, and scrub clean. Alternately, use a dishwasher. In a restaurant, follow the wash and sanitize procedure.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342354 | 2020-03-17T19:44:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105872",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"moscafj",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94682 | Is this the centre of the stem of a mushroom or different kind of mushroom?
This long skinny mushroom appeared on the cutting board. I'm not sure if it is from the centre of the stem in the picture or a different kind of mushroom. I'm a bit worried about a stray inedible mushroom but I think it's from the stem but not sure. It's a bit water-logged because I wash them. The other stems are white and woody and don't look like the brown one on the left. If it is from an inedible mushroom is it safe to eat the ones that touched it? (Sorry photo is so big).
I would really say it is just a small mushroom of the same kind. I am not familiar with that type but I wouldn't even notice that
But once noticed and being scrupolous I would have trow it away without asking. It is so small ;)
This does look like the centre of the stem. Often when I separate the stems from the heads, the centre of the stem would stay attached to the head, It looks just like this.
In any case, if you're buying your mushrooms from a reputable source, you can be sure there are no poisonous mushrooms accidentally mixed in. Cases of mushroom poisoning occur mostly when people gather their own mushrooms and mis-identify them, (or buy from someone who gathers wild mushrooms and has erred with identification,) or, more rarely - when one allows mushrooms to go bad.
The most basic safety rule with mushrooms is: If in doubt, throw it away.
That said, it is highly unlikely that any significant amount of toxins got transferred by mere touch, if you didn't cut the one that might be poisonous. Wash other pieces thoroughly with large amounts of water and you should be OK.
I have seen stems empty inside. I never encountered one with anything in that central hole. Now, I'm not saying it can't happen, but I would remain cautious. Especially if your mushrooms are from wild source. If they are grown in controlled environment, chance for inedible mushroom are minuscule.
Thank you. They were button mushrooms from the store. And I composted the stem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342495 | 2018-12-11T04:32:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94682",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97618 | Is mustard lid supposed to pop when opening?
I opened a jar of English mustard with a flat plastic lid and it didn't pop. It wasn't bulging or anything and contains citric acid. Is it supposed to pop? I notice French's mustard (North American style squeezable kind) doesn't pop so I think it's the same. It's just that we are so conditioned to expect jars to pop that when they don't I wonder. Mayonnaise doesn't either which I know is okay...
Plastic usually does not pop, it bends slowly under the pressure differential. Metal usually bends quickly and pops when the vacuum in a jar is relieved. Some jars use thicker metal that wont bend, so you have to listen for the rushing intake of air. Sometimes now they replace air with nitrogen before sealing. You won't get a pop or any other sound from a jar canned that way.
It can depend on the manufacturer, and on the lid. You may be associating the pop with metal lids, where you'll often see is a small circle in the middle of the lid, which is part of tamper-proofing. When the jar is sealed at the factory, it is sealed under pressure so that the circle is depressed. When you open the jar at home, the pressure equalizes, and the the circle will go back to normal, which is the pop that you hear.
The tamper-proofing aspect is that you can be sure you're the only person to have opened that jar since the factory if it has one of the circles and pops when you open it. If you can press it in the supermarket so that it clicks in and out, the jar has already been opened.
However, as your jar had a plastic lid, it won't have that same protection. You're probably just accustomed to hearing the pops from metal lids.
Note: this is in the UK, I don't know where you live, or even if this technique is widespread.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342678 | 2019-04-21T22:59:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97618",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100800 | Oil soaked lettuce leaf found on counter - food safety issue?
I found a lettuce leaf that had been part of a very oily salad under a bowl and wet from dishwashing water. I think the oily lettuce has been there up to four days (someone else in household didn't clean up) and has been wet under the bowl probably up to 22 hours. Is that considered anaerobic (botulism-y)? Or is it okay because it's not completely in oil (but under a bowl)? I put it and paper towels I cleaned it up with in two bags in garbage using gloves. I would like to not be so worried about greasy dishes and oily salad leaves but don't know if I should be bleaching the counter and my gloves.
I think you over did it (2 bags and gloves!!).
Just pick it up, throw it and clean with your regular cleaning routines.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342830 | 2019-08-18T21:30:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100800",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88163 | Cooking leftover sushi
I have two day old tuna nigiri in the fridge which smells fine. What I've read says to eat it within 24 hours. But if I cook the tuna then I can just go with raw fish guidelines?
This is what I've always done with my left over sushi fish and I've never had a problem. As long as it smells fine, it should be fair game for cooking. Day old salmon sushi cooked is as good as any salmon I've ever bought for the purpose of cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342911 | 2018-03-05T21:16:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88163",
"authors": [
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90062 | Why did my apple cider vinegar hiss when I opened it?
I opened a bottle of apple cider vinegar and it made a hissing sound when I opened it (like beer). I thought it was okay and poured it on my salad but it did smell a bit yeasty. I put the salad in the fridge and didn't eat it. I called the company and they said that that was not normal and to take it back. My question is what do I do with the salad? Okay to handle/compost? Would the presence of yeast change the ph level to non-acid levels? Or would it be like beer?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.342969 | 2018-05-30T01:58:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90062",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90024 | Does wine go bad or just taste bad?
Does wine left in the fridge more than the recommended time of up to a week (?) before it goes "off" go bad in terms of bacterial or mold overgrowth? Or is it safe to drink but just doesn't taste as good? I don't know if wine is as acidic as vinegar. And how long is really too long food safety-wise? I would probably just cook with it. I don't mind if it's vinegary, just asking from a food safety perspective. I hope this question is not too much like this one. Can wine gone bad be bad for you?
Dos wine can go bad? It can't have mold (because alcohol), it's shouldn't have any EXTRA bacteria (because of alcohol).
In fact - the bacteria that turn vine into vinegar is acetobacter. So spotting that one in the brew is pretty easy. You start to have acid.
Wine (depending on type of course) is pretty safe to store for a long time. That's the added value to it. You store wine for 200 years and cash a fat check afterwards.
The "best before after opening and store in fridge" date is usually there for two reasons:
The cork is not real one. And the alcohol will start to reacts with it.
The wine was made in such manner that the yeast didn't die (so not enough alcohol content and with that extra air after opening they will start to digest carbs again).
What can change the taste of wine is storage type. Like in the answer you provided. Bad storage will lead to bad wine. Or not bad WINE but some bad liquid.
In general, if an ingredient, wine, meat, fruit or vegetable does not taste good, don't use it for cooking.
Wine will oxidize.
This is one of the reason wine go bad, at least for drinking; and if you cannot drink it, you don't cook with it.
Not because it might be "bad" for me, but because it will not taste good and will ruin any dish that will use it.
If you want to keep the wine from going bad, you have a few options.
just remove the air from the bottle
remove the air an replace it with a neutral gas (argon or nitrogen)
freeze it (use a ice cube tray, and store in plastic bags.
Thank you @Max. Some people might think sour or vinegary wine tastes bad because they value fine-tasting wine. I'm wondering about whether wine actually goes bad or rotten. I can handle sour/vinegary but don't want to drink it if it's dangerous to but I also don't want to waste it. (It's almost two weeks old). I will buy an ice cube tray for the next bottle of wine I buy and can't finish quickly.
For removing air there is a "wine air pressurizer" you can buy, it's cheap too. Freezing wine arguable lessens the wine so preferable just remove the air and refrigerate it.
There's people that intentionally put vinegar in their food :)
@rackandboneman vinegar is different than bad wine.
@padma I would not use bad wine in a recipe, as I would not use rotten food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343049 | 2018-05-27T23:07:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90024",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"padma",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91408 | Pithy sweet potatoes - okay to eat?
This sweet potato is spongy and slightly holey inside. Is this safe to eat?
It's similar to this question, Holes inside a sweet potato, but mine is only slight pithy/holey. The outside is normal. Some of the other slices look more normal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343262 | 2018-08-03T03:17:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91408",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88086 | How to tell if sausage package swollen or just taut
I bought raw sausages packaged in a meat tray with plastic wrap. The wrapping was taut so that it almost looked like there was extra air in the package. How does one know if this means a swollen package or just wrapped too tightly? It's a grey area but a swollen package worries me. They smell fine and are cooking and within three days of the expiry date and weren't left out of the fridge other than shopping.
If you can tell us, "They smell fine" then you have since opened the package. It is not uncommon for air to be trapped in those plastic wrap trays. Since we can't see or smell it the only way to answer your question is: "Is $4.00 worth of sausage worth a few extra trips to the bathroom?" If it smells 'ok' then it is unlikely to be 'dangerous' ... but only you can make that call.
Air pressure changes by by 50+ hectoPascals over time. That'll massively change the tautness of the package.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343311 | 2018-03-02T02:26:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88086",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"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
} |
89626 | How did grease get in under cooktop on stove?
Even though I don't fry things often somehow there is grease all along the gap between my gas cooktop and the rest of the stove (above the knobs) which I suddenly noticed. The cooktop does not lift up so I will have to clean what I can from the front.
There doesn't seem to be any hole big enough where the gas comes out for grease to go down so I don't know where it came from. But I do sort of worry since my stove is about 15 years old what if there was plant matter such as garlic in with the grease? Or could this be from cleaning the surface and grease getting stuck in the gap? It's still puzzling since I rarely fry things. And the grease is mostly at the edges of the stove rather than close to the burners.
By grease - do you mean the lubricant or one used for cooking (fat, oil etc.)? I tend to the second one from your description, but wasn't sure.
@arieljannai yes, I mean grease from cooking. It looks more yellow than in the photo.
Is it possible that some of your cooks overflowed/spilled from over the pot, and drained to the bottom of the stove? In my house it happened and cause the stove lighter to stop working (got wet too many times).
Possibly but when I look at photos of what this stove looks like disassembled there is only a small edge so if something overflowed it would go further down I think. It's a mystery!
Most of the dishes we cook do have at least some oils and fats in them. Even when we are not explicitly frying, or even sauteeing, the delicious fragrant vapors which fill our kitchens when we cook waft around and get into every nook and cranny of our walls, cupboards and stoves, even places where we can't reach to clean. These vapors contain tiny droplets of oil from our cooking. Over time, this deposits lots of grease in inaccessible places.
After a few years, even the blinds above the sink on the other side of my kitchen are lightly coated with a gross mixture of dust and grease. I do fry and sautee a lot, so it may take longer in your kitchen, but that's where that greasy residue comes from - through the air.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343408 | 2018-05-06T05:39:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89626",
"authors": [
"arieljannai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66800",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91199 | Olive oil lid sealed properly?
Is this olive oil lid sealed and safe to use even though the side looks bumpy? It looks sealed at the top but do tiny dents or slight bulges on the side of the lid matter? It was covered with plastic but I haven't opened the metal lid yet. (Above the 'R' and 'O' in POUR OUVRIR).
Olive oil bottles are not sealed for health reasons. I.e., olive oil is not processed through a sterile heat canning process.
The two primary reasons for sealing the bottles are to prevent leaks and to make them tamper proof.
The type of top in your picture is a 'Ropp Top'. It features a ring below the cap that will separate from the top when you open the bottle. This is a tamper-proof feature, as is the shrink-wrapped plastic applied over it. If the bottle had been tampered with, it would be evident and should not be purchased.
As long as your bottle has no leaks, it should be properly sealed and fine to use.
I'd still take it back to the store/shop for an exchange or refund
@Cynetta As a consumer, it's always your prerogative. Personally, i won't take back a product that has maintained its integrity. Too much loss in the chain that all of us have to pay for.
@Cindy thank you. I have been wondering why mayonnaise and oil does not have a seal the way tomato sauce does.
It is impossible to tell if the lid is sealed to food safe standards by looking at the pic. Why take a chance? Take the bottle back to where you bought it and request an exchange or refund.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343694 | 2018-07-22T01:04:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91199",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105377 | Why don't some Italian tomato sauces and pastes use citric acid?
I bought tomato paste that came from Italy that just contains tomatoes and no citric acid. Another jar of tomato passata also only contained tomatoes. Are Italian tomatoes more acidic or is there a reason that they don't seem to use citric acid? I would be more comfortable knowing the ph is at the right level for food safety reasons but perhaps it is?
I would put my faith in traditional cooking methods. Cooked tomato products are very safe because of the natural acidity. I’d actually be searching for pastes and sauces that didn’t have additives like citric acid.
Have you got reference where tomato sauce/passata are not safe for comsumption ?
@Max no, I just wondered why since they use citric acid in North America usually. The answer to this question discusses acidity in tomatoes but doesn't answer my question though. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71567/tomato-products-containing-citric-acid
I could be misunderstood in my comment about traditional cooking methods. There are plenty of sources warning about adjusting the pH when home canning tomatoes. But I would trust Italian food manufacturers to know how to avoid botulism etc. The EU has very rigorous food safety standards much like the US. That said I would trust local products that do uses food acids too. I’m inclined to think “more natural is better” but I’m not implying there are risks in consuming these acids. (The exception is “Succinic Acid” which is banned in some places.)
Citric acid is added when the PH of the overall product is too high. Most of the time a product with pure tomatoes doesn't need any help with PH as the tomatoes should be acidic enough, when you see citric acid added you will usually see water added as well in some form. Water is added to bulk up the product and make it cheaper, some companies add tomato juice instead of water as it looks better on the labeling , but at the end of the day tomato juice is just flavored water. Water increases the overall PH level, so you have to bring it back up.
When you don't see citric acid in a can of tomatoes or a tomato product it's usually a sign that they are really good quality.
Not to mention that italian grandmas might flat-out refuse to buy a product with anything but tomatoes in it.
The purpose of E330 is listed as it's purpose. So when it's added to change pH it's listed as moderator. When it's added to keep pH then as a stabilizator. It can be also used as sequestrant OR as color aditive. The main purpose is (should?) be listed. If there is non I assume it's "all in one".
Acid decreases the pH, so citric acid is used to lower the pH, not increase it. Water increases the pH of an acidic solution. Also, "[something needs] extra PH" is not a correct sentence, as pH is a measure for the acidity of a solution, not a quantity itself (although it is directly dependent on the quantity of hydrogen ions in the solution). Something can need more acid or base, but not more pH.
Thanks for pointing that out @Tinuviel, I can't believe I got that backwards!
@GdD its an easy mistake to make, the root cause is that pH is derrived from a scientifc notation of the concentration, pH 7 means a 1*10^-7 concentration of Hydrogen atoms.
I know @Borgh, I have a year of university chemistry! That makes it even more facepalm.
E330 - commonly named on a labels as citric acid to not scare consumers - is an antioxidant. In tomato sauce I would say it's used to stop it from browning (and as a mild conservative).
The difference beetwen European and North American is just a shelf life of sauce. Both on shelf in store and at home.
Most of the time Citric acid is added it is labeled as a PH moderator @SZCZERZOKLY.
@GdD In Europe yes. In N. America? I don't think so. https://www.hellmanns.com/ca/en/products/hellmann-s-tartar-sauce.html Citric acid and "concetrated lemon juice". Sorry " CONCENTRATED LEMON JUICE CONCENTRATE"
The purpose of CA in tomato products in my understanding really depends on the amount. In larger amounts it is definitely is as a PH modifier. In smaller quantities, it will often be as a color preservative. Sadly, having seen the practices of some US commercial facilities, they skip the color preservatives and simply add dye since preservatives will not turn green tomatoes or other off colors to red. Hint, I have seen them strip machine harvest fields taking all fruit regardless of color or condition.
The citric acid in your tomato cans is insurance to cover the cost cutting and arguably lower standards without getting customers sick.
I'm american, but have traveled. Factory conditions in North America are not the same as in Europe. They are dirtier and more "cost efficient". Therefore american companies will take extra measures to ensure safety that traditional European methods and practices naturally provide.
For example, US eggs are laid in (relatively) filthy and overcrowded cages, so they get feces and food bits all over them right away. These eggs must be washed, which removes the natural mucus layer that protects the egg. This means US eggs need refrigerated, while European ones do not. Technically, the US eggs are "cleaner", but the back story is telling.
American tomato puree likely has fruit from the ground, over-ripe fruit, fruit where rotten sections are (hopefully) removed, etc. They then use chemicals and physical processes (microwave, UV, pasteurization, etc) to make sure these potentially dangerous supplies don't result in sickness. Taste suffers, but the costs can be lower.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.343851 | 2020-02-17T23:36:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105377",
"authors": [
"Borgh",
"GdD",
"Max",
"Rasa Enak",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tinuviel",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123036 | Swollen meat packages (modified atmosphere packaging)
I noticed that many packages of chicken or ground turkey are swollen in the store and there is no huge fuss made over them. I know modified atmosphere packaging could cause this but this article and this one I read say that this can happen but then revert to the better safe than sorry line. I did half ask this before but the answer was implying that this was not safe. If it was not safe why aren't there huge recalls every time this happens? Seems that people just eat it anyway?
I chose a package of ground turkey (best before a week from now) that was not swollen but as soon as I got it home (60-90 minutes in cool weather) it was a tiny bit swollen so I punctured the side so it wouldn't swell any more.
What do people do when all the packages of meat being sold are swollen? I think it's fine but we instinctively avoid them because other swollen packages are of course dangerous.
"it was a tiny bit swollen so I punctured the side so it wouldn't swell any more" – this suggests you might have cause and effect the wrong way round. A swollen package is a sign (potentially) of a problem, it is not the problem itself. Puncturing the package stops the swelling, but does nothing about whether or not there is underlying spoilage (and as @Tetsujin indicates, it both removes an indicator of further spoilage and loses the protective atmosphere from the original packaging).
I’ve seen some packages where all of the packs in the shop are swollen, and I assume that’s something about the packaging. When only one or two are swollen, I view that as a sign that something is causing gas inside the package, and warn the staff about it. They’ve always removed those packages. (Even within the ‘use by date’, someone might have picked it up, wandered the store with it for an hour then put it back so it’s not been chilled the whole time, or it got contaminated somehow)
This is most likely just physics (thermal expansion of the gas in the package). It doesn't need much time for noticeable changes to happen. Take an empty, thin/soft plastic bottle, close it tight while indoors, and put it outside while it's cold. Very soon, you'll see the sides start to bow in. Over here, it took only about a minute with a 1 liter bottle, and it's only about +5 degrees Celsius. Same with your meat package, except in the opposite direction, since it started cold and got warmer.
It may be also worthy to note that for people who live in high altitudes, this phenomenon can be normal, as packaging are often made at lower altitudes, so the packaging tend to be more swollen up there due to difference of athmospheric pressure
Now you've punctured it you don't have a week. It was packaged in a protective atmosphere, & you've broken the seal… not to mention, of course, that if it was continuing to increase in pressure, a reasonably sure sign of spoilage, you've now discarded that tell-tale.
The reason there aren't huge recalls is, as you might guess, this is no issue at all. If there's a slight pressure inside & you allow the pack to warm up, it will expand more. Once you get it back in the fridge or better still meat drawer, it will reduce again.
If you have a whole shelf of similar product in the supermarket, you can usually tell which batch is which, because a single batch will tend to have a similar pressure, positive or negative. This isn't an absolute, but it is a tendency.
It is possible for meat to spoil inside these packs; if they weren't kept refrigerated properly. This would tend towards further pressure increase as you kept it, even in the fridge. In a supermarket, again this would tend to be by batch.
You have to use practise & judgement to make the call; but try not to be wasteful by assuming everything over-pressure must be 'off'. It usually isn't.
Eat your turkey in the next couple of days, though. Your best before date is now no longer relevant.
After googling for some examples, I'd be happy with this pack
but suspicious about this [in fact I wouldn't have bought it]
I would use the 24 hours-rule for fresh raw ground meat, apart from that, I agree.
Air pressure changes can also have an effect here - maybe the supermarket is at sea-level, but you live at 1000 ft (300 m) - the packet will expand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.344281 | 2023-01-16T02:17:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123036",
"authors": [
"Dan Mašek",
"Joe",
"Kaddath",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95381 | Water repellent-like residue on pot when cooking vegetables
When I boil vegetables including broccoli the pot gets a water repellent-like residue at the water line that is very hard to remove. There is also residue similar to when cooking beans on the sides of the pots. This is in decent, newer stainless pots including the instant pot. My mother's older stainless pots don't seem to have this problem.
Does anyone know why this is and what is the best way to clean them? I wonder with time if it will become easier to clean. Or if the manufacturer coats them with something.
Hard- or soft-water area? if you leave it afterwards to dry what does it feel like, what colour is it?
Shippers and stores sometimes spray food grade waxes on veggies, to preserve them a bit. But I shouldn't think broccoli?
@Tetsujin soft water I think. The residue is sort of clear-beige but the pot itself looks like there is oil on it or something as water droplets stick to it.
Have you checked if you get this residue when boiling water with nothing in the pot?
Are you adding salt or any other seasonings in the water?
Vegetables often have a waxy coating on stems and leaves that helps protect the plant (retain water, keep out unwanted substances, etc; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cuticle). Boiling water can strip that coating. Oils and waxes float on water, so the build-up would tend to be near the water line. I've never blanched broccoli (or kale), but when I blanch (homegrown) tomatoes to peel them, the surface of the water starts to look oilier with each successive tomato and the sides of the pan get a build-up at the water line.
I'm assuming that you're using the same water and dish detergent for your mother's pans. If that's the case, I would imagine that surface texture plays a role, too. Scrub a pan enough times and you're bound to wear away even the microscopic bumps, nook, and crannies, leaving less for gunk to stick to.
I get a greasy residue in the water used to wash broccoli before cooking and in the blanching water before I freeze it. It literally only happens with broccoli so I make sure to wash it as many times as possible before freezing so it shouldn’t have any residue left when I want to cook it. I can only think that it is some sort of pesticide or preservative which is slightly worrying as I don’t want chemicals on my food! Organic is so expensive in comparison though.
I got a waxy greasy residue after blanching kale. Almost impossible to get off of the pot! I grew this kale myself so I know it is no type of pesticide or spray applied at the market.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.344635 | 2019-01-05T19:35:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95381",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"FuzzyChef",
"KathyT",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103309 | Cooking water spinach safely
Apparently water spinach (kangkung) has a parasite as it grows in water. How does one cook it safely to ensure that all the parasite eggs/cysts are no longer viable? I worry that with frying they could still be alive inside the hollow stems. Is there a specific amount of time that it must be cooked? Cleaning the chopping board and counter with just soap and water is okay?
surprisingly, there's not much information on that; only references that says to blanch it or cook it "long enough" to make it safe.
@Max thank you. I boiled it instead of frying and will fry garlic to add to it. I used to eat it all the time in Indonesia (with sambal) but didn't prepare it myself.
Water spinach, like other delta-grown crops, is host to a variety of parasites that can infect humans. You should wash it in several changes of water; additionally some of my cookbooks (such as Asian Greens) recommend splitting the hollow stems to make sure they are clean on the inside. Some sources recommend soaking it in salt water as well.
After that, it makes sense to blanch or steam water spinach for a couple of reasons; it kills any remaining parasites, and when frying raw water spinach without blanching, the stems tend not to cook all the way through.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.344869 | 2019-11-06T05:29:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103309",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79290 | White areas in egg yolk
I cracked open three eggs in a pan and in one of them the yolk looked mottled and it looked like swirly white areas inside the yolk. (I am not referring to the chalaza stringy bit or the germinal disk). I cooked one of them and the yolk started to look a little pink as it cooked. I floated another one before cracking and it sank but slightly stood up but was also mottled when cracked. Does this sound like bacterial growth?
You wouldn't have a picture or two, would you?
Sorry, no. I cooked them and put them in the compost.
Your instinct to avoid eating them was spot on. As you probably already know, any type of float, even slight, and you're better off chucking them in the bin.
As for the chalaza, it certainly can be more prominent in some eggs but if you see mottled discolouration inside the yolk that's not attached to it, that can indicate:
Worming drugs and compounds piperazine, dibutyltin dilaurate and citrate;
The anticoccidial drug Nicarbazin;
Certain antioxidants such as gallic acid and tannic acid;
Feeding hens raw soybean meal;
Calcium deficiency in the hens' diet;
Thin egg shells;
Can be hereditary.
source: https://www.backyardchickens.com/articles/common-egg-quality-problems.65923/
As for the pink discolouration:
"Pink or iridescent egg white (albumen) indicates spoilage due to Pseudomonas bacteria. Some of these microorganisms—which produce a greenish, fluorescent, water-soluble pigment—are harmful to humans."
source: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/egg-products-preparation/shell-eggs-from-farm-to-table/ct_index
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345002 | 2017-03-20T19:24:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79290",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84687 | Substituting pancake mix for flour
Can I use pancake mix (just whole wheat flour and baking powder ingredients) instead of regular flour to make a cake? (I have a recipe for whole wheat chocolate cake). Would I just leave out the baking powder or add less baking powder? Thanks!
Are you sure that's all that is in your pancake mix? You normally have some baking soda, baking powder, oils, salt, sugar, corn starch in there (You'll find all of these in Bisquick, plus some conditioners to make the gluten stronger and things like that). Possibly some egg and milk products depending on the type of mix.
Even if that's all the stuff in your baking mix, you don't necessarily know how much baking powder is in there to compensate for in your recipe (you may need to add more or the pancake mix may have too much leavener). Too much baking powder can affect texture (not structurally sound enough) and flavor (bitterness).
That being said, you may want to experiment. Some recipes will take better to substitution of the pancake mix than others. See also this question.
However, if you have only one shot at the recipe (or don't want to deal with the possible wastage of ingredients), go buy the appropriate flour. And then use the pancake mix for pancakes (or not great waffles; despite the marketing spiel on the box, pancake mix makes for OK pancakes and bad waffles).
Yes, it's very simple mix with no oils, sugar, milk or corn starch. Just a bit of salt as well as the baking powder ingredients.
Are you saying Bisquick makes bad waffles? If so any recommendations? (possibly needs to be another question)
@user3169 - yes. See alton brown's good eats episode on waffles, for example. You need a different amount of fat and sugar; I guess good starting points would be the waffle recipes by Bravetart on seriouseats.com.
@padma - unfortunately, with the added salt, you can't calculate the amount of baking powder added (since both will be in the sodium). but you can probably make a guess at how much baking powder and salt there is by looking up a few pancakes recipes from scratch using whole wheat flour and getting a consensus from how much salt and baking powder they add for the recipe. That'll give you an idea of how much to adjust the salt and baking powder should you try to make the cake with the mix.
@Batman I'll try to find it online. I cut the cord years ago so no Food Network TV anymore.
@user3169 - The Good Eats books might have something (my copy is in storage, unfortunately). The transcript is here , but I guess it doesn't add much to what I said before. But basically, when you buy something like Bisquick, you're compromising for the range of things you can use it for. It isn't going to do as well as a specialized batter for each waffles and pancakes. Try comparing his waffle recipe (prev. link) to his pancake recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345153 | 2017-09-27T23:47:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84687",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"padma",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84953 | Dented can of iced tea fizzed when opened
I just opened a can of iced tea that got dented about a week ago I think from hitting the ground. It fizzed a bit when opened, like soda sort of and sprayed on my hand, after that it was flat. It's apparently not carbonated (Brisk). This is not a botulism risk is it? I put it down the drain but not sure how much cleaning up I need to do. I would guess that it has enough sugar but not sure. Or could it be fermentation from a possible tiny break in the lid? Thanks!
It fizzed a bit when opened, like soda sort of and sprayed on my hand, after that it was flat.
I see this happen all the time with cans of uncarbonated drinks, e.g. Arizona iced tea. Even though the drink isn't carbonated, the cans seem to be pressurized to some degree: an unopened can is quite firm and hard to squeeze, while cans that have been opened even just a tiny bit yield easily. Also, you can hear the hiss of escaping gas as you open the can.
I've also seen these cans spray somewhat when they're opened, mostly after they've been shaken. My guess here is that shaking the can mixes the gas and liquid, and when you open the can the bubbles of gas in the liquid expand quickly as the pressure drops. I've never seen a can of tea spray nearly as much as a vigorously shaken can of soda would, but it enough to wet your hand a bit or spread a few drops on nearby surfaces.
This is not a botulism risk is it?
I doubt it -- botulism does not like acidic environments, and one source I found puts the pH of Lemon Brisk at 2.86, which is pretty acidic.
I put it down the drain but not sure how much cleaning up I need to do.
I'd wipe the area with a damp towel to remove the sugar, which will make things sticky as it dries. Other than that, I think you're pretty safe.
Thank you! So not a problem putting it down the drain I hope.
I was a bit thrown by "liking low-acid" and then a reference to an acidic, which is low pH, so I edited to "does not like acidic" instead of likes low-acid, just seemed a bit clearer. I understand how pH works, but thought this seemed a bit more straightforward. Feel free to roll-back.
@PoloHoleSet Either way works for me -- discussing pH is like discussing f-numbers in photography... the fact that a lower numbers mean a larger quantity of the thing you're talking about is always bound to confuse someone.
I just thought the two "lows" meaning opposite things might make people have to stop and re-read.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345378 | 2017-10-12T01:47:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84953",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116948 | Strawberry sauce fermented in fridge?
I left a tiny plastic take-out container of strawberry or raspberry sauce for cheesecake from a restaurant in the fridge a little too long and it was bulging and leaking. I am not eating it but wondering about clean up. Since it should be acidic/sweet is this likely a fermentation thing, not a botulism thing? Thanks!
C. botulinum germinates when there is no oxygen, generates toxin when dying and doesn't like low pH (below 4.6), so you should be safe.
If the container is airtight, there is still a possibility of some spores (if they're present due to improper cooking and handling) germinating and then dying, so your sauce could still contain trace amounts of toxin, but it looks like a very remote possibility.
In case you want to be absolutely sure, toss the entire thing out and cover the spill with a 1:4 v/v bleach solution, paper towels and let it sit for 15 minutes. Then remove the towels and clean with water and soap to remove the bleach. Wash your hands thoroughly. More details here
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345574 | 2021-08-24T04:53:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116948",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49109 | Korean rice cakes (tteok) sold unrefrigerated
I bought some tteok, cylindrical Korean rice cakes, that were displayed on a table. It didn't have a date on it. They seem to need soaking before cooking as they are not very soft but only packaged in a Styrofoam container with plastic wrap.
Is this safe to eat (there was no date on it) or is this the old rice left out issue? Thanks!
If they are completely dry, that's fine; you can buy hard dried tteok and they are shelf stable. But if they are moist, that seems very unsafe to have sitting out at room temperature for an indeterminate period of time.
I was sure of that, and that I had seen them dry and on the shelf, but I could not for the life of me find a reference. I'm so glad you were able to answer. I'll just add what Serious Eats has to say about my favorite way to prepare it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345683 | 2014-10-21T01:10:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49109",
"authors": [
"Donna Peavy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lilia Toma",
"Roger",
"franklin morris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49228 | How long does coconut curry last in the fridge?
I have three day old green coconut chicken curry in the fridge and am wondering if coconut milk goes bad very quickly. (This is complicated slightly by the power cut we had two days ago for 12 hours. I ate a bit of leftover pork after the power cut and it was fine and the milk was also fine. My house is not hot as it's fall and we are not using heat, the fridge seemed pretty cold but unfortunately I didn't have a thermometer).
My question is that seeing how some foods were fine, would coconut curry be more of a problem than say cooked meat or milk?
I have spent time in Indonesia where they keep cooked food overnight in a cupboard and don't get sick (generally) vs. the extreme-sounding food safety stuff has me confused. Thanks!
I'd throw it out given the power cut. Not worth getting food poisoning over.
Personally I'd taste it and heat it properly, then try it. Unless you have relevant health issues.
I agree with @ElendilTheTall. Coconut milk and such based products do not have a long fresh shelf life. Personally, I would discard and not take the risk.
That said, I don't know where you are located and what standard practices apply. In a lot of cases common sense can apply as to how to handle.
If you didn't open the refrigerator during the power cut (or only opened it once or twice very briefly), it would have stayed cool enough that nothing would spoil. But because it wasn't quite as cold as it should be, its contents will have a shorter shelf life.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.345891 | 2014-10-24T20:36:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49228",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Harlequin ",
"Obaa Nyansafo",
"Paulina Butpet",
"Pete Leaning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376"
],
"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
} |
50394 | How long does cooked garlic keep in fridge?
I was wondering how long cooked garlic (in this case with pasta and a tiny bit of olive oil) keeps in the fridge. I always wonder about garlic (or onion) with oil but it was only a little oil. Still Tasty says that cooked onions last 3-5 days but nothing for cooked garlic. Would they be the same? http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/17825 Thank you.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47438/does-the-quality-of-garlic-degrades-if-i-chopped-fried-then-use-it-after-a-week
In general the FDA recommends that you consume leftovers within 3-5 days (See their website for specific foods). In this case, I don't think the garlic is what's holding you back.
While garlic and herb infused oils do present some botulism risk, I think what they are getting at is the can of preserved garlic you've had in the fridge for 9 months.
My parents bought a lot of garlic (5-6 bulbs) when they visited me last time and I was scared that it would dry out and it would be a waste of money. So, my mum suggested mincing and frying the garlic in any non-flavored oil. After frying the paste in canola oil, I refrigerated it and it lasted me a month until I finished the paste.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of the information in the link that's in your question because I always make a lot of cooked onion paste (with ginger and garlic) and refrigerate it and it does last me a month and a half or so. I use the paste for Indian curries, rice recipes and stews.
But I guess the climate and humidity also has an impact of how food keeps in refrigerators in different parts of the world. For example, my mum's fried onion paste lasts her 15 days in summer in India and a month in winter. Mine lasts me a month and a half in Australia in summer.
I really suggest you read into botulism. Garlic infused oils grow bacteria that can kill you. Sometimes called the silent killer, there's no way to detect its present in your food.
Even cooking it in canola oil and then refrigerating is a massive issue. You need something to ensure nothing grows in the oil and you must steralise anything you use.
Garlic and botulism is a massive online discourse. Do check it out.
I suggest make it as you go. Dump some garlic in a pan with olive oil - either bake or fry and then use the oil. Don't take the risk with yourself and your loved ones.
Thank you. I am not sure if you are answering my question or the comment above about a paste. Mine was barely any oil (max 1 tbsp.) and mixed with pasta.
Alright, so, for our culture and our cuisine, we fry garlic ALL THE TIME and store it in the refrigerator either drained from the oil or with the oil. So in our case, we would have a jar of fried garlic and another jar of the oil that the garlic was fried in (garlic oil), or we store the garlic with the oil, depending on what you want to use them for. And we keep it all in the fridge and it lasts about a month for us. I've grown up doing it like this, and so have my grandparents, no one is dead yet sooo...just saying, I think if its cooked garlic stored in oil, it shouldnt be a problem UNLESS its raw garlic thats being stored, then thats something to worry about.
Note that "nothing bad happened for me / my family" is not an indicator of food safety. If I choose to drive without a seatbelt and don't have an accident it does not mean it is generally safe to drive without a seat belt. This answer us anecdotal at best.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.346064 | 2014-12-07T03:57:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50394",
"authors": [
"Bob Holland",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Elle",
"Kelly Coulton",
"Lamaro Lisa L",
"Margo Lapiner",
"Marina Giliomee",
"Noha Mohamed",
"Rhonda Horton",
"Sarah Perrin-Webb",
"Sri Astuti",
"Stephie",
"Tonya Daniels",
"fork knife",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58523 | Why does some frozen food puff up when defrosting?
I know freezing is supposed to make foods expand but it seems that two pre-packaged sealed food items that I have in my freezer seem a bit puffy (chicken curry and chicken dumplings with cabbage) after taking them out of the freezer.
I don't think they were that way when I bought them but not sure. My freezer seems to working well (although my fridge is a bit variable) and foods always seem well-frozen. And I only left them out less than half an hour.
Can sealed food packages expand when they defrost rather than the other way around? Thanks!
Generally, cold makes things contract... heat makes things expand... I think you're just thinking about it backwards.
@Catija: but water, which most foods contain a lot of, starts to expand as it cools from around 4 degrees C.
The food isn't expanding when it warms up, the air in the packaging is.
@ElendilTheTall Absolutely correct. Many, but not all, manufacturers put a small hole (think pinhole) in the packaging so that frozen products store and defrost without excess air in the package.
@Cindy If you know the answer, post an answer! I'm getting the rep now!
That's just the air in the package expanding, as it goes from freezer temperature to room temperature.
It sounds like you're thinking of the fact that water expands when it freezes (and shrinks when it melts) but that's not what's happening here. The air warms up long before the ice starts melting.
Some freezer packaging has small holes in it (or not so small holes, if you're unlucky), which prevents this from happening.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.346377 | 2015-06-25T02:48:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58523",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Max",
"Miami 4Ever",
"Pamela EASTELL",
"Rhonda Workman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"kevin bayfield-hill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57006 | Pork sausage - difference in food guidelines
I'm wondering why Still Tasty says that fresh pork breakfast sausage lasts 1-2 days refrigerated but the company that I talked to that makes sausages say eight days from the packing date. http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18275
Still Tasty also says that ground pork can last 3-4 days, I'm not sure why sausages wouldn't last as long as ground pork. http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18065
I called the company that makes the sausage and they said it's fine for up to eight days. I hate to throw it away after four days but not sure which source to believe. Thanks!
Believe the source you got the sausages from. Don't assume all sausages are the same.
It's possible that Still Tasty is assuming an opened package, and the manufacturer is assuming that you haven't broken the seal yet. Very often, the shelf life dramatically drops once you've opened things. (eg, UHT milk like Paramlat)
The StillTasty link you give for the sausages is for all types of fresh, raw sausages, not just pork. That's why it's labeled "SAUSAGES (INCLUDING PORK, BEEF, CHICKEN OR TURKEY) — FRESH, RAW".
Most likely, they're getting the 1–2-day limit from the chicken sausages (which are likely to have a higher initial bacteria load than pork or beef). Note that they give the same 1–2-day limit for raw ground chicken.
That said, if the manufacturer gives you specific advice, it overrides the general advice from sites like StillTasty. They know their specific product. Their specific formulation probably includes things (salt, acids, preservatives, various spices) which slow bacterial growth, thus keeping it good longer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.346779 | 2015-04-27T20:14:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57006",
"authors": [
"Belinda Jee",
"Catherine Byrne",
"Joe",
"Ross Ridge",
"Simone Brooks",
"Sophie Tay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"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
} |
90412 | Packaged mozzarella wet
I bought some mozzarella sealed in plastic and noticed that there is a bit of liquid in the package with a few tiny bubbles. Is this normal? And safe to eat? It's not bulging at all. It has 48% moisture I think and is low fat. Maybe this is more traditional mozzarella?
Is it fresh mozzarella? that often has some whey in the package, if the liquid is the only concern... though of course it will depend on type of mozz, and storage conditions, and other factors to tell whether it's safe or not.
In the UK mozzarella is always sold in liquid, this sounds normal to me.
There's 2 types of mozzarella, fresh and hard (also called low moisture). Fresh mozzarella is soft and packaged with whey or brine, it tears easily and can be squished between your fingers. It has a relatively short shelf life, usually within a couple of weeks of purchase. If you have this cheese then this sounds normal to me, even a couple of bubbles, if it smells fine and tastes fine I'd think it's safe to eat.
Hard mozzarella has been allowed to dry partially, and is generally sold in vacuum packaged blocks, with no liquid. It's very firm and shred-able with a grater. If you've bought this and you have liquid and bubbles in the package then I would get rid of it.
This is potentially anecdotal, but it's often easy to tell what you've got just based on shape. Fresh mozzarella tends to come in rounded balls; hard or skimmed mozzarella is cut into cubes or bricks, like cheddar or other firm cheeses.
@logophobe I think mine is somewhere in between. It's sort of a block, sort of rounded. The package is not bloated at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.346944 | 2018-06-18T04:41:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90412",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"logophobe",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
89259 | Confusion regarding garlic powder in fat in pan
I left a pan from cooking chicken with garlic powder in the fridge for a week. There are lumps of chicken fat that I assume have garlic powder in them. Is this like garlic butter or garlic in oil and is it safe to put the fat in the compost or touch it? I'm not going to eat it but still worried about botulism going in the sink or going in the compost.
Is that it's a week in the fridge and not more mean it's safe and/or that it's garlic powder and not fresh garlic? (I've read both four days and seven days are the limits to storing garlic in oil in the fridge). Does cooking it change things? (350 degrees F for 45 minutes). I ate the last piece of chicken at five days old and am fine but scared of the fat. I've looked at several questions similar to this but still a bit confused. I don't know if this is nothing or not. The pan is currently in the freezer. Thanks!
dry garlic in oil --> botulism risk?
How long is garlic butter safe, and why is it not a botulism risk like garlic in oil?
Can someone who considers themself an expert on botulism please comment on the side issue regarding the danger/safety in merely touching the (potential) botulism colony, or putting it into the environment (sink or compost). It seems to me, botulism is an organism which lives in the world regardless of what we do. If people could be poisoned just by touching some of those bacteria (or whatever they are), wouldn't we have random unpredictable botulism poisoning all over the place?
You shouldn't be putting fat down the sink anyway, and in most places it's ill-advised or even illegal to compost meat products in an uncontolled manner.
Are you talking about commercially produced garlic powder...like what you would find in a small container in the spice rack in a grocery store?
Yes, regular garlic powder from the spice section.
This site suggests that when commercial garlic powder is made it is heated to a temperature of 150 to 160 degrees Celsius, before it is then dehydrated and ground. C. Botulinum spores are killed by heating to at least 120 degrees Celcius, and holding for at least 30 minutes. It would seem to me that commercial producers of garlic powder would certainly want to take care of this potential hazard. If you were using commercially made garlic powder, the chances that any C. Botulinum spores were present when you started are pretty slim.
Of course, if you made your own garlic powder, the risk is higher. Also, keep in mind refrigeration, does not eliminate risk, but slows the growth of bacteria dramatically.
Any consumption of salmonella or botulism has to have enough bulk of the bacteria that it will survive in your system and continue to make toxins to sicken you.
Scrape the fat, put it in the trash. Wash your hands and wash and dry the pan. If you compost at home, you can throw the fat in the compost. Animal products in compost do attract more animals and vermin, so be advised. As a commenter said, it is not OK to put animal products in community composting stream.
Cleaning counters and sinks regularly is also important, and the refrigerator shelf.
The botulism is not some seething angry mass ready to jump out and get you. Dispose of the stuff carefully and clean up. You will be OK if you follow this guideline.
Thank you. Where I live it's okay to put animal fat in the community composting but I know it's different in other places. It's only about 1/2 tsp of fat anyway.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.347096 | 2018-04-19T03:43:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89259",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"moscafj",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93012 | Getting onion/garlic smell out of rice cooker
I used my rice cooker for rice with pork, onion and garlic. I washed it well twice but it still smells of pork and onion. It seems like the fat from the meat permeated the teflon (slightly scratched). I cleaned the lid well too. I wonder if I should just cook rice with it and see if that works but not sure if the smell being there means there is any bacteria growing on it. Or boil water with it to clean it?
Nothing's penetrated the teflon, what's happened here is that you haven't got all the fat off, garlic smell is fat soluble so it's remaining with a small film still on the pot. Put some dish soap right into it, then rub it all over the insert with damp fingers, then rinse, that should get rid of the fat. Sometimes washing with soapy water doesn't get rid of it all; the fat floats to the top of the water and if there's not enough soap you end up getting it right back on when you pull the pot out.
and if even that doesn't work, wipe it with cooking oil first, then rub soap in, then rinse with a couple of changes of water, preferably hot
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.347377 | 2018-10-18T05:13:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93012",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47818 | Are chicken gizzards okay to eat if still pink inside?
I sautéed chicken gizzards for quite a while, then added water and boiled another 15 minutes but they are still pink inside. Are they safe to eat even though they are pink inside?
After boiling for that period of time (especially after sauteing), the gizzards have certainly reached a "safe" temperature. They are probably not really good eating though. Gizzards are a tough piece of meat. They benefit from a low and slow cooking process. Here's a pretty good article from Livestrong. Among other advice, they suggest braising (or boiling) first for 15 or so minutes, then searing at a very high heat.
Here's a pretty typical recipe for Southern Fried Chicken Gizzards. It starts with simmering the gizzards for 45 minutes or longer, then cooling, then breading.
Safety really isn't the issue here, or color; after 15 minutes of boiling, you have well surpassed the USDA recommended temperature of 165F (74C). For good flavor though, they need more time.
Traditionally, chicken or turkey giblets are cooked by simmering in water
for use in flavoring soups, gravies or poultry stuffing. Once cooked, the
liver will become crumbly and the heart and gizzard will soften and
become easy to chop. Cooked giblets should have a firm texture.
Casseroles containing giblets should be cooked to 165 °F. Stuffing should
also be cooked to 165 °F. Chicken giblets are commonly fried or broiled.
Leftovers should be refrigerated within 2 hours.
I cook chicken gizzards and hearts at least once a week. I sautee them in butter, garlic and white wine for about 15 minutes. They are still pink in the middle when I eat them and perfectly safe and tender.
Welcome to SA, Nicole! You're posting an answer on a question that is 6 years old and already has a pretty good answer. You might try focusing on questions that do not have an answer instead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.347497 | 2014-10-10T05:11:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47818",
"authors": [
"Andrea Madigan",
"Dejan Pirc",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hasni Abu Bakar",
"Iloveny211",
"Kevin Rampersad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
} |
54443 | Chicken stock in slow cooker - danger zone?
How does one know if slow cookers are holding foods in the danger zone too long? I cooked chicken stock on high (a bit too full, water one inch from the top) but it wouldn't simmer, it seemed like 2-3 hours before it got to 140 F and then it eventually went to closer to 180 degrees F at about 3 to 3 1/2 hours. I realize that bacteria will be killed but will toxins build up in that time? I'm thinking that I should throw it out. My cooker is relatively new. Thanks!
Being at 100 degrees in a slow cooker seems more of a danger zone to me than sitting on the counter at 65 degrees.
It sounds like something is wrong with your slow cooker. On low, it should hit somewhere in the 190s, on high in the low 200s. On high, I'd expect it to get there fairly quickly—within two hours. Both should get you to 140 within an hour.
That said, the actual safety temperature (with a good thermometer) is 130 or 131F. 135 or 140F leave some safety margin for not completely accurate thermometers, maybe missing the coldest part of the food by a little bit, etc. And the standard is you have 2 hours to get there (used to be 4).
So, unfortunately, "it seemed like 2–3 hours" makes it really hard to answer if you exceeded that. I'm not qualified to tell you exactly how much risk (if any) you'd be taking if it took 3h.
But I can make some suggestions for keeping the time to 140F down:
Start with warmer water. There is a trade-off; hot water is supposed to make a more cloudy stock. If you simmered the water on the stove first (or in a tea kettle, etc.), then your time to 140 will be very short. Even starting with room temperature water instead of cold water is ten or twenty degrees closer. You could also, as Joe suggests, start with less water and add hot water later on to bring it up to the desired quantity (but don't underfill the slow cooker).
Make sure your ingredients are defrosted (in the fridge). Melting something takes extra energy; this is known as the enthalpy or heat of fusion. For ice, it's a lot of energy—going from ≈32°F ice to ≈32°F water is about as much energy as it'll take to get it from there to 175°F.
If nothing else works, bring it to a simmer in a stock pot then transfer it over. Unfortunately you'll have to wash a second pot.
Or, finally, you can make very good chicken stock in a pressure cooker, in under an hour total cook time. But of course you need to keep an eye on that.
Alternately, start with less water, get it up to temperature, then add hot water to bring it up to the level you want.
@Joe indeed. I figured the reason to use a slow cooker was for the "set it up and ignore it" thing. Also, many slow cookers want to be at least ⅔ full.
I have recipes that you start in only an inch or two of liquid, and the meat exudes enough liquid that its's swimming by the time it's done ... I'm guessing that the issue is placement of the heating element; if it's in the sides, it may need higher liquid levels than if it's just in the bottom. As for the 'set it and forget it' style cooking -- it's not that much of a departure, you just need to come back in 15-20 minutes. (I set it up, then put my 4c. pyrex measuring cup in the microwave. Once I'm finished getting read for work, pour in the water. Electric kettles work, too)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.347686 | 2015-02-06T04:59:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54443",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kenneth Edison",
"Kevin Green",
"Linda Dourte",
"Matthew Luedke",
"Shan Grizzle",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92368 | Black bit in olive oil
Should I be concerned about a tiny black bit in my olive oil? I thought maybe something fell into it or perhaps it's a bit of olive sediment. It looks like a very tiny flake of something the size of a tiny bit of dried herb. Is that a problem? I keep thinking that anything left in oil is a bad thing food safety-wise.
Could be a bit of olive. Can you [edit] your question and add a picture??? ;-)
@Fabby it's so tiny it might not show up in a picture, it's smaller than a sesame seed but thin like a herb. Does it matter if there is a tiny bit of olive left in oil?
As per your additional comment it's very probably a slice of olive skin and as high-quality olives are preserved in virgin olive oil, this will most likely not make any difference to the food safety nor taste of your product.
Having said that, without a biochemical analysis of the speck we cannot be 100% sure and it could be a speck of Black Nightshade, but the odds against that are enormous.
Though not zero...
Thank you @Fabby. I was thinking more in terms of how garlic, etc. shouldn't stay in oil. But tiny olive bits are okay it seems?
@padma Yes, indeed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.347976 | 2018-09-20T20:12:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92368",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104041 | Does instant pot cook meat thoroughly?
I forgot to use a thermometer to check my pork stew. I guess most people don't bother but now worried since I didn't check it after cooking. It looked very well done but had cooled down a bit after waiting to let the pressure release on its own. I cooked it for 28 minutes on the normal pressure setting and seared it beforehand. Recipe was 20-25 minutes. I guess the internal temperature of an instant pot is pretty high so should be okay.
If there was steam, the temperature was likely high enough and the time long enough to cook stew.
Do you have any reason to suspect it isn't cooked thoroughly?
@Tinuviel no, just afraid of not using a thermometer to be sure. Meat looked and tasted cooked through and starting to get soft and falling apart with a fork.
The steam/pressure gets away by cooling below a certain temperature. That temperature is still higher than needed to cook to a save temp. So all that time added at the end, adds up to your cooking time (roughly speaking).
If the meat was falling apart, I'd not hesitate to consider it "done."
Pressure cookers work by increasing the boiling point of water, and then boiling it. The higher the pressure, the higher the temperature water boils at. The pressures an Instant Pot works at raises the boiling point of water by roughly 20 degrees F at low setting, and 30 at high setting (10 and 15 C roughly). At sea level this is about 230 and 240 F or a little higher (110 and 115C). This is lower than you would roast something in an oven or cook on the stove, but steam-water cooking tends to be faster to raise the temperature and the confined area aids this as well.
In most recipes, the stated time is well into the safe zone as pressure cooking is seldom intended to produce protein that is medium rare for instance. It tends to be more designed to take an item that would typically take a long braise or similar cook and try to produce a similar effect in less time. If you are at altitude, you often need to add time to account for a lower boiling point of water, but otherwise tried and tested recipes should be fairly safe even if you forget to test temp. The thermometer is always the great equalizer to be certain, but as long as the looks, flavor, consistency where all that of fully done pork, then you should be OK.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348096 | 2019-12-11T04:30:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104041",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82407 | Vacuum sealed frozen salmon burgers - seal broken due to thawing?
I was wondering if thawing something that is vacuum sealed can result in the seal being broken (or if it's the air expansion due to warming). I left salmon burgers on counter to thaw for half an hour so I could separate the two patties and when I came back to the kitchen (actually 40 minutes) the plastic was all loose around the burgers. I put them back in the freezer for now. I think it looked vacuum sealed when I took them out of the freezer. I wonder if I should throw them out. Thanks!
I don't understand, why would you throw out for a broken seal? Are you concerned it would be a sign of spoilage like puffed out mozzarella pack?
Yes, I do wonder about spoilage.
Maybe my comment was a bit ambiguous. What I ask is, do you believe that vacuum prevents spoilage in itself, or do you believe that it does not, but in this case, breaking the seal is a symptom that spoilage occured independently of the vacuum?
I'm not sure, I don't know if some sort of spoilage caused gasses to form (but it wasn't out long at all) or if there was a pinhole that showed up with thawing. But decided not to eat it.
The question I would have is whether it was frozen when you bought it, or if you froze it yourself. If you froze it and the packaging was good when you did then there's no reason to throw it out unless it's gotten too freezer-burned to be palatable. It's the temperature of the freezer, not the packaging that preserves food when in the freezer, so it should be safe providing it was properly handled before being frozen.
As for the bag being loose it may very well have a hole in it, it's more likely to have happened in the freezer than during thawing. Because you froze it yourself and the packaging was good you know whatever happened occurred after you bought it, so it should be just fine.
If you bought it frozen then I would suggest throwing it out because you don't know when the packaging was broken or what the food could have been exposed to.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348409 | 2017-06-15T02:04:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82407",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"padma",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70476 | How do you stop limes from drying out?
I bought a bag of limes and decided to leave them out on the table in a bowl after the last bag dried out in the fridge. They also dried out super-fast in a very few days. Should I keep them in a plastic bag? I don't live in a very dry climate. Thanks!
How do you intend to use the limes? If you're just juicing them, you could freeze the juice, for example.
(properly) dried limes are still usable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dried_lime
Cook's Illustrated recommends storing lemons in the fridge in a tightly sealed ziptop bag with the excess air removed. I would imagine that the same applies to limes. As I understand it, the idea is to prevent air circulation in order to reduce the rate of dehydration.
Ref at thekitchn.com
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348583 | 2016-06-05T04:58:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70476",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74317 | Air bubbles in sausage
Are air bubbles/pockets/loose casing in raw sausages okay food safety-wise? I don't know if it's just because they didn't fill them as full or if they formed from gases/bacteria. They are five days before the best before date Merguez sausages. Thanks!
It is most likely just a void. It is hard to pack a casing 100%. There will be voids.
Could it be (toxic) bacterial gas? Maybe but not likely.
Remember your going to cook them. Cooking not only changes the flavor of the meat but kills off almost all harmful bacteria. Air pockets, will get cooked to, and will usually "pop", but even if they don't any bacteria in the air pocket will be killed off.
@coteyr Any bacteria in the air pocket may be killed off yes, but the toxins they leave behind can not be cooked off.
True, if your meat is old enough to have toxins then best to throw it out. Usually though this is only really a problem, if the meat is stored at room temperature or stored (in the fridge) for a really long time. Standard meet rules apply. Once thawed cook it, don't let it set in the fridge raw for more then a day or two.
As far as I know, bacterial toxins are not usually gaseous. There are spores etc. that can be carried in gas, but they can also be carried in (e.g.) sausage.
The casing on a fresh sausage needs to be left somewhat loose because the casing will contract when it's cooked. If it were stuffed as tightly as possible, it would be almost certain to split open in the frying pan. Even for a sausage that will be poached first (boudin blanc, e.g.), which causes the casing to shrink much more gently, you must account for that shrinking.
Air bubbles are simply a natural consequence, as Tim Post says, of the size of the grind. You notice that tennis balls in their can also have "air bubbles" around them. If there are a lot of bubbles, it's a sign of perhaps not-quite-painstaking manufacture: usually the bubbles are pierced after the links are formed. This is again to prevent splitting: the air will expand when it's heated and that can rupture the casing.
The pockets are not a danger sign by any means, though. The only worrisome hypothetical I can think of would be that they appear to inflate on their own while the sausage is in cold storage: that means something alive is producing gas. (My guess would be that'd just be harmless yeast, but) When in doubt, throw it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348675 | 2016-09-28T01:10:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74317",
"authors": [
"James T",
"abligh",
"coteyr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50882"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84526 | Cut food with fork and sharp knife - metal in food?
I cut up some sausages with a fork and a fairly sharp knife then wondered if the knife cut the fork and tiny bits of metal got in the food. The fork looks a little scratched/barely gouged but may be partially from regular wear and tear.
Should I never use a fork when cutting up food with a cutting knife? Or is this a non-issue? It's sort of like this question but a bit different I think. Metal dust/shavings in food from knife wear?
This shouldn't be an issue.
From a practical perspective you need a fork to hold food in place, without one the food would slide around. You aren't going to get metal in your food if the knife contacts the fork when cutting, no matter how sharp it is, unless your fork is made of a soft metal of some kind. If your fork is that soft it may be leaching into your food anyway whether you use a knife or not, in which case you should replace it with something like stainless steel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348881 | 2017-09-21T02:07:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84526",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76065 | Undercooked bread - does temperature over 165 mean it's food safe?
I made a white bread recipe with whole spelt flour, probably didn't knead it enough, etc. and it didn't rise much. So it was undercooked inside and very cooked outside. I stuck a meat thermometer in the bread and it was 160-165+ degrees. Does the temperature mean it was food safe while at the same time being undercooked/heavy in the middle? (Because I kept tasting it in the vain hope it was getting edible as I cooked it again and again). What I am trying to understand is can something be undercooked tasting and in consistency but be food safe due to temperature? Thanks!
What was in the recipe other than the spelt flour?
Just water, yeast and a bit of salt. I think I overheated it when proofing it, I'm a little out of practice!
First off, there's not a lot in the ingredients you list that is likely to pose a hazard anyway. (It is possible for flour to be contaminated with bacteria, and if the bacterial count is high enough, it could pose a risk in raw dough.)
However, pasteurization to safe levels at 160F doesn't take more than a few seconds in most foods, and it's likely the interior of your loaf was above 130F (where bacteria will gradually start dying off) for quite some time.
I'd definitely consider it safe to eat right after baking, though it may not be particularly pleasant. However, underdone bread sometimes is prone to earlier spoilage, since it generally has a higher moisture content that might promote some mold, bacterial, and yeast growth after baking. The chances of it becoming actually hazardous without noticeably spoiling are probably rather low, but it's possible, particularly if the moisture content is high enough. It's much more likely that the bread would just spoil normally through the appearance of surface molds, etc., though. If you wanted to be extra cautious, you could store leftover bread in the freezer or fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.348982 | 2016-12-02T00:14:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76065",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104169 | Undercooked areas in chicken breast even though thermometer reads 165 degrees in thickest part
I pan fried chicken cutlets and stuck the thermometer in the thickest part and it read 165 degrees but when I ate a bit there was a small spot of pink, slightly raw tasting chicken, kind of on the side. These were fairly thin pieces. Does the thermometer average the temperature and while some parts may be quite hot can it still have colder spots? How do you ensure that all of the cutlet is cooked if the thermometer is missing the cold spots? My thermometer seems reliable when I use it on roast or baked chicken.
The thermometer can only measure the (very small) spot it's physically touching, other spots can vary in temperature. A thermometer cannot average out the whole piece of meat.
When cooking in a pan, when I flip the items, I try to make whatever's on the outside edge of the pan to the middle. They'll more evenly cook this way, vs. having one part of the food always cooked over the hot middle while the other part was always over the colder outer edge. (I have an electric stove ... this might be less significant for gas ranges)
Is it possible that the chicken wasn't completely thawed?
@JimmyJames one would think so but it wasn't frozen and my fridge isn't super cold.
If the raw spot was in a thin area, I'd suggest that it was caused by the pan frying method.
A thin spot could leave a gap between the surface of the pan and the meat itself, and so not absorb much heat.
To reduce these indentations, you can mechanically reshape the meat before cooking (e.g. squash down the higher parts).
In addition, or instead, as soon as you start cooking, it's a good idea to use the spatula to briefly press the meat onto the pan's surface.
This will flatten the bottom face of the meat and give it uniform contact with the heat.
By the time you turn it over, the meat will have become firm, so you won't be able to fully flatten the second face against the pan, but that's okay as the thin parts will already be mostly cooked and the parts that still need heat will be in contact with the cooking surface.
"mechanically reshape" haha
It's also worth looking up how to butterfly a chicken breast for an easy way to get a flat piece with uniform thickness
The only way to accurately assess done-ness is with a thermometer (though it is difficult to measure the temperature accurately in thin pieces of meat). Chicken can be pink, and also be cooked. Visual signs and flavor perception are much less accurate. You say your thermometer "seems" accurate, but have you calibrated it? This should be your first step. Then, making sure you are using it correctly should be next. Finally, if you are using proper cooking technique, it is safe to assume that when the thickest part of the product is cooked, the rest is cooked.
This is correct, as per the USDA: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e8dad81f-f7fc-4574-893e-bae20cf8b215/Color_of_Meat_and_Poultry.pdf?MOD=AJPERES ("The color of cooked chicken is not a sign of its safety. Only by using a food thermometer can one accurately determine that chicken has reached a safe minimum internal temperature of 165°F throughout. The pink color in safely cooked chicken may be due to the hemoglobin in tissues, which can form a heat-stable color")
(one of) The problem when cooking a chicken breast is that it does not have a consistent shape, one part is thicker than the other.
This will often result in either undercooking (thickest part) or overcooking the meat (thinnest part).
If you put the thermometer in the thinnest part of the meat, then it will register a good temperature, while the other part will not be there yet.
Couple of suggestions that will help you: first, don't put a too cold meat in the pan; get it out of the fridge, like 30 minutes before so that it get to an even temperature; second, you can pound the breast so that it has a consistent thickness, so that all part will cook at the same time.
I 100% agree on pounding them to flatten. For cutlets, I also like to get larger chicken breasts and cut them at an angle, starting at the thicker side, (following the angle of the thicker side) so that only the two ends are of an inconsistent thickness.
This is absolutely the opposite situation than the one the OP is asking about.
It is absolutely normal that the chicken is not the same degree of doneness throughout. The people who write guidelines know that and have accounted for that in their guidelines.
It is not that there is some magic temperature at which meat will change from "will always make you sick" to "will never make you sick" and they give you that temperature. Rather, they give you the answer to the question
"If I am a home cook and stick a thermometer into the roughly thickest part of my meat, what temperature should the thermometer show so I can count the meat as safely cooked?"
They are aware that not all people's thermometers are perfectly calibrated. They are aware that you won't always stick the thermometer into the perfect spot. They are aware that some parts of the meat will cook at a different speed from other ones. And so on. But they have made a complicated model that takes all this into account when telling you what temperature to look for on the thermometer display.
They also had a point in making it about temperature. Even if it looks more pink than usual, or has colored juices, or whatever, that doesn't make it unsafe. These factors are correlated with doneness, but are not a precise indicator. So just follow the guidelines as written. If your thermometer showed the required temperature, you are safe.
...if your thermometer is accurate.
@moscafj I am pretty sure they allow for some wiggle room in home thermometers, but of course nothing crazy. So yes, ensuring that it is accurate is a good thing, but if you calibrate it and notice it's a bit off, you don't have to go out and drop a four digit sum on lab-precision hardware.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.349161 | 2019-12-18T03:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104169",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"Leroy",
"Ron Beyer",
"Vicky",
"Z4-tier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79994",
"moscafj",
"padma",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85485 | Tetrapaks vs. canned food
How does one know if slightly crushed tetrapaks are safe to eat from? I have never heard of problems from them but wonder as they get a bit crushed from picking them up repeatedly. This article How to Know if Canned Food is Safe Past its Best Before Date says to avoid package if it is cracked, crimped or pinched but perhaps that applies to cans? Thanks!
Why should food go bad if the container has dents? As long as it's not ripped there should be nothing wrong with it.
It depends on the damage to its layers.
This is the layout of a tetrapak container:
Now, obviously the container should not be considered safe if layers 1-3 are compromised. But small damage in layers 4-6 should not be considered invalidating.
Since the package is flexible, I don't think that slight crushing compromises any of the more important layers.
Thank you, I feel better knowing that there are six layers, I thought that there were only three!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.349656 | 2017-11-06T23:35:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85485",
"authors": [
"Fl.pf.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62705",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87216 | Can defrosting chicken make it slimy?
I bought chicken drumsticks on January 11th and froze them on the 11th. They had a best before date of January 13th. I put them in the fridge yesterday to defrost and am cooking them now but they were slimy. They didn't smell though. Does frozen chicken go slimy when defrosted? Safe to eat? Thanks!
Chicken naturally contains a lot of water, it also absorbs some more from the cleaning process (up to 8% reportedly). Some manufacturers also "tumble" the raw chicken with brine to increase flavour and, of course, weight and thus profit.
The freezing process will damage cells in the meat as the water expands, so when the chicken is defrosted some of this water/protein mixture will escape from these ruptured cells. When cooking you may see this as a white gunge forming in the pan.
It can feel quite slimy once defrosted, but this is just the raw "juices" coming out. I buy chicken in bulk and vacuum seal/freeze it into portion sizes. Good quality meat and drying the chicken before freezing can help. Flash freezing is preferred, but this is not practical at home.
I believe food safety is OT here, but it should not be an issue as long as you follow all the recommended guidelines for storage temperature and times.
Food safety is definitely on topic here, questions about health and medical issues are not.
So if recommended guidelines were followed and the chicken doesn't smell bad one can differentiate the slimy texture from food safety warnings not to eat slimy chicken? In other words it can be slimy from freezing/defrosting as opposed to slimy from spoilage?
I've seen "slime" from plenty of defrosted chicken, never from spoiled chicken. Although in the last case the smell is enough to bin it without looking at it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.349763 | 2018-01-22T04:28:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87216",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64118",
"padma",
"user3190797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64595 | Older vs. newer stainless pans
My newer pans scratch really easily but I noticed that my mother's older, (bought in the 70s I think) heavier stainless pans don't scratch easily at all. The inside of hers looks a bit like the bottom (exterior) of my newer pan, sort of like a stainless steel sink, heavy duty. Hers are super easy to clean, mine always need baking soda to clean. I have a bottom of the line Henckels pan and a reasonably good Denby pan, both 18/10 stainless I think but they are very thin on the sides. They also look like they have a bit of a finish to make them look shiny. I'm wondering if the older pans are a lot better than what is available now. I hope I haven't repeated any questions answered before. Thanks!
Without question, newly manufactured metalware does not match the quality of the same items made several decades ago.
I collect a classic style of (copper bottomed) stainless steel cookware that used to be manufactured in the United States. The oldest pieces are heavier and have a finer, more durable finished cooking surface than newer items.
A well-maintained old pan is a treasure, that can often be had for very little money at a yard sale or flea market, and will be far superior to similarly styled brand new cookware.
Without question, you have to be more careful in selecting which metalware you buy. The good brands are still (at least) as good as the ones several decades ago, but unfortunately mass production and cheap steel introduced a truck load of new sub standard cooking ware on the market that ruin the name of the good ones.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.349923 | 2015-12-20T03:43:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64595",
"authors": [
"Anne Woodward",
"Rao Taimur",
"SAMIA RAHMAN MRIDULA",
"Steven Dawson",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47712 | What kind of tray or tray coating to use for pretzels?
I've been making traditional German pretzels with a lye bath, but the pretzels tend to bake onto the baking sheets. I've tried a few different kinds of trays, all with less that perfect results.
Non-stick coatings actually stick to the bottom of my pretzels and
get pulled off the trays.
Some pans without coatings react visibly with the lye solution, i.e.
bubbling. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which metal this pan was made
of. On the other hand, the pretzels stick less.
Wax paper sticks to the degree that I have to cut it off.
I would like to find a solution that prevents my pretzels from sticking and me from ingesting any Teflon, metal, or paper.
You can avoid the tray altogether and bake them on a steel rack. Lye doesn't react with stainless steel (or with carbon steel, for that matter). It will stick lightly to the rack, just like anything else on stainless, but due to the small surface, you should be able to separate them.
The second way would be to just use enough rock salt on a steel tray so that they are too high to stick. But it might mean that you'll get too much salt embedded in them.
And as a final word, you might just be using too much lye, or too strong a solution. Pretzel were baked long before there were silpats, and they didn't strip the seasoning off the tray.
Avoid any coated trays (teflon, enamel), and, most of all, aluminium.
You need a Silpat! I recommend a half sheet size Silpat and a Stainless Steel Half-Sheet Pan.
A Silpat is a silicone mat. It's the most non-stick way to bake anything, and they're quite durable. Buy a couple of mats and you can just swap them out when baking multiple batches.
According to folks at The Fresh Loaf the silicone shouldn't react at all with the lye.
Aluminum reacts badly with lye, so be sure that nothing you use with the lye contains aluminum.
most 1/2 sheet pans are aluminum, so your first & last sentances may be conflicting
@Joe That's why I made the point, but it's good that you bring it up again to highlight it. Some 1/2 sheet pans are SS. If I often made pretzels, I would would invest in one. As a matter of fact, answer edited to offer a SS option.
After you dunk the dough twists in your alkaline solution, transfer them to a cooling rack to allow the excess liquid to fully drain from the dough before transferring them to your baking sheet. Give them 5-10 minutes to shed as much of their bathwater as possible.
And regardless of what type of pan you choose to bake the pretzels on, spray the pan LIBERALLY with quick release spray - or oil-down your pan - whatever...just make sure you really spray or grease or oil your pan before you transfer your air-dried twists for baking.
If you use a Silpat or other silicone baking mat, spray it down or oil it too. Pretzels stick to metal. Pretzels stick to parchment. Pretzels don't adhere as strongly to silicone baking mats but they don't just fall off those mats either. Whatever you're baking on, coat it with something - don't be shy.
So...(1) no lye puddles, & (2) spray/oil/grease liberally.
I don't know if I'd use the grease advice. It will sure help with releasing, but I'd be afraid to produce soap, not a very tasty pretzel glaze.
The concentration of NaOH is too low for that to present a problem. I re-checked my recipes and they tend to recommend oil specifically. See also: http://ruhlman.com/2009/11/how-to-make-pretzels/
When you say wax paper, I'm assuming you really mean parchment paper (since wax smokes like crazy in the oven). Have you tried nonstick aluminum foil? It works really well for keeping stuff from sticking. Or what about greasing the pan or using ceramic pans? They make ceramic baking pans (like cookie sheets).
Aluminum reacts badly with lye.
aluminum is the wrongest material to use together with lye (well, the wrongest one common in kitchens). You may get a violent exothermic reaction.
OK. I did not know that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.350101 | 2014-10-06T17:48:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47712",
"authors": [
"Andre Ley",
"Brooke",
"Charles Beatty",
"Diane Lew",
"Don Miller",
"Jahn Morris Hill",
"Joe",
"John Czachor",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julia Bussey",
"Michael Jones Cormack",
"Oliver Mcfarlin",
"PAMELA",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"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/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.