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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
55861 | Can pasteurized milk turn into yogurt by itself?
During the winter, I often leave milk on my porch to make room in my refrigerator.
During a recent warm spell, I had an unopened gallon of pasteurized milk on the porch for two days around 50 degrees Fahrenheit. When I opened the bottle to see if it had survived, it had no spoiled milk sour smell, but the consistency was similar to thin yogurt. I drank a little, and it tasted like normal unspoiled milk aside from the texture.
I was to nervous to consume the whole gallon, so I threw it away, but I'm curious about what process might have been at work here. Could it have been a yogurt like bacteria despite the pasteurization?
Was the milk in an unopened container?
Yes, unopened. I brought it home from the grocery store and put it on the porch.
It could have been some type of fermentation, but since you didn't initiate it, throwing out the milk was the right thing to do. Pasteurization is not sterilization. Some bacteria may remain.
My mom would use it in baking if it had gone slightly off but not chunky. (even when it smelled off). If I were still consuming dairy, I'd have used it for pancakes, myself. (but I likely havea gut that's more used to it, and a higher tolerance for risk)
What you got is more properly characterized as buttermilk (in the current usage of the term) than yogurt. Pasteurization does not sterilize milk, and it can have been any kind of bacteria which can survive in milk. The process was the same as in any other cultured dairy: bacteria started multiplying, producing lactic acid which curdled and soured the milk.
The harsher the pasteurization, the less chance that you happened to have an abundance of a benign culture. You could have gotten something dangerous, or harmless-but-gross. Traditional buttermilk making by leaving raw milk unseeded with any culture out and hoping that it harbors no baddies is also unsafe by today's standards. So, if you want to produce buttermilk or yogurt, you are much better off starting with a culture. A few spoonfulls of prepared yogurt or buttermilk should work (unless their culture was killed), but for best results, you should match culture and fermentation temperature.
as far as I know, Lactic acid (byproduct of fermenting yeast or bacteria) this is a natural preservative that inhibits the growth of harmful bacteria. In my case I know a person that actually make cheese in the same way you accidentally did. So to my knowledge once the milk doesn't smell bad you are good to go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.350464 | 2015-03-19T14:39:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55861",
"authors": [
"2cents",
"BJ Smith",
"Joe",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Netta Holloway",
"Pat Kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jermiah joseph",
"richard blackman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54573 | Can I accelerate the prep time for small tapioca pearls?
I've got a package of Reese small pearl tapioca in front of me, ready to make tapioca pudding, but I forgot to factor in the recommended overnight soak. Is it possible to accelerate the process by soaking in warm or boiling water or by substituting a longer cooking time?
Typically for starches & hydrocoloids, you need to hydrate them fully before heating, or the outside will gelatinize preventing the middle from hydrating. Sometimes things are sold 'pre-gelatinized' (eg, Wondra flour, 'instant' tapioca) that don't require the cold soak first.
Yes, it works without presoaking. You have to cook them for quite a long time until they become quickly translucent, the small ones will need about 30 minutes at a moderate boil. It is not optimal, as the outside will become mushier in this long cooking time, but there are people who don't mind the difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.350784 | 2015-02-10T01:27:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54573",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Laura Mcsorley",
"Mike Slinn",
"Rose T Angel",
"Tim Manning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128482",
"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
} |
49923 | What are the differences between a Dutch oven and ceramic casserole?
I've been looking for information about the difference between cast iron Dutch ovens and ceramic casseroles.
I use my Dutch oven for baking bread and would like to know if ceramic will have the same effect on the crust.
Aside from the fact that cast iron and ceramic require different care, I have found little information about the relative properties of the materials.
I imagine that cast iron is a conductor and ceramic is an insulator potentially leading to different effects during cooking. However, both have been traditionally used for slow roasting and baking.
Is there any difference and if there is, what is it?
First, fully generically:
The main distinction made by The New Food Lover's Companion (Fourth edition, 2007) is that a "casserole dish",
can be glass, metal, ceramic, or any other heatproof material,
while a Dutch oven is
usually made of cast iron.
Another distinction is that the Dutch oven may be a kettle, which typically implies the presence of an overarching handle from which the entire pot may be hung (as over a fire), while no such option is offered up for their definition of a casserole.
This is generally confirmed by the fact that while, yes, both we and the marketplace (sellers) seem often to use the terms casserole and Dutch oven interchangeably, whenever the vessel is equipped with an overarching handle retailers seem to avoid referring to it as a casserole. More specifically, when you turn to high end concerns in service to restauranteurs, such as here, there's no confusion on the matter. Casseroles invariably lack overarching handles and, unlike Dutch ovens, may come in quite small sizes and don't necessarily require lids. So while Dutch ovens may or may not have overarching handles, they invariably have lids and are invariably substantial in size. The compiled side-by-side photos below, as extracted from WebstaurantStore, goes to show just how severe the contrast can be between the two items.
Second, to the question of browning:
Here are a couple of examples which seem to speak for themselves, as far as how well ceramics or ceramic coatings can be expected to perform when baking breads.
Williams & Sonoma offers a Cast-Iron Loaf Pan (photo below) about which it says,
The specially formulated black matte interior enamel contains traces of quartz, giving it additional heat resistance and a rougher surface resulting in better browning.
Williams & Sonoma also offers a Bread Cloche (photo below), for which it makes the following claim,
Duplicating the benefits of baking in a brick oven, the ceramic bread cloche turns out individual loaves with tender, moist interiors and crispy, evenly golden crusts.
I'm sure there exist any number of additional examples of bakeware, each of which possesses similar properties to these. (The links provide a good deal more information.) I hope this however is enough to help you take the plunge, so to speak, toward this option if that's what you're interested in doing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.350909 | 2014-11-20T03:50:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49923",
"authors": [
"RM M",
"Springfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119334",
"muthu srinivas",
"vinay varma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47780 | can i mix arborio and carnaroli
I have 2 lbs of carnaroli rice and 1 lb of arborio rice, both the same brand. I need to make a recipe calling for 3 lbs total. The basic recipe on both boxes call for the same amount of liquid, but I've heard that some people use 1/2 the liquid for carnaroli rice.
I'm wondering if I mix them, will it turn out fine? Is there some adjustment I should make? Just keep stirring and adding liquid until I like the consistency?
I don't know about those two varieties specifically; I've mixed other types of rice (including mixing a medium and long grain), and it's come out fine ... I just had to sample it and stop the cooking when it reached the point that I liked.
IMO, everything will be ok; if you have concern about it, just make 2 batches with the 2 different rices.
I have never heard of using half the liquid for carnaroli. I have used the same risotto recipe with both types of rice with very similar results in terms of consistency.
Both arborio and carnaroli are used to make risotto.
If you are making risotto the proper way with adding in your stock over time you will be able to control how much liquid overall goes into the rice and therefore be able to adjust your overall liquid amount as time progresses. Carnaroli has a higher starch content than arborio, but if you mix them together and make risotto I am sure it will turn out just fine and no body will notice. Yes they are different grains, but not enough difference to change things.
About Carnaroli
Older discussion re: Carnaroli vs arborio
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.351170 | 2014-10-08T14:40:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47780",
"authors": [
"Antoinette Madison",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jennifer Sims",
"Joe",
"Margie Pulsipher",
"Max",
"Steven Farlow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
} |
48907 | Purple skin with white flesh yams/sweet potatoes have black/green spots after I boil them. Can I still eat them?
Our local food distribution site gives what they call sweet potatoes. They are purple looking on the outside with white inside. When I boiled them they got kind of black or green streaks in them. Am I cooking them wrong and are they safe to eat this way? I peel and cut into cubes and boil till fork tender.
I could only find one variety of sweet potato with purple skin and white flesh. Before I research further, does this look like your potato? It is much more common in Asia, especially Japan, than in other parts of the world.
Oh wow! Look here, related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16562/cooking-purple-sweet-potatoes-or-purple-yams?rq=1
The other question is newer, but it seems to be more extensive, to give more thought to the spots, and it has a picture.
A couple of years ago we got some sweet potatoes from an Amish market that we visit whenever we travel along the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Maryland. They were simply labeled "Japanese sweet potatoes". They were as you describe with a purple skin and white flesh. We almost always bake our sweet potatoes and were quite delighted with them as they were very sweet. On a few future visits we asked workers at the market but no one knew the actual variety.
To your question about the color, we mostly buy white flesh sweet potatoes as we find them to be tastier. (Each year around this time we make trips to the Eastern shore to buy boxes of the Hayman variety and some Jersey Whites.) When cooked, white fleshed sweet potatoes do look quite off putting, with varying greenish and grayish coloring. Honestly, if I didn't know what they were supposed to look like I would have asked the same question as you did.
Bottom line is that the color is not so pretty, but a worthwhile trade-off for the flavor!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.351334 | 2014-10-13T18:40:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48907",
"authors": [
"Gyan Prakash Srivastava",
"Ivy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Kolesnik",
"Randy Howard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"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
} |
83045 | Both over- and undercooked beans from a pressure cooker
I cooked pinto beans in an electric pressure cooker and ended up with a few overcooked mushy beans, few cooked ones, if slightly al dente, and the majority of beans so severely undercooked that they seemed to be hardly cooked at all. Over- or undercooked beans wouldn't have surprised me, but both at the same time? What happened?
I used my newish electric pressure cooker to cook dried, not soaked, pinto beans. I cooked 250 g (9 oz) in 1 litre (4 cups) of water on high pressure for 22 min (the accompanying booklet recommended 22-25 min) and did a quick release (I did 24 min and natural release before; this resulted in beans so mushy you cannot eat them as anything else other than puree; internet research pointed towards 22 min and quick release). Where was my mistake?
Did you use beans from two differently dated batches? Have you retried with a soak?
I used beans from the same 500 g packet, bought only last week and cooked today, and I deliberately didn't soak because apart from shorter cooking times, soaking doesn't really do anything to help (and also I based my cooking times on unsoaked beans). But my question isn't why most beans didn't cook but how is it possible that some were over- and others were undercooked at the same time, in the same pot. I mean, I guess it's not that I forgot to stir, given that I used a pressure cooker...
aside: Most do say that soaking helps leech undesirable oligosaccharides.
Soaking might, especially with larger or older beans, help get them evenly hydrated though... and that probably is exactly what hasn't happened here.
The "same packet" question was because some kinds of dried beans are known to take longer to cook the longer they have been stored... still possible that the brand you use mixes variously aged beans in one bag..
I'd be surprised if the beans were old. I think the packet had a best before date a few years in the future, but I'm not sure, and unfortunately I already threw it away. I'll try to get another one from the same shop and will try to reproduce the above, and soak the other half of the packet, then we'll know for sure.
I'd never be surprised if packaged beans and pulses are old :) Too often, they are ;)
You didn't mention if the beans were completely submerged in the water, so if not, please make sure they are.
Second, assuming all the beans were of the same age, I find that soaking the beans evens things out. The speed of the pressure cooker can only overcome so much resistance to moisture in the beans themselves.
I have cooked very old beans that have some beans that never get soft, but that doesn't seem likely here since your beans are from the same bag.
Lastly, that could have been an odd bag. You might give it another try and see if you have different results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.351515 | 2017-07-17T20:03:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83045",
"authors": [
"Little Ms Whoops",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81543 | Material of my mixing bowl
I'm using a handheld mixer with a melamine mixing bowl. Lately I've noticed that the surface of the bowl at the bottom of the bowl feels irregular, and dark spots have begun to appear. Should I use a mixing bowl made of other material? If yes, which other material?
Melamine is quite a soft material and wears quickly. Not only would metal and hard plastic mixing utensils wear it down, abrasive ingredients like sugar, oats and so on would take little bits off the bowl's surface. Over time, it is common to have pits and grooves carved into the bowl. These small indentations are hard to clean properly and could trap colours. In warmer and more humid climates, they are great habitats for molds, living off the trapped micro-scraps. Both or either could be the source of the dark spots. Melamine should not be microwaved or used with boiling water. At high temperatures (pasteurization temp is too high from memory), decomposition happens with toxic releases.
Glass (clear borosilicate or Pyrex), glazed pottery and stainless steel (in that order) are preferable in my view for abrasion resistance and non-reactive properties. I generally avoid using stainless with any wet alkaline ingredients. Also, you cannot microwave a metal bowl. I would however go for stainless if I need to heat or chill the contents rapidly.
Hm. I can think of two reasons for the dark spots.
1) Simple discoloration. Most plastic products, including melamine, suffer from this to some degree.
2) Abrasion of a layer of paint, although the only melamine bowls with additional painting I've ever seen were pet food bowls.
The only reason for the irregular shape I can think of is thermal deformation, maybe the bowl sat on a surface that wasn't cooled down yet.
Considering the state of science, it is very difficult to make a sound recommendation regarding the best material. How various popular materials affect the human body is under extensive investigation and what might be safe today might be a bad choice tomorrow. The material of choice for most kitchen products is stainless steel, which is unfortunately also the most expensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.351747 | 2017-05-10T07:14:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81543",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73670 | Poached eggs at altitude?
I recently signed up for America's Test Kitchen Cooking School and followed their directions for poaching eggs. I brought my water w/ vinegar & salt to a light simmer, removed it from the heat, and gently added the raw eggs at the same time. I covered and left it for 5 minutes, saw they were a bit feathery, gave them an extra minute before removing them, and found that they were still feathery and a bit undercooked.
My guess is that they need more time or persistent heat since I'm at higher altitude (mile high in Colorado), but I'm not sure. Should I keep the heat under the pan? Should I keep the eggs in longer? Maybe both?
I'm at roughly sea level and wouldn't take the water off the heat; obviously that's just a different way to do it but you might find it more robust.
In terms of the egg being 'feathery', using the freshest eggs possible will help with that.
@dbmag9 Thanks for your perspective. The eggs I used were only a week old at most, which might be an issue, but I'm guessing the heat had a bigger impact.
I live up in the mountains. Two things I do not do are: a) remove food from heat and expect it to still cook properly, because boiling points are lower at higher altitudes; and b) use the cited time in the recipe. I always add time, because the lower boiling point means more cooking time is necessary. Also, try not to open the lid of the pot unless you absolutely have to. The lid provides some added internal pressure for the pot, which helps with cooking, and keeping the lid on as much as possible provides steady heat. Other than that, I have no suggestions.
Thanks for the insight! Your last comment is interesting: "The lid provides some added internal pressure for the pot, which helps with cooking." I tried to make ramen stock for the first time last weekend, and I found that I kept having to add water when boiling it all day with the lid off, otherwise it would all evaporate. I wonder if that's due to the altitude as well, considering none of the videos or article I followed used a lid and didn't seem to have an issue.
I live at 5700 feet in Colorado and the method OP describes makes perfectly cooked poached eggs: bring water (enough to cover both eggs) in a saucepan plus a teaspoon of salt, and teaspoon of vinegar to boil, then add fresh-cracked eggs that were cracked into a ramekin first, cover, turn off heat, and let sit 5 minutes. Perfectly done whites and runny yolks.
I live at 5,000' elevation. I need to consider the time involved when cooking in water.
Your question reminded me I have not made poached eggs for many years. So I made a couple. Farm fresh eggs, 2~3 days from chicken. High simmer, not boiling. Added a scant teaspoon Kosher salt, 1.5" of RO water in 12" SS skillet.
6 minutes with flame on, removed eggs.
Soft whites, not leathery. Yolk was cooked, but very fluid. My sweet wife wanted another minute added. She likes a more well done poach.
Water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitudes. At a mile high, the boiling point is ~202 °F, as opposed to 212 °F at sea level. (The decrease in BP is due to lower air pressure.). But since poached eggs aren't brought to the boiling point, this will not affect the cooking temperature.
Water does evaporate faster at higher altitude/lower pressure. This is one of the effects that high-altitude recipes are intended to counteract. Keeping the lid on is a good idea - although the weight of a lid is not enough to increase gas pressure inside the pot, it does help return water vapor to the liquid state, slowing evaporative cooling, and perhaps making it easier to maintain a consistent poaching temperature (~180 °F is common but not universal).
A remedy for the featheriness that is well known is to gently strain the egg in a fine mesh strainer before transferring into the pot. This removes the thin, watery portion of the white. Also, you could select higher quality eggs - newer eggs, from younger, healthier chickens tend to have less watery albumen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.351927 | 2016-09-03T15:32:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73670",
"authors": [
"Matt Huggins",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356"
],
"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
} |
49069 | how early can I put food into a slow-cooker?
I am considering getting a slow-cooker. I leave for work by 8am, return about 4pm and feed my family dinner about 5pm. Can food sit in the slow cooker that long?
Thanks.
Yes. A typical slow cooker's low setting ranges between 8-10 hours, which is within the range of your listed times.
All (or nearly all) slow cookers come with a removable ceramic bowl/insert that the food cooks in. Most families do most of the preparation in the evening, putting everything into that bowl, and putting the bowl into the refrigerator. Then when they wake up in the morning, they put the bowl back into the slow cooker and start it up.
Your bigger concern should be what size of slow cooker to get. If you don't fill up that ceramic bowl to at least 1/2-2/3's full, you can end up burning the entire dinner.
It's more a function of the recipe than the crock pot -- some things cook for 6 hrs on low, others for 12.
Easy, that's what slow cookers do. Not all recipes do well for all day cooking, but many do. Here's a little collection to get you started. Here's a Google search for all day recipes. The whole point of the Crock-Pot is that it gets food out of the "danger zone" (above 140F, 60C) quickly, but cooks the food slowly. There are tons of well loved recipes that will serve you well.
As for all recipe searches, look for strong reviews.
Also, some more advanced (pricey) slow-cookers have a timer option that will cook for a time you specify then go into a keep-warm mode. Something you might keep in mind - depending on how much money you're looking to drop on one of these. Even w/o that option, there are SO many recipes that will work with the time schedule you posted that you'll do just fine.
A cheaper alternative to slow cookers with a timer is using a $5 light timer (powers a circuit on at a designated time, off at another designated time) :)
@Erica With that, I'd just be concerned about the dreaded "danger zone". Slow cookers already, by their very nature, push it. I'm no slave to kitchen safety, but Crock-Pots are so often used for busy families - that means kids. You'd really have to be careful to use a circuit timer.
My grandmother says that if the recipe calls for 8 hours, she will sometimes cook it for as many as 10 hours and it comes out great. So I think it's fair to say if you cook for 8 hours and then leave on warm for 1 hour that it will be perfectly fine to eat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.352248 | 2014-10-20T05:31:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49069",
"authors": [
"Diane r Duvall Diane Duvall",
"Erica",
"Jack Davis",
"Jim T",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mark Munger",
"Martha Serrano",
"Rosie Hernandez",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"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
} |
49086 | Can refrigerated shredded mozzarella cheese go bad if the refrigerator door was left open overnight?
A bag of shredded mozzarella cheese was in my refrigerator. The door to the refrigerator was left partially open overnight. Can I still use this cheese or should I discard it?
Almost certainly the cheese is fine, but it may grow moldy a bit faster than it would have otherwise. Just use it sooner rather than later (within a couple of days if you can). Check it for mold before each use, and throw away the whole bag if it shows any sign of mold or otherwise being "off".
If it's a large bag, you can freeze portions of it, and then thaw out what you'd need for the next couple of days' cooking.
@Joe Good point.
This study shows that nearly one quarter of all refrigerators operate at an average temperature which exceeds [edited] the optimum average temperature of 5°C or 41°F (the FDA recommends 4°C or 40°F). So even with the door of your frig opened and closed the proper percentage(s) of the time, already there's a risk that the temperature of your cheese was less than optimal for normal preservation.
Bottom line is this though. The USDA says all soft cheeses, including mozzarella (by its definition), should be discarded any time it's spent two or more hours (same link) above 40°F. So bearing in mind what's revealed of refrigerator temps above (first sentence), there's simply no question that you're taking a risk if you think to consume the product you describe.
Mozzarella isn't actually a soft cheese, it's semi-soft, also generally low-moisture. If there is no mold or any other sign of spoilage the risk under these circumstances would be microscopic.
Related and interesting: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/04/the-food-lab-can-you-rescue-poorly-stored-mozzarella-cheese-refrigerate-or-no.html
The study you cited says that the optimum temperature is 0-5C, not 4-5C, and that nearly 1/4 of refrigerators are above that, not below it.
Agreed, Jefromi, and edited accordingly. Thanks.
Yes, Jolenealaska, I was surprised to see it on the USDA list as a soft cheese; it was probably just too much trouble [for them] to make the further distinction you raise. Thanks.
It could, but the preshredded stuff is usually low moisture to start with. That cuts spoilage rate. Besides, the dairy aisle coolers from which the stuff is sold are often effectively refrigerators with the door left open themselves.
Yes, but store display cases are specifically built to maintain a set temperature w/ no door on it. Your home fridge isn't. The low moisture bit is a good point, though.
Cheese sits out for years.
I may think that the processed cheese may go bad, but never over night. It is crazy to even think that. You could probably leave it out for a day or two and it still would be good. I have left it out for that long many times and never got sick.
Cheese was left out for years hanging from the ceiling before refrigerators were even thought of, so go ahead and eat it with your crackers or by itself - my thoughts.
Hello joe, welcome to the site! I have suggested an edit to your post to make it easier to read. We want to encourage nice style because we are not just answering a question now, but are building a knowledge-base for future reference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.352512 | 2014-10-20T13:56:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49086",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cherish McKee",
"Darrell Noblin",
"Dina Poliakova",
"Dyan Marinos",
"Dylan McMullan",
"Ellen DeLeon",
"Farida Hassanali",
"Hector Ruiz",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ra Samuelson",
"Stephie",
"Thomas Raywood",
"Tom Heftka",
"Yasmin Mbewe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104490 | Balsamic vinegar became too thick. How to liquefy it?
I store an Italian balsamic vinegar (BVM) in a fridge and use it from time to time for a couple of years. It used to be thick and viscous. (In contrast to some other reports, I did not need to reduce it, as the original consistence was totally satisfying.) But now it has almost solidified:
How to make it liquid again?
Does it change as it warms? You don't need to keep balsamic in the fridge, btw, the pantry is good for 3 - 5 years for 'commercial' balsamic & up to 20 years for the 'good stuff'.
A little water would thin it of course.
As it warms, it becomes more liquid. However, some solidified pieces still remain. It looks like that would take several days for them to "melt".
I would use some good regular (i.e., a non-reduced or a non-aged) balsamic vinegar to thin it out.
You can try placing the jar in hot water or use warm running tap water to heat up and re-liquefy the vinegar.
When I have honey that has crystalized and I want it in liquid form, I heat water in a pot, take the pot off the burner, and place the (glass) honey jar in the pot until it is the correct consistency.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.352902 | 2020-01-02T09:09:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104490",
"authors": [
"Alexander Pozdneev",
"MaxW",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51824 | Can't I just grease the Baking Sheet instead of using Parchment Paper
Recipes such as http://paleoleap.com/avocado-banana-chocolate-cookies/ say to line baking sheet with parchment paper. Why can't we just grease the baking sheet?
Does this answer your question? Can I bake cookies without baking paper?
Usually you can - our great-grandmothers didn't have parchment paper.
There are a few cases where parchment is preferrable, usually with very, very sticky dough. It saves time when it comes to scrubbing the cookie sheet.
I resisted using parchment for a long time to wanting to start with a single use item. Then, on America’s Test Kitchen (or one of its other franchises), they said they use it until it falls apart. Now, I almost always use it so I don’t have to scrub the cooked grease/oil off my pans.
Welcome and thanks for your input. If you take the [tour] and browse through the [help], especially [answer], you will notice that this post doesn’t really answer the question - it’s not about how to use parchment, but whether it’s really necessary. I would recommend an [edit] to ensure that your post answers the question.
Besides assisting in easy clean up, parchment paper provides more even cooking and baking and a neater way to make straight cuts in baked goods. For more details, see: https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/cooking-tips-tutorials/a93622/7-reasons-to-use-parchment-paper/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.353037 | 2014-12-21T20:01:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51824",
"authors": [
"D Treacher",
"Dublin Carpet Cleaning.ie",
"Joe M",
"Kevin Peterson",
"Stephie",
"Viktor Kuzmin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49650 | Rolls fall flat
when making yeast rolls mine will rise the first time then not at all the second time most occasions, I read about over rising first round, so I think this could be my problem, however when I do get them to rise the second time they seem to fall flat in the oven, or when I pull the cover off to place in oven they fall flat, any advice on how to fix this.
You will have to post your complete recipe and process here. We cannot know what went wrong if we don't know what you did.
Make sure your proving environment is maintaining temperature. If you are making the dough with blood temperature water then the residual heat in the dough will get the yeast going but when it cools down the yeast may cease to be active. The dough should double in size on the first prove. Also make sure your flour is proper strong flour and that the dough is being worked enough. Even strong flour won't achieve the correct elasticity if it isn't worked enough so when the yeast gives off its CO2 the dough won't prove correctly. When doing second prove don't let them go all the way as they will still prove some in the oven before the crust forms.
LOL - I've never heard it referred to as "blood temperature" before! Very descriptive :)
Yes haha blood temp is actually the correct term. It's the perfect temperature for yeast as it is actually a living organism. That's why I always sneer at dem vegan types who will go to a restaurant and order a pizza with no cheese, thinking is an animal free product.
I disagree with this troubleshooting. First, using AP flour instead of strong flour will not prevent rising, it will just produce a well risen bread with a different texture. Second, using colder dough will slow down rising, but not prevent it, and it will make much tastier bread than when rising at blood temperature, at which the yeast is indeed very active and produces lots of ammonia and thioles. The yeast is active even as low as fridge temperatures (only its first contact with water should be room temp), and using less than body temp won't produce the problems from the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.353200 | 2014-11-10T01:49:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49650",
"authors": [
"Abby Fairbrother",
"Jarrod Fontanini",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mailyn Wharton",
"Mr G Chippy aka Patches",
"Omar Devon Little",
"Sergio Vazquez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28763",
"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
} |
49788 | How do I prevent salmon sticking to the BBQ grill?
I love a good BBQ and cooking steaks & sausages etc are no problem.
However, whenever I put the salmon fillets on the BBQ (skin side down), no amount of oil seems to prevent them from sticking to the grill.
When I try to remove the fish from the BBQ, it just falls apart and the skin stays stuck to the grill.
What can I do to prevent this?
I'd be very interested in anyone's comments on some cooking myths related to this topic; one (using mayonnaise can be found online and another - rubbing the hot grill first with a slightly oiled starchy (potato) vegetable has not yet made it to the first few pages of a google search.
Who cares if the skin stays stuck to the grill? I always grill salmon skin-side down and only turn it once for a brief final sear on the non-skin side. I expect the skin to stick to the grill. I use spatulas to turn it without breaking it up.
There are few pleasures in life that can beat a nice crispy piece of salmon skin.
Don't know how prevalent it was in 2014, but grill baskets (some specifically called "fish baskets") are pretty easy to come by now.
If you don't fancy cooking in aluminium foil (kind of takes the point away), you need to make sure you have a super clean, extremely hot grill.
Why?
Clean (No tasty burnt fat from the burgers), flesh sticks like #### to a blanket. You can get away with it when cooking steaks because they are just so much stronger. So get a wire brush and clean an area for fish cooking and keep it clean :).
Hot, as hot as you can pretty much. You want the second that Salmon (or other fish) hits the grill for it to blacken. It'll help make sure the flesh is no longer 'fleshy' and again less likely to stick. Don't try lifting it till' you know that underside is like a pink and black Zebra on it's underside (3-4 min).
When it does come to lifting you could really do with a nice sharp fish slice, not a blunt fat ended egg slice.
Good luck.
Use aluminum foil or even non-stick aluminum foil directly on the grate. You can use a fork to punch holes in it so that you get optimal smoke circulation if you like. The fish won't stick and clean-up is a breeze.
To stop salmon skin from sticking:
Use a sharp knife, and with a motion against the scales' direction, remove any leftover scales and tear the outer skin so that you get a nice diamond pattern.
Pat the skin dry with enough paper towels so that there is absolutely no moisture left to be removed. This step is crucial - don't skimp on the paper towels!
Oil the skin and make sure the grill or pan is well oiled and very very hot.
This may not be the answer you're looking for, but my favorite way to grill salmon is by placing the fillet on a grilling plank. (something like this). You soak a plank for 30 minutes to an hour in water, while you let your rub (or marinade or whatever) soak into the salmon. Then, place the salmon on the plank, and put the plank on the grill! I tried my first plank about a month ago and it was actually the most hassle-free grilling experience I've ever had!
The plank is especially a good idea if you're like me and prefer propane cooking. (I find it cooks meat more evenly than charcoal and saves time, to boot!) You'll get a savory smoky flavor without the hassle of lighting the charcoal. That being said, you could probably use this method on a charcoal grill also.
Again, it may not be exactly what you're looking for, but to be honest, since I tried plank grilling, I'll never cook salmon another way again... And it's gotta be a better option than cooking on foil.
I would abandon the idea of putting the fish directly onto the grill - instead use a fish grill basket to get some of that nice smokey char into the fish, without worrying about it falling to pieces when trying to move it.
In my favorite way to grill salmon, I don't try to keep it from sticking.
I do a normal grill prep, which includes oiling the grates initially. The salmon goes on the grill skin side up. With good heat and prep, you should get very nice grill marks on the meat and not much tearing when you flip.
Then the skin side is down for the second half. The grates will be a bit more prone to stick, and the skin proteins are going to adhere well. But...I don't want to serve the skin anyway. When the fish is done, take your spatula and place it between the skin and the fillet. It will separate easily and you plate the fish. You'll have to clean the skin off later, but the fish will look perfect.
The skin side doesn't get grill marks this way, but it's cooked and you just serve with the other side up for presentation.
Generously spray PAM With Flour for Baking on grates. First time using it today and they were almost hard to keep from sliding off my smoker grill.
I cook whole salmon fillets on the grill once per week during the summer. This technique works for me:
Pre-heat the grill to at least 400F.
Prepare the fillet(s) with skin on by seasoning and slathering with oil on the flesh and skin.
Once the grill is hot, clean the grill well with a wire brush.
Oil the grill surface by saturating a paper towel with oil and using the grill tongs to rub it all over the bars. It may smoke but it should not ignite. If it does ignite, let the grill cool for a few minutes with the lid open and coat with oil again.
Turn off half of the burners and place the fillet skin side down on the half without active burners.
Close the lid and let it cook until the flesh turns opaque.
Drag the fillet over to the hot side for grill marks.
The skin will be crisp and firm so that lifting the entire fillet out of the grill will be easy.
1.) clean the grill - easier to do when not searing hot
2.) now let grill get hot - mine goes to 600+ with lid down
3.) use a few sheets of paper towel patting the fish to ensure it is as dry as you can get it
4.) Now I season the flesh side, rubbing in spices like a dry rub
5.) thoroughly oil skin side of fish - I use olive oil
6.) initially cook skin side down, allowing flesh side to firm up and seal
7.) when skin curls away from grill, you can flip over to make grill marks
8.) lightly press on fish skin side up to get grill marks, rotate and repeat, they do not take long to make
9.) I finish with skin side down as the boss likes her fish more well done
Make sure the salmon is dry before applying oil, that will ensure you get a good crispy sear..
Also with fish on the grill.. cook it at medium heat. The skin/protein will naturally release from the grill when it caramelizes and forms a natural crust. The problem with high heat is you will want to flip it before it caramilizes because of how fast the fish is cooking...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.353665 | 2014-11-15T04:07:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49788",
"authors": [
"Andi James",
"Carey Gregory",
"Charlotte Tilton",
"Kimberly Catania-Cox",
"Kurt",
"LINDA NEWTON",
"Mary Shinabargar",
"Nate Evans",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Quelklef",
"Robert Feasel",
"Sandi Elderd",
"Steven Scott",
"Terra Cancer boy Olson",
"Trogdor",
"Valerie Tinsley",
"bobthechemist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user118973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55345 | Rolling boil has barely any steam?
I'm trying to reduce a sauce I've got but I noticed something interesting.
When I raise the heat so the sauce is at a full rolling boil, there is barely any steam coming out so I presume there is little reduction happening.
However, when I reduce the heat to a slow gentle boil, there is quite a lot of steam coming off, so there is a lot more reduction happening.
Why is this the case?
Physics to the rescue:
Contrary to popular belief you cannot see steam.
What you can see is tiny droplets of water that were steam (= gaseous form of water) before, but have condensed (= returned to liquid state) again on very small particles like dust motes. If the amount of droplets is big enough in a certain volume of air, they become visible. In other words, you have created a small cloud in your kitchen.
Now back to your pot:
If the pot is simmering, a lot of water will condense over or near the pot, especially if your kitchen is rather cool.
At a full boil, the steam disperses more, so when the condensation happens, the tiny droplets are spread out wider, making the "cloud" harder to see. Also, the air around the pot is likely to be a bit warmer, so that the gaseous H2O will likely condense at a greater distance from the source anyway.
This may lead to the assumption that a boiling pot emits less steam when actually the opposite is the case.
If you want to verify this, look for condensation away from the heat source, e.g. your cool kitchen windows. There, the different amounts should be very obvious.
Nice answer, @Stephie! The last line sums it up beautifully!
The ambient humidity is also a factor. Dry air will "absorb" the steam quite easily, while very humid air will saturate quickly, forcing excess steam to condense.
Another easy experiment: take the pot to a full rolling boil then turn off the heat. The cloud of steam appears nearly immediately and remains visibly wafting from the pot after the water stops moving. When I saw that happen, my intuition shifted to conclude it's not the steam rising that's visible, but the steam cooling.
If you bring pilau rice to the boil with the gas on full with a lid on the pan, and a couple of steam holes in the lid, you'll see this effect. The steam is only visible when you reduce the gas. That's because there is less steam, which (confusingly) makes it more visible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.354246 | 2015-03-03T12:41:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55345",
"authors": [
"Dacio",
"Elyce Baker",
"Factory Strip Out Ltd",
"Jessica play",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nathan Evans",
"Ray Atkinson",
"Tristan",
"abligh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55035 | Why doesn't deep frying 'wet' the food?
If I placed bread crumbs in a pot of oil to deep fry and then take it out, it comes out crispy and not 'wet', although they are drenched in oil initially?
But if I place bread crumbs in boiling water, they just stay soaked?
The answer to this related question more or less answers your question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34326/why-breadcrumb-is-necessary-for-deep-frying?rq=1
Because water makes things wet and oil is not water.
Cheers Ross. And GdD, a counter example to your explanation is ethanol. It is not water, but if I throw bread crumbs in there, it will come out 'wet'.
Yes but what happens if you try and heat ethanol to 180c the usual temperature used when cooking in oil? I'm sure if you put bread crumbs into 100c oil they would also come out soggy.
I shouldn't have to say this, but heating ethanol (pure alcohol) to 180c is dangerous, please don't try it unless you know what you are doing!
@Trogdor Your ethanol example has nothing to do with oil != water. At least ethanol mixes with water where oil does not
Hah, I wasnt for one second suggesting anyone actually tried heating ethanol.
Firstly I think you're having trouble making a distinguishment between water and oil absorption. Even though placing food in (room temp) oil may at first seem as if it had gotten it 'wet' it's a very different kind of soaked compared to doing the same thing with water, as the two liquids have profoundly different properties.
Oil when heated, however, behaves even more differently. The immense heat of the oil (160-270 ºC, 320-520 ºF depending on the type of oil you are using) actually vaporises moisture (water) contained inside of whatever it may be you are deep frying, which is why food thermally processed in this way is oily but not wet, and can even be dry if overcooked.
The key thing to remember here is that oils, being hydrophobic and lipophilic, are exceptionally different to water and should not and cannot be expected to behave even remotely similarly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.354486 | 2015-02-23T07:25:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55035",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"GdD",
"Huangism",
"JoAnn Michaela",
"Louigie Demellites",
"Marjolein Stevens",
"Nikola Wojciechowska",
"Ross Ridge",
"Trogdor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54077 | How to infuse flavours in alcohol?
When making lemon lime and bitters at home, I decided to try the bitters by itself (the one with the classic oversized label, I think it's Angostura).
It tastes heavily of what seemed like cloves and cinnamon, or aniseed-ish flavours and wondered "Could I somehow make a similar thing myself?"
So say I had some ratio of those dry ingredients and wanted to infuse them into some alcohol, what alcohol should I use? Would using say vodka not be a great idea due to it potentially changing the flavour?
Just a side comment for anyone reading this: A sous-vide bath is a great way to infuse alcohol! Of course you need a chamber-type vacuum sealer to do it properly...
I've considered making Limoncello in the past... and I know some local bars that make their own. In that case, it's just add lemon peels to vodka and let it sit for a few days (and then add simple syrup to taste to make it sweet later). I don't know why you couldn't do something similar with spice flavors... in fact there are some good articles about making your own bitters, which can be more complicated as the flavors are more varied and need some balancing.
Can you make bitters and spice-flavored tinctures at home? Absolutely you can! I do all the time - in fact, I've successfully engineered a couple of bitters recipes, and even gave a homemade "holiday" bitters to friends as a Christmas favor last year. The process itself is simple and easy; what is not easy is duplicating a commercial product such as Angostura. If you're going to try, there are a few things you need to consider.
First, extracted spice flavors will be different than the dry version. While many flavors in various spices and herbs are alcohol-soluble, not all of them are, or at least not to the same degree. You'll also experience the flavor differently in a liquid form, backed up by the burning sensation of alcohol. Although you can expect to extract a very similar flavor to the raw spice, or similar to the flavor you'd get in cooking or baking, it won't be exactly the same, and thus your palate isn't always the best guide to figuring out a precise blend of dry ingredients.
A second related point is that of relative concentration and change over time. Some flavors will extract very quickly, and very strongly; others take a while longer to mature. Cinnamon and clove are two very potent spices that come to mind; use too much, or infuse too long, and they'll completely dominate. (Some bitters-makers get around this by infusing each of their spices separately, and blending them together until they get a desired combined flavor.) Some spices will also develop a distinctly bitter note when infused. Since this is in fact bitters, that's not a bad thing; but again, it will be different from what you experience in the raw version.
A third point is familiarity. Many of the spices used to create commercial and craft bitters are quite foreign to home cooks, even those who are pretty spice-savvy. Peppercorns, cinnamon, and dried citrus peels are all pretty common. But I bet you don't have quassia chips, orris root, horehound, or scores of others found in bitters recipes. So here you've got the problem that you simply may not be able to identify many or most of the constituent ingredients. Angostura reputedly has over 30 spices and botanicals that go into the mix. If your palate is sharp enough even to untangle them all, I salute you; if you can identify them all too, you may be superhuman.
In point of fact, it's really difficult to duplicate Angostura at home. What you can do more easily is create similarly-styled "aromatic" bitters, or entirely original creations (I've got an apple-cranberry bitters that I'm quite proud of). All you really need to do is add your spices to a strongly-alcoholic base and let them sit for a couple of weeks in a cool, dark place, agitating them every once in a while. Easy, but lengthy, so trial-and-error also takes a while. Many people start from a pre-existing recipe and that's what I would recommend to get started. You can find good recipes in many craft cocktail books (including one I'd recommend that is devoted to bitters) or by scouring online. This will give you a good base to start with, and you can then start tweaking recipes that you like to branch out.
Having done this myself, I'll offer a couple of tips based on my own experience:
You can use any spirit, but higher proof will produce a better extraction. Vodka is actually the best to use if you want a "cleaner" extraction - it will mask the flavor of the spices less than brown spirits. A lot of recipes use whiskey or brandy for the flavor that they add. In any case, I typically use spirits that are at least 100-proof (or 50% alcohol by volume). They help grab those alcohol-soluble flavors more effectively.
Pay careful attention to quantity, whether you're working from a recipe or developing your own. If your recipe calls for grams, don't approximate - break out the scale. Remember the interaction of extraction time and relative concentration. Deviate too much and you can totally throw off the balance of your bitters, especially with stronger spices. The result probably wont be bad, but it will be different and probably not quite as good. This is why good bitters recipes are to be prized.
Find a good source for your spices. The better product you start with, the better your result will be. You can find a lot of the less common ingredients in co-ops, health food grocers, and herbal-medicine shops. Usually you can buy these in bulk for a pretty good price. There are lots of online vendors, but I haven't found a single one yet to strongly recommend; some have great prices but poor selection, others it's the other way around.
There is no better infusion vessel than wide-mouth mason jars. Don't infuse in plastic, or flavors will leach their way into the vessel as well. Glass mason jars don't have this problem, they are cheap, and they are ubiquitous.
Keep in mind that all of this applies primarily to how I'm interpreting your question: regarding the infusion of dried spices, herbs, or other botanicals. Infusing liquor with fruits is also a worthy project, but a whole different one.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that as mentioned in comments, there are other, more technologically advanced ways to infuse too. Using a sous-vide bath, you can infuse rather quickly, although the heat involved in the process will change how the flavors are extracted. I have also seen techniques that use a cream whipper to produce "rapid bitters"; the idea is that high pressure and tiny nitrogen bubbles penetrate the spices, and extract flavors when the pressure is released. Pretty cool, but I haven't tried this yet. Start simple, instead. Get yourself a basic recipe that sounds good and have a go.
I regularly make various kinds of flavoured liquor. It can be difficult to get the exact same flavour as something you buy, unless they publish their recipe, but it is perfectly possible to get good results anyway. What kind of alcohol you start with depends on what kind of flavour you want to end up with. Vodka, at least the good quality stuff, lacks flavour and is therefore a good base to use when infusing alcohol. There are however a number of delicious things you can do with for example brandy or dark rum, depending on which kind of flavour you want in the end.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.354691 | 2015-01-28T04:32:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54077",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"James Demonte",
"Lisa Blackman-Siddall",
"Loretta Foster",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"malcolm mckinnon",
"windy Sitee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59962 | Flavour-wise, what is the use of an electric/gas BBQ?
I can understand that an electric/gas BBQ is very practical for outdoor events because you can cook a large amount of food in a relatively short amount of time, without smelling up the house.
A charcoal BBQ can impart a smokey flavour to the meat from the briquettes but what can say a gas BBQ do in terms of flavour? Is there any difference between using a gas BBQ and cooking the food indoors with a griddle/frying pan?
When you're grilling food at high temperatures on a barbeque most of the smoke comes from fat that strikes the hot surface of the coals/vapourizer. It's only when you're slowly barbequing food, cooking it at cool temperatures, that the difference becomes important. With a gas or electric barbeque you'll need to add a source of smoke (eg. wood in a smoker box) if you want to add any smokey flavour. Even with charcoal it's normal to add wood to the coals in order to increase the amount of smoke.
When cooking on an indoor griddle or frying pan, unless something goes seriously wrong, there's usually no smoke so the flavour will different than when grilling on any sort of barbeque.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.355244 | 2015-08-16T15:59:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59962",
"authors": [
"Alan Thompson",
"Jim L",
"Mildred Self",
"crau crau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143419"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54922 | Hand made pasta with wholemeal flour
I made some pasta using wholemeal flour instead of white flour. My ratio was one egg to 100 grams of flour.
However, I noticed the following things when making it.
It took a good half hour (and lots of sweat) to knead it to develop the gluten and to get it somewhat silky and smooth.
It seemed to take longer to cook than package dried pasta, which is strange because I'd expect it to take less time given that it's fresh pasta.
Is all this normal for pasta made with wholemeal flour, or could it be that my egg to flour proportion is wrong? Also, I made this using ONLY egg and flour, with a teaspoon of water here and there to help soften it. Am I missing anything?
I make partially wholemeal-flour pasta, and have tried 100% wholemeal also; I prefer the former.
Let's start with the dough. I think a couple things are at work:
wholemeal flour will take a bit longer to hydrate than refined (e.g., all-purpose) flour;
wholemeal flour will generally absorb (require) more water to fully hydrate than AP flour.
I'd suggest the following:
After mixing just until incorporated (still perhapas a bit ragged) allow the dough a period of rest (wrapped in clingfilm/plastic-wrap) on the bench, for perhaps 15-30min, before the major kneading phase. It will allow the dough to hydrate and relax a bit more. With this rest, you can probably get away with closer to 5min of kneeding (phew!). Compare this SA question and this Fresh Loaf for a discussion about bread dough and resting.
If it's still dense, consider a further teaspoon/5mL or two of water per egg. Note, though, that this water is best mixed when you're first mixing the egg and flour (it's more messy and difficult (albeit possible) to add later). Large eggs are perhaps 50mL per egg so keep that in mind -- too much hydration will make things hard to work with.
As for the cooking: are you drying the pasta first, or are you putting it straight into the water? I find wholemeal pasta takes perhaps 50% longer to get to the cooked'ness that I seek (but not more than 4-5 mins in rapidly boiling water), but certainly not as long as commercial pasta (10+ mins).
Though this question/answer is more like "why is wholemeal behaving differently", see also this previous question on using wholemeal to make pasta, and the accepted answer with some suggestions for "why not to do this" and more on "how to do it".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.355472 | 2015-02-19T13:42:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54922",
"authors": [
"Age",
"Andrew Milne",
"Kris Bekal",
"Russell Grewe",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54212 | Adding more bones to a finished stock?
I'm making a tonkotsu ramen dish, but I feel it could use a porky boost. The broth is done now but there's about six hours until serving time.
Would it be okay if I added more pork hocks now to add more flavour to the stock, despite it being completed now?
You probably have already eaten it by now, but the general answer is probably:
(1) Yes, you can generally add fresh bones or other things to a pre-existing stock/broth and cook it some more. This is traditionally called a "double stock," and is sometimes deliberately used by chefs to get a more concentrated flavor.
(2) "Would it be okay?" Mostly, yes. It shouldn't ruin anything. However, there are some flavors that will begin to break down with prolonged cooking. So if your broth included some more subtle vegetable or herbal notes, for example, they might be lessened if you continued to cook it for a long time. If I planned to do this, I would taste the stock again about an hour or so before I planned for it to be done and add back additional fresh flavor components if necessary to rebalance it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.355700 | 2015-01-31T02:46:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54212",
"authors": [
"April Johnson",
"Cassandra-Lee Davies",
"John Sutherland",
"ddsefs ewrfdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127543"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55238 | Flavour in different cuts
I read somewhere that different cuts of beef have different flavour intensities. The general trend was that the more the muscle was used (ie: rump), the more flavour it had but the tougher it was and the less the muscle was used (ie: fillet), the more tender but less flavour it had.
So it seems like flavour and tender are inversely propotional to each other.
Is there a basis behind this? Whilst we are at it, what is it that makes a cut 'tougher' than other cuts? Is it that the meat is more 'dense'?
I don't believe they are inversely proportional. You can a tender cut that has a lot of flavor, such as a good rib-eye steak.
For flavor, the general rule of thumb is "fat is flavor". Were not talking about all the thick and hard gristle fat on the edges, but the marbled fat speckled in the meat. That fat helps provide flavor and moisture as it breaks down.
For toughness, it relates to where on the animal the cut is taken from. Meat taken from areas where there is alot of muscle activity and movement is going to be "tougher" and required the more low and slow cooking approach to break everything down. Meat taken from the opposite side of the spectrum that gets very little physical activity is going to be softer and more tender.
At the end of the day, you have to cook the cut of meat properly. You can make a tender cut tough and a juicy cut dry if you don't cook it right.
You ask about two separate distinctions here.
Flavour: the taste of different cuts of meat varies mostly depending on their fat content or more precisely the way the fat is distributed through the meat. The best results are gained from a marbled cut like shown in a pretty extreme form here.
Toughness: rather than Chinese-interfacing the whole thing into this answer, I suggest this as a pretty decent read on the subject of tenderness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.355817 | 2015-03-01T02:37:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55238",
"authors": [
"John LaFleur",
"Nathalie Stubbs",
"Raghu Raman",
"Tracy Borg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131422",
"kathryn simpson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54684 | To lid or not to lid?
I'm currently making a plain chicken broth with the carcasses. It's currently at a low simmer and will be for the next few hours.
If I place a lid on the pot, will it affect the clarity of the broth somehow? I have in the back of my mind that placing a lid can make it cloudy for some reason, but I'm not sure if my mind is making up things or if this is a cooking myth or if it is actually the case somehow.
Leaning towards either cooking myth or my brain making things up again.
What makes it cloudy is a vigorous boil. You want to have a gentle simmer. If you put a lid, it can certainly make it boil (the temperature will be higher, as it has less heat exchange), so it's not a myth.
You are the one who knows what temperature your pot reaches after hours with and without lid. If your temperature is so high that a lid will cause it to boil, leave without the lead. If the temperature is so low that without a lid, it might get too cold to simmer and head towards the danger zone, use the lid. Only your experience with the exact same setting on the exact same stove, the pot you are using and the amount of liquid in it can help you predict how hot it will be.
If you are there to watch the pot and adjust it now and then, then just adjust as needed.
+1 and I'll also encourage the OP to figure out what power level your burner needs to be set to to maintain a low simmer with the lid on and simmer your stock that way. It's way more energy efficient than letting the heat escape from the pot for hours on end and it will also result in less reduction in the stock.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.356014 | 2015-02-13T06:58:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54684",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Kris Laetzsch",
"Myles Rath",
"Seoul Spa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"mohamad fauzi mahmud"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49802 | Killed Enzymes in Yogurt
We are big dairy eaters in our home, so I successfully make about a gallon of Greek yogurt every few weeks. Today I started my process as usual, but with so many things happening at once (just had my 2nd baby, so things are hectic), I failed to remember to let the milk cool before adding in my enzymes: I stirred them in right at 180 degrees. So having killed my enzymes (sigh), what can I do with all of this milk/yogurt mix aside from throwing it down the sink? Pardon my stupidity and lack of knowledge on the subject, but would the heating process alter at all the calories/nutrients in the milk/yogurt in any way (aside from the obvious death of the innocent enzymes)? Will my milk curdle or something? Thank you!
Why not just add more enzymes after the stuff cooled sufficiently?
Enzymes you add to food are generally not toxic. If you denature them by getting them too hot, they don't usually renature spontaneously when the food cools down. They'll just act like a gram, or whatever amount, of protein added to your yogurt mix.
Adding fresh enzymes once the milk is cool enough won't hurt anything. Those new, happy enzymes will just do their enzymatic thing, and give you the yogurt you want.
You are correct about denatured enzymes, but in this case, I think the OP misspoke. Homemade yogurt is typically made with live bacterial culture. I'm not aware of a process which uses pure enzymes to make yogurt (although there are such processes for cheese). Anyway, the bacteria won't return back from death either.
@rumtscho - Bacteria do make handy containers to carry enzymes around; self-replicating too. Going to purified enzymes when bugs have worked fine for centuries does seem a bit of a stretch too. Recipe may emphasize the bacterial enzymes bit rather than the organisms themselves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.356184 | 2014-11-15T18:58:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49802",
"authors": [
"Charmaine Strauss",
"Laurie Walla",
"Niki Grace",
"Sam Small",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho",
"Štefan Krajník"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49811 | How do I extract the membrane from an egg?
I have heard eggshell membranes are good for your joints.
But every time when I peel a boiled egg, the membrane is stuck to the shell.
How do I get the membrane out and eat it?
I don't know that it would be very useful, but if you soak an egg in vinegar you can dissolve the shell leaving just the membrane.
@sourd'oh wha?? I've never heard of that. Just regular vinegar? How long does it need to soak? Could I do that for deviled eggs?
@Jolenealaska It's usually more of a kids science experiment thing. I don't remember exactly how long it takes, but I think is a couple days. Naked Egg
@Jolenealaska: If you use 25% regular vinegar the shell should be dissolved within one day (if I remember rightly). Months ago I did this.
That is cool...now I really do want to experiment.
Though it makes your egg taste of vinegar @Jolenealaska
Probably find it easier to crack a raw egg and then peel the membrane from inside. Maybe use some tweezers to get started.
Thanks, its much easier to extract from raw egg and a cooked one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.356369 | 2014-11-16T13:00:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49811",
"authors": [
"Brandon Heather",
"Caramia Courtright",
"Ching Chong",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matt Cunningham",
"Preston",
"SPW Walsh",
"SourDoh",
"daniely",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29316"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49852 | Why did my soy (Silk) milk suddenly become as viscous as rubber cement?
I used about half of a quart of Silk Milk and returned it to my refrigerator. Two days later the remaining liquid had been replaced with a colloidal mass with a gooey consistency not unlike rubber cement. Why? I see no signs that anything froze in the refrigerator which was in continual use.
Your gooey soy milk might be good to use in a vegan bratwurst sausage recipe. The gooey consistency is probably from bacteria, and needs to be boiled to be sterilized. Soy milk can burn and turn black close to the bottom of a hot metal pot. I recommend putting the rancid soy milk inside of a very small metal pot. Then put a large metal pot on top of the stove. Fill the large metal pot with stones and water, and insert the small pot inside of the large pot. The milk will not turn black on the bottom if the small pot does not touch the burner. Use a lid on the large pot to ensure heat stays in.
Soy milk can spoil, just like ordinary cow's milk. That seems to be what happened.
While spoilage in cow's milk is usually souring, and the smell is unmistakable at fifty paces, soy milk spoils by turning gooey.
I'm not sure about the details, but it's something in how the proteins react to oxygen. In soy milk, if I'm not mistaken, they turn into longer, stickier chains.
As for why it spoiled, it was probably just open for too long. Even in the fridge, soy milk has a life of about 4-6 days once opened. The seal may have been damaged somehow even before you actually opened it, allowing air into the carton to cause the spoilage.
Do you have soy yogurt in the same fridge? Soymilk based yogurt with live cultures, if somehow able to cross contaminate your milk, could cause fermentation to occur. I've never used soy milk, but I know the same process for making regular yogurt is the same as the process for making soy yogurt, just with a different set of cultures. Short answer - it sounds like some buggies may have gotten into it. Give it a taste and see if it's pleasant or not.
Even if the yogurt is sold with live cultures (which is seldom the case, commercial yogurt is normally deactivated so it will stay bland for a long time) the culture will be very slow, almost dormant, at fridge temperatures.
@rumtscho : there's been a marketing push in the US for 'probiotics' for the last 10-15 years, which for the commercials is fancy speak for 'yogurt with live cultures'. (even though there are lots of other bacteria cultures that you can get at health food stores). Even before this push, you used to see a lot sold with packaging saying 'active live cultures'.
I've used soy, oat and other milk alternatives for many decades. One reason is how milk turns 'sour' often within two or three days in the fridge - quicker after the bottle or container is opened.
Different brands of soy milk can behave differently, some brands are too much like real milk and sour nearly as quickly after opening, but others seem good for up to a week. I don't drink as much as I did - so I need milk alternates that last a little longer than cow's milk.
However, some brands just get a little thicker or gluggy within three of four days - as the solid matter settles onto the bottom of the container. I just add some water if it is just thicker without a change in taste. I practice giving the container a shake before using, but now wonder if I'm 'churning' it by doing this. Sometimes the gluggy matter will blend with the watery part, but sometimes it just stays in huge lumps.
I rarely had this problem, but these days, with the brands in Aldi, I end up throwing about half a litre out and starting a new carton. It seems like keeping it on the shelf for a few weeks now, also brings clumping on quicker than I remember over the last few decades, even though I immediately put the carton back in the fridge after pouring.
So, I'm wondering if I can add a yoghurt culture powder into the clumpy soy [or oat] milk, and get a yoghurt from it? I don't like wasting half of my soy milk.
Spoken to generally here, (the wiki on Tofu), and stated more specifically here
Tofu is manufactured by coagulating proteins in soymilk with magnesium
sulfate. As bonding occurs between the positively charged magnesium
ions and negatively charged anionic groups of the protein molecules,
the proteins coagulate.
Since magnesium sulfate, also known as Epsom salt, is a common household item, anyone with a cursory knowledge on the matter can turn soy milk into the base for tofu with little effort. Perhaps a prankish roommate?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.356520 | 2014-11-17T19:42:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49852",
"authors": [
"Donna Korol",
"Joe",
"Joel Muniz",
"Melodie Barrier",
"Salman A. H",
"Samuel Muldoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"trevor currie",
"user2006987"
],
"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
} |
49876 | Why the Australian Tomahawk steak is larger then US?
If you do a search for Tomahawk steak on Google Image, you will see two very different Tomahawk steak, the US ones, some simply referred it to Rib Eye Bone-In French Cut, are much smaller, with smaller bones at the tail and much more elegant looking.
While the proper Australian Tomahawk is so much larger in pic, and weight in 1.8Kg+.
What are the different between these two parts? Are they even made with the same cuts?
Here from this native seller of the Australian Tomahawk steak we see of its size in terms of weight an
Average weight 24 to 96 oz.
This particular seller handles (sells) steaks only between 64 and 80 oz. But its product description is clear on the fact that this amounts to cherry-picking (see photo?).
Since 24 to 96 ounces represents such a wide range of sizes compared to the correlative 64 ounce example you cite, what we're looking at here, in the way of an explanation, is that some cattle are simply larger than others. This would necessarily mean that, sure, you can find just as large (or small) a cut in the U.S.
They are the same cut.
Quoted from Meat 102: Cuts, Anatomy & Preparation (emphasis mine):
Some restaurants will call the ribeye a “tomahawk steak” if the entire rib bone is left on and french cut by the butcher, since it then looks like a small hatchet. It is common for butchers to cut the bone down a bit, however, for packaging purposes ... Sizes and portions range from anywhere between 14oz to 36oz, most often hovering around the 20oz mark in restaurants.
36 oz is about 1 kg, or half as large as the "Australian Tomahawk" -- which can be attributed to having the full rib bone, as well as probably a thicker cut (and a generous pinch of marketing-speak and publicity).
The Tomahawk is one of largest steaks in Australia, weighing in at
1.3kg – 3.6kg (1.8kg average). Each Tomahawk is a rib-eye, or scotch fillet on the bone...
(see also StockJournal article)
EDIT: It's also called a cowboy steak or cowboy chop. So, the uncut rib bone seems to be the primary difference between "Australian" and "US" tomahawk steak.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.356878 | 2014-11-18T09:00:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49876",
"authors": [
"Edward Park",
"Helena Diz",
"John Bourne",
"Jonny Brown",
"Lillian Oliver",
"Lisa Phillips",
"Mary Schuck",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119208"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49989 | Whole fish oven temperature and inside temperature
A 6 to 7 lbs Whole Snapper with head.
Broil or Bake is the first is part of the question?
With a convection oven what temperature should it be cooked at?
What the inside temperature should be?
[In preview: ...whether baking or broiling the doneness of the fish is not determined by knowing or measuring inside temperatures. And since the broiling method just means as high as your broiler will go, the only setting one needs knowledge of, (and that for baking), is 450°F or 230°C. The other takeaway is that it is arguable whether one should even attempt broiling whole fish, at least of any real size, in a kitchen oven.]
as for baking
In his book The Science of Cooking, Peter Barham reiterates a distinction made by Rick Stein in his book Fruits of the Sea. When it comes to how one should think of "baking", at least as it applies to fish fillets and whole fish, he divides baking into a pair of subcategories denoted baking and roasting.
Of baking he says, (my brackets),
Baking involves cooking the fish in a deep pan at a moderate oven temperature (15O°C), [that's around 300°F.], often along with some vegetables, so that some of the steam that rises from the fish and vegetables remains above and around the fish as it cooks. Keeping the fish in an atmosphere of steam helps to reduce the overall loss of water from the fish and retaining a moist product.
Of roasting he says, (my brackets, my bolds),
Roasting is the process of putting a large piece of fish, or a whole fish on a trivet over a shallow pan and exposing it to the fierce heat of a hot (230°C) oven. [That's around 450°F.] When cooked properly, the fish skin will crisp up well providing a good combination of textures from the crisp outer layer to the moist and tender flesh inside the fish. However, the risk of overcooking is very great so this is a method that needs plenty of practice to get the timing just right.
and to which he adds, (my bolds),
The variability of domestic ovens is so large that it is not possible to provide any accurate guide to cooking times for roast fish. You simply have to test to see when the skin becomes crisp and to try to tell, by gently pressing on the fish when it starts to become dry. The idea is to let the skin crisp up, but to prevent the flesh becoming at all dry.
So as touches the reliability of method, the form of baking which calls for the lower temperatures plainly offers up up greater reliability for cooks with less experience baking fish, (And by less experience, I really do only mean as compared to persons with more experience), while the form of baking which calls for the higher temperatures is the only baking option or large, whole fish.
Therefore, if to choose the baking method, (or in Barham's language roasting), "internal temperature does not need to be measured per se but is more than adequately accounted for (gauranteed correct) by the exterior condition of the fish (crispiness) and moistness of the fish (when pressed down on) at the end of its cooking cycle. Thus it can be said for purposes of baking a whole fish, irrespective of size (within reason), the oven temperature should be set at 450°F (230°C).
There are however other important qualifiers which will be spoken to shortly. But first let us turn our attention to what Barham has to say about broiling fish.
as for broiling
On broiling, which he refers to as grilling, Barham has several things to say. Most generally he calls it,
the method most fraught with risk of ruining a perfectly good piece of fish.
He goes on to explain, (my parenthetical),
Many domestic grills are not very powerful, so by the time that the outside has browned and the flavour developed, (by which he means the Maillard reactions), the inside of the fish may well be thoroughly overcooked.
From here, he goes on to make a case for using a blowtorch on whole fish rather than a conventional grill (broiler), moving the torch constantly over the fish in sweeping motions, the essence of which can be summarized by this extraction,
As soon as the fish is lightly browned on one side, put the blowtorch down, turn the fish over and repeat on the other side. The whole process should take no more than a minute or two.
So unless one has access to a professional-grade, super high heat producing commercial oven, Barham plainly would have us to abandon even considering putting a fish under our broiler at home, especially a large fish.
Certainly however there is at least the appearance of disagreement as to the merits of so severe a stance. I say appearance, because professional advice given to professionals implies use of professional-grade equipment, and so should probably not be applied too broadly. Wayne Gisslen in his Essentials of Professional Cooking has the following (among many) points of advisement for broiling fish which, it must be reiterated, may or may not work with a standard kitchen stove,
preheat the broiler.
coat all fish (fat or lean) with a fat before broiling to reduce drying.
make a series of parallel cuts across the fish, or in a diamond pattern for larger fish.
turn thick cuts once during broiling in order to ensure they cook evenly.
Gauging by the language he employs, it is interesting to note that Gisslen is not thinking of fish here in terms of overall weight so much as he's thinking of it in terms of thickness.
broader considerations
For a moment of synopsis: If to rely on the above considerations, whether baking or broiling the doneness of the fish is not determined by knowing or measuring inside temperatures. And since the broiling method just means as high as your broiler will go, the only setting one needs knowledge of, (and that for baking), is 450°F or 230°C. The other takeaway is that it is arguable whether one should even attempt broiling whole fish, at least of any real size, in a kitchen oven.
Beyond these limitations, in her book The Fishmonger's Apprentice, columnist and author Aliza Green echoes some standardized considerations, or matters of practice, when dealing with fish one intends to prepare, a couple of which are as follows, selected specifically because they involve the use of snapper.
COOKING FISH -- Fish that have delicate, soft flesh, such as sea
bass, flounder, and red snapper, are especially vulnerable to
overcooking. They take well to moderate-temperature cooking such as
baking in juicy sauce, and pan-frying (with a coating to help
protect the flesh).
SLASHING FISH -- Cooked whole, any fish will be juicier, more
flavorful, and will lose less of its weight. Cutting diagonal
slashes (photo below) partway through the flesh of the fish ensures
that it will cook evenly when roasted or grilled.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.357088 | 2014-11-22T18:02:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49989",
"authors": [
"Glen Dunbar",
"Keratin Treatment NYC",
"Mike T",
"amy mason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119474"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49994 | removing breast before roasting rest of duck?
I ordered a duck to roast for Thanksgiving. When I picked it up, it was much larger than I had expected. Since there will only be two of us eating, I was wondering if it would be possible to remove the breasts for a later meal and still roast the rest of it. I was thinking since it would be breast down and with all the fat, plus basting; it would be fine. Or will it dry out? Any other opinions or ideas?
I would go ahead and quarter it. It just seams weird to only lop off the breasts. Not sure if there's any real problem though.
I like to economize my effort, so I'd probably cook the whole bird anyway and simply shred and freeze the uneaten portion for use later. Have you had a salad topped with shredded duck and duck fat dressing?? It's a game-changer.
I would actually recommend you remove the breasts, regardless of when you will be cooking them. It is very difficult to get the duck breasts to a perfect 125–130°F, the legs to ~15° hotter, and to simultaneously render excess fat and crisp the skin when roasting the bird whole. Cooking the individual muscles separately greatly simplifies this. Also, with duck, there is (in my opinion) relatively little advantage gained from roasting the individual parts on the carcass, other than tableside presentation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.357584 | 2014-11-22T20:57:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49994",
"authors": [
"Debbie Hurta",
"Highlights Hair NYC",
"Laoise Dempsey",
"Matthew Biehl Mrk",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50079 | How Long To Brine Boneless Chicken
I have read a lot about how tender and juicy brining makes turkey, pork, chicken, etc. so I am currently attempting to brine a boneless chicken breast. I have found a-lot of different methods for brining boneless chicken, but they all differ in ingredients and time. I decided to do a basic brine (water, salt, and sugar), but I have no idea how long to brine it for. Some people say 30 minutes and some people say it's okay to brine for 4 hours to overnight.
Any advice on how long to brine boneless chicken for would be great!
The reason why different people say different things is that there isn't one "best" time period. It depends on what is convenient for you, and how much difference you are able to taste.
It depends upon the strength of your brine, for boneless chicken breasts I recommend a 5% brine for 30 minutes to an hour.
Ideally, salt for brining should be measured by weight, especially since volumetric measurements for the same weight of salt will vary depending upon the coarseness of the salt. A 5% salt solution means you should use 20 times by weight the amount of water to salt. That's easy and foolproof if you have a scale. If you must use spoons or cups to measure salt, Morton's Kosher salt is very close to two tablespoons equaling an ounce, so 20 ounces (2.5 cups) of water to 2 Tablespoons of Morton's Kosher Salt would be a 5% solution. Use about 65% of the volume measurement if you must use table salt and measure by volume.
Incidentally, for larger, bone in pieces brine in a 5% solution for 3-5 hours, a whole chicken for 12-16 hours (roughly).
Also, be sure that your chicken does not have water added, as many frozen, bulk pieces do. In effect, those chicken pieces are already brined.
I +1, I also do 5-7% brine for 30-45 minutes. 50-70g salt, 930-950g water.
Per a recent "Fresh Air" podcast featuring Cooks Illustrated they recommend 30 minutes of brining with salt, sugar, and soy sauce. I use arbitrary amounts. Then heat water to 175 degrees and turn off heat source. Let chicken sit in hot water until it comes up to temperature. Reports from teenage son is that these are way better than the previous method I used to use (boil the heck out of them until I remember to take the heat off). Happy Thanksgiving.
@april26 Neat! Can you provide ratios?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.357837 | 2014-11-25T22:23:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50079",
"authors": [
"Honeybliss Salon",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kabir Musa",
"Megan Shuler",
"Ming",
"Starlein Fox",
"april26",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"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
} |
50204 | Why do most belly pork recipes recommend cooking the pork at a high temperature at the beginning of cooking?
Most belly pork recipes recommend cooking the meat at a high temperature at the beginning. And then lowering it for a number of hours.
However, I have found that when I do that, the skin rarely forms decent crackling. Presumably because the skin is still a bit wet and it takes time for it to get hot enough to crackle.
I have only had success when I turn the heat up at the end of cooking.
Why do all these recipes recommend the opposite of what is working for me?
At least for steaks, much of it is the "sealing in the juices" myth which is quite prevalent. But I have heard of many people agreeing that low heat ended with high is much better than high ended with low. Both are better than low all the time, and high then ending with low is also easier to achieve, especially if working with fire as opposed to a modern stove.
It's not just pork belly. Most slow cooked roast calls for an initial high temperature cooking into a long low cooking. Presumably the logic behind this is the same whatever the answer is.
As far as I've always believed there is 3 reasons for it.
I. Theory the high temperature shocks the skin helping the skin crisp up if you've ever put a chip in cold oil you'll notice it takes far longer to crisp up than one dropped into the same oil but once hot. Or a better description is probably ... Have you ever put a poppadum into cold oil? Notice how it never puffs up, just goes brown.
The high heat helps seal the meat I'm theory helping keep the moisture in, even though most of the 'moisture' in belly pork is actually the fat self basting itself.
The high temperature helps raise the interior temperature to above the 'danger zone' quicker.
Now I do agree with you, the initial blast does not make the skin crackle, especially since I cover my meat with foil after the first blast which essentially means the skin then steams for 5 hours. I did however try low from the start once and the end result was a thin crispy but a little chewy almost crackling layer even after half an hour at 230c at the end. So I do think high initial heat plays a crucial role to getting good crackling in the long run even if it doesn't seem like it to begin with.
I would suggest not fixating on any time frame for the initial blast. Keep your oven on full wack until the skin bubbles up, if I can be bothered (it's a bit messy and risks major burns every time) I pour 300c oil over the top of my pork half way into my first blast which really helps the skin blister and results in perfect light crispy skin at the end.
Theory 2 was already debunked many decades ago, but still floats around as an urban myth. There is no "sealing" going on. Theory 1 is wrong, it compares two absolutely different processes - the chips are made of starch and behave very differently in oil than meat does. The puffing up has to do with steam, which is not a factor in meat. But your actual observations are quite interesting.
Like I said, theory :-), I don't believe any of them are technically true all I know is these are the things chef's/I are taught in the early days of working in kitchens. And theory or not, the process of high heat to start definitely works.
All of the above AND because high temperature will kill any tapeworm eggs present on the skin.
Wouldn't the rest of the cooking kill them too? Surely if there's anything that survives low cooking temperatures but is killed by higher ones, it's bacterial spores, not eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.358044 | 2014-11-30T14:13:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50204",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charley Holzschuh",
"Doug",
"James Clark",
"Jay",
"Kirsten Bow",
"M Kay ewing",
"Nkele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51848 | Why are roasts wrapped in foil?
I wrapped a piece of beef brisket in foil and slow roasted it last week.
It was the beefiest tasting beef that I've ever had.
So now I'm wondering, was it beefy because it was a nice piece of brisket from the farmer's market? Or did roasting it in foil make it better?
Would it be recommendable to slow roast belly pork wrapped in foil?
Foil changes they way it cooks, but it just different, not necessary better, as that is subjective. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk
Are you looking for a pork belly confit?
One of foil's main functions is providing a watertight barrier to trap moisture inside the food. This can be especially helpful when slow roasting because you're cooking in a hot, dry environment for an extended period of time. Without foil, your roast would have turned out a lot drier and you'd have lost out on tasty juices. Brisket also has a fair amount of connective tissue (containing collagen) that will melt down into gelatin. Given sufficient moisture, the gelatin dissolves and provides a tongue-coating, lip-smacking richness that's hard to replace, but you don't get the same effect if you dry things out too much.
Foil also provides a barrier to direct heat. In the case of a roast, that reduces browning on the outer surface of the meat. Ordinarily I'd argue that this browning adds flavorful compounds produced by Maillard reactions, but the "beefy" taste you really enjoyed might have been the unadulterated flavor of the meat. If that's how you enjoyed it, just go with that!
Now, as to whether you'd get the same effect with pork belly... you might, but it's a different cut, with loads of connective tissue and very tough muscle that would benefit from some added moisture. You'll also wind up with a lot more fat as it renders. I'd expect pork belly to take longer to cook, and a final searing or browning step would be a really welcome addition to get a good crispy skin. Here's a recipe that came up during a cursory search, which uses foil to seal the belly inside an aluminum pan, so the concept is a sound one. I haven't tried it myself, so I can't speak to the relative merits of this method versus other forms of pork belly preparation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.358363 | 2014-12-22T08:19:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51848",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Megan Bramhall",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Shelly Fischer",
"TFD",
"Wilma Heslop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87204 | How to defrost coriander / cilantro?
My local supermarket has cheap frozen coriander/cilantro.
But when I defrost it by leaving it in a bowl for an hour, it turns into a slimy mess.
How can I defrost it so that I get nice fresh leaves?
Mince and use frozen? There is no way to get "nice fresh leaves" from frozen "soft leaf" herbs.
Frozen greens can be put into dishes where they would be cooked to a slimy mess anyway. They will never be "fresh" again.
I have never had frozen coriander, but whenever I have used other frozen herbs, they didn't feel slimy. So it is unclear what the OP expects, if it is chopped fresh herbs, or just a nonslimy mess.
Frozen supermarket coriander/cilantro is perfectly good to use whilst cooking. Very similar to adding stems for flavour. You'll never get fresh looking leaves to finish the dish from the ice blocks, but stir it in and you will get that background flavour. Delicate leaves, Basil is similar, are either fresh or they aren't.
Don't worry too much about the look and you'll be fine. Bear in mind that you're adding water to the recipe, and put a pot plant on your windowsill for the finishing touches.
In most cases, if frozen food has unsatisfactory texture after thawing, the damage has either already been done while freezing (which might depend on the freezing process used - shock frosting vs normal slow freezing, blanching vs no blanching...), or has happened when the product thawed (eg due to bad cooling chain management on the vendor's side, or an auto-defrosting freezer, or due to the product getting to warm when transporting it from the grocer) and slowly refroze.
What you bought was probably a bag of frozen slimy mess already while in the grocer's freezer. The brand might be cheap because they use less than optimal freezing technique.
Coriander has thin leaves, only a cell or two thick, and is not frost resistant as a growing plant. When frozen the water in the cells expands and ruptures their walls, this is why their texture is different on defrosting. There are plants whose leaf cells survive freezing, but they generally aren’t culinary herbs. Bay leaves might, or rosemary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.358558 | 2018-01-21T12:35:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87204",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50259 | When is an avocado considered bad?
I'm generally an avocado purist, so I throw out any brown spots, but I notice that many restaurants serve avocado even with the brown stuff...
When is an avocado considered bad, and when should the chef be notified that there's something wrong?
If it's fully green or even yellow the chances are it's still rock hard.
Personally a little brown on an avocado is a sign of ripeness,
I'd regard an avocado that's gone black as completely past it.
https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/moblog/IMG_20100831_090647.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
what does it mean if an avocado is a greenish brown all over inside of it
What about in between the second two photos? The latter is obviously bad... The second photo has basically no brown patches - looks more golden
It's more about the texture. On the first you can see it's perfectly smooth. Whereas the second has clear markings from where it has been sliced. This shows it is softer than the first, so edible soft but not past it's best... Think green banana, ripe banana then black banana
The latter looks bad - have received that kind on sushi before. Sometimes the whole thing even tastes rotten!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.358754 | 2014-12-02T12:06:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50259",
"authors": [
"Anne Broughan",
"Domenica Me'Chelle",
"Doug",
"Lydia Bendas",
"Skyler",
"aurelio gonzalez moreno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29691",
"ina"
],
"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
} |
104631 | Blood essential to making delicious Bison Meatballs?
We got a few more bricks of bison than usual due to the Whole Foods sale - they seem to get more bloody the longer they sit in the fridge (1/14 date).
Tried making meatballs for the very first time. I'm not a cook by any chance and the first time I try making something with food, it's often ??? - it was surprisingly delicious.
Totally winged it off Chef John's Italian meatball recipe. Splattered Italian seasoning, allspice, oregano, olive oil, splatter of buckwheat flour. Mixed it up. Broke into ~1.5" pieces of meat on a Safflower oil greased baking sheet. 425F preheated oven and 20 minutes later - the most delicious ever. Dash of more Italian seasoning. Add capers. Sea salt.
I was not expecting it to come out so well - did not even need to let the meat marinate or anything. Simply mixed it up in a bowl - and with just a butter knife (couldn't find spatula).
The baked coagulated parts (blood?) were exceedingly tasty. No sauce was used or made.
This really makes me wonder what made it so delicious. Was it because of the blood?
While that's a fascinating story, I don't see how any of us can tell you why you found it tasty. Can you amend this question with something that can be answered?
I assume with blood you mean the reddish liquid that comes out of meat and accumulates in the package. This is actually not blood. It is mostly water released by the meat, and the red color comes from myoglobin, a muscle protein that can bind oxygen.
thank you for the myoglobin explanation - i learned a lot!
What makes a difference in great tasting meat dishes:
fresh ingredients (specially the meat)
seasonings, spices
fat (from the meat itself)
browning the meat to develop flavours (frying in oil or broiling in the oven)
not burning and not overcooking, which just makes it dry + colourless + flavourless
All of which you seemed to follow. I'm not sure where are you from, but I'm used to eating meat with much less than that - barbecue to me means simply meat + salt + fire and it is delicious when properly made.
As mentioned in the comments, the liquid that leaks from your meatballs is just water + myoglobin (a protein) and it's what makes meat juicy. The more you try to remove from the meat during cooking, the dryer and least flavourful it will become.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.358894 | 2020-01-09T02:11:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104631",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"ina"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50402 | Can I use parchment paper for all cookies
I would like to know if I can use parchment paper for any kind of cookie?
It depends on your requirements spread and brownness.
is there anything in particular you are worried about using with parchment?
The short answer is yes.
Parchment cannot be used as muffin/cupcake paper, (this actually goes without saying).
Parchment paper can be used for virtually anything, unless it is extremely oily and/or in a near liquid state.
Good luck.
Parchment paper typically lists a maximum temperature of 400°F. If you start getting above that temperature (450-475°F), you'll start to see browning around the edges and it's crumbly after coming out of the oven.
Parchment that's close to the food is generally safe, because the moist dough itself can't get above boiling. In the cases where you have something that isn't moist (eg, drying out biscotti), you typically do using low heat.
I'm not aware of any cookie recipies that would be a problem, but if you had one that called for high-heat cooking, especially if the batter is low-moisture, I'd avoid using parchment, particularly for that last tray where you don't have the tray well-covered with cookies.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.359111 | 2014-12-07T13:51:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50402",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Janet Gee",
"John Leighton",
"Lauren Owens",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Spammer",
"Susan Fong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51688 | Is there any cut of beef that's close to Kobe beef?
I have had the real thing in Japan and it was fantastic and very expensive. I don't usually eat steak at all. The Kobe beef steak was the first I ate in my entire life. It was very tender and tasty, cooked medium rare. I had it because there was nothing else on the menu I would consider eating.
I live in Canada. I want to know if there is a cut of beef that's available in Canada that's close to Kobe beef quality.
I appreciate all the answers, thank you for the info
Kobe beef only comes from Japan. You should be careful to read the country of origin labels.
Hello @Huangism and welcome to Seasoned Advice. You may consider domestic wagyu. To get the best, it will still be pricey, but not nearly as much as Kobe. Please see this excerpt from Lobel's of New York .
You Get What You Pay For
All Wagyu beef is not created equal. In Japan, Kobe beef sells at more than $300 per pound.
But now Wagyu is starting to be seen in grocery stores and casual-dining restaurants for $30 per pound. This mass-marketed variety of Wagyu will have a marbling score at the low end of the 12-point scale.
American Wagyu Beef from Lobel's of New York will score 9 points or higher. More expensive than our USDA Prime, our American Wagyu costs a bit more than $100 per pound (depending on the cut). In terms of quality, taste, and texture, Wagyu and Kobe beef are indistinguishable.
If what you're looking for is best quality Wagyu, you should expect to pay $100 or more per pound.
The linked page has a lot more information and more links to additional info. Although this place is in the US, I linked it because of the information available. Performing anther search, I found that wagyu beef is now available in Canada at Loblaws in
Toronto and also at Costco (various provinces).
There is a Costco 5 minutes from my house, I will look for it
I haven't see Wagyu beef at my local costco, but it's definitely available on their website.
@Huangism I've never looked for it myself, but on the food mailing list where I work it seems like once or twice a year there's a thread with someone saying "hey there's wagyu again, who wants to share some?" so you might just have to keep checking back.
"Wagyu and Kobe beef are indistinguishable" -- misleading. Kobe beef is Wagyu beef from Kobe Prefecture. So is Ohmi, a Wagyu beef from Hyogo Prefecture. Unnamed Wagyu, especially from countries other than Japan, will have a different flavour, texture, aroma, and taste. The grade is important, yes, but that's just the intramuscular fat content. There are many other factors at play.
Do you know what cut of Kobe beef you had in Japan? Assuming budget is not an issue, your best bet will be to find the same cut in a Kobe Style or Wagyu beef. This is available in Canada. Get the same cut as whatever you had in Wagyu beef.
If you have no idea what cut it was, I'd probably start with a ribeye. It's one of the better, more popular cuts (also pricier). For example, Costco has Kobe Ribeye steaks generally. Note, they will be ridiculously expensive.
Stepping away from Kobe/Wagyu cows, look for a Prime grade Rib eye from a reputable butcher. What you're looking for is marbling as close to the following as possible:
Note, you likely won't get that marbling from anything other than a Kobe/Wagyu cow. That said, you can definitely find some good quality beef around Canada. I'd look for a good butcher (not in a grocery store) and start there.
I don't know the cut but it is very similar to the picture you have. Yes it was very expensive, I only had one meal involving the beef. I actually didn't think it was good beef since there are so much white on it, but obviously I was wrong
If it looks similar to that, and you're describing it as really tender, it was likely a ribeye. What area of the country are you in?
I am in Toronto, Ontario
Then there should be lots of places/butchers that source Wagyu (or at very least Prime Grade). A few listed here: http://forums.redflagdeals.com/wagyu-steak-toronto-695781/ Loblaws, Famu, Pusateri's
If you're in Toronto, try J-Town. I've gotten Australian wagyu there and it was good
I actually didn't think it was good beef since there are so much white on it -- what did you think the white was?
@Random832 I thought it was fat
Fat = tasty. :-)
@Huangism it is fat... but fat is what makes meat taste good, it's why a ribeye tastes better than a flank steak.
One (significant) note: In the US, "Kobe" and "Wagyu" are often misused, and only a very small amount of actual Kobe beef is exported - the Costco link above for example is a variety of domestic Wagyu in Canada, isn't even pure Wagyu, and has very little to do with Kobe beef. If it's good, eat it, but it's not Kobe or anything particularly related.
The problem with you stating Kobe beef is its not a cut of meat. Kobe beef comes from certain cattle raised in Japan. In Canada your best bet will be to find the best quality beef you can. Depending on preference I'd suggest sirloin for a good all rounder, rib eye if you don't mind the extra fat (my favourite cut) or fillet steak if you want the most tender steak you can get. The problem with fillet in my opinion is the lack of fat which ultimately results in lack of flavour plus the price is stupidly high (in England at least)
For our North American friends fillet = tenderloin.
Yes I understand that Kobe beef is not a cut which is why I never mentioned it as a cut in my question. I know different cut of beef can taste different, hence the question. So tenderloin then, I wonder how close it is to the taste of Kobe.
Can't say I've ever been lucky enough to try it but I know the rib eye from our local butcher (some rare breed) is great. If you are looking for flavour I'd recommend trying 'onlet' one day. Slow cooking meat not quick fry steak but without a doubt the tastiest cut. (a quick Google suggests it might be called hanger steak in the USA)
Actually, you did specifically mention it as a cut in your question, hence his answer. Kobe beef gets it's flavor from the fat marbling. The closest you're going to get to it is Wagyu beef, which has considerably close marbling. There's no way to cut a cow to make it taste like Kobe unless it's raised like Kobe.
@AtroxMavenia the cut was not applied to the Kobe beef, but to the beef in Canada. I would Imagine the worst cut of Kobe beef is still better than anything we have in NA
Alright guys no need to argue over semantics that's what the w3 are for. The question was ambiguous hence the confusion. Regardless, you can't try and compare Kobe Chuck steak to Aberdeen Angus fillet, it's just not right. If you had rib eye then the Best comparison will be a high quality local rib eye, the same would apply if you have a Kobe beef Chuck pie... Beef is beef just buy quality. The same rules would apply for any meat, Lamb, Turkey even Salmon. Realistically the Best person to be asking is your local butcher not some fool in a supermarket.
@Huangism: It depends. Not everyone likes the high fat content of Kobe beef. I remember one TV chef who went on a trip to Japan to taste the best of the best Kobe and he was very disappointed that the beef was "tasteless". Grass fed, non-kobe beef, especially if it's been aged, has a more mineral, "beefy" taste compared to kobe. And Angus beef has an even more "beefy" flavor.
@slebetman I don't really know what to think of the fat, I just thought lean meat is better since it's more expensive. But the marble beef steak I had in Japan was definitely the best I have ever had
As the saying goes 'Fat is flavour', fillet/tenderloin, the most expensive and leanest part of a cow is in my opinion the most tasteless part. Although it is nice to eat once, just to experience what true tenderness feels like (preferably caked in some strong tasting cheese to enhance the flavour). Stood in a butchers shop with a million pounds to spend I'd pick rib eye every time... Unfortunately I'm a chef with very little money to spend so I'll go for the onlet/hangersteak.
I lived in Tokyo as a US military dependent from 1956-60 and 1963-65.
Our military newspaper, The "Stars and Stripes" and the Japanese newspaper, "Mainichi News" (printed in English) ran articles referring to Kobe Beef.
The articles stated the cows received little exercise, were given a daily bottle of beer, and were messaged daily in order to ensure a high fat content well distributed throughout the meat.
Even back then, the meat was very expensive, but highly prized by beef eating persons.
This does not answer your question as to availability, but does explain the midcentury publicized reasons why Kobe Beef was/is so expensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.359258 | 2014-12-17T15:52:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51688",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Genevieve Balanay",
"Huangism",
"Joe M",
"Let The Games Begin",
"Linda Brazelton",
"Margaret Ann",
"Michael Spooner",
"Ming",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nathan",
"Oven Range",
"Random832",
"Rob Brown",
"bartium",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"slebetman",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
102660 | How to retain the smell of frying green onions/scallions in cooked dish?
I have always loved the smell of frying green onions/scallions but was never able to retain the smell of it when the dish is done cooking.
I was in Singapore about 1.5 years ago and in a small food court, I enjoyed a plate of fried rice noodles and the aroma of the frying scallions was very much present which made the dish much better.
I was not able to replicate it at home, no matter when I put the scallions in, the aroma always disappeared at the end. The smell of it was quite strong in the dish I had and I have no idea how it is done.
Is there a trick to retain the smell of frying scallions? or maybe it's something else that producing the smell?
Are you taking into account that something in a food court will have taken at most 3 minutes to prepare; anything that would have taken longer will be pre-prepped, so your home version will have to be done in the same time for the onions to come out as they did it.
I have tried putting the green onions in at the last minute or stir frying everything (pre-prepped, cooked already) at once but nothing has worked
You were probably having a dish with green onion oil, something I'd also recommend as a solution to the smell/taste you're looking for. It remains aromatic for a couple weeks after you make a batch and bottle it. I make one with darker brown onions like this, which allows me to store it even longer.
I have never thought about this and I think you are right, I will give this a try for sure, thank you
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.360265 | 2019-10-01T17:01:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102660",
"authors": [
"Huangism",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81233 | Why does wind blowing on pretzel dough add a chewy texture?
One of the steps in this pretzel recipe is:
Once the dough has risen, place the trays next to a cold window with some wind blowing. A fan can be used if there is no breeze. This develops a skin on the pretzels which gives that special chewy texture.
What does the breeze do to contribute?
Note: This is done before the boiling step.
If it's not a humid environment, it would dry out the surface. Dunno if that's what causes chewiness, though.
@Joe is right, it will definitely dry out the surface of the dough. It may pull some moisture from the inside of the dough, in addition to drying the skin - the result may well end up chewier for being worked while softer and let dry a bit, compared to using less water to begin with. The fan or breeze will let more air volume pull moisture from the dough - even more so since cool air tends not to be humid enough to prevent drying.
@Megha Would briefly boiling the dough in water after that counteract the whole point?
@Fodder - no, not at all. The dough will still have less moisture than a wetter dough after both are boiled. Also, the skin on the dough is already formed, which would also help limit water absorption during the boiling. Time and temperature also make a difference - a soak would soften the skin back up, but a brief dip in boiling water will not have time to soften the skin before the heat sets it. Think of how starch lumps up in hot water but dissolves in cold, in this case you would be taking that dry skin on the dough and heat-setting the starches in it faster than it can re-hydrate.
@Megha Makes sense to me. If you or Joe want to add that as an answer, I'm happy to accept.
Are we also affirming that this actually does happen, or are we only speculating on why it might, if it does? This seems like it could be one of those "common sense" things that everyone hears about and knows, but wind up not being true at all.
This advice sounds very strange to me. The chewy texture of pretzels is created by the lye bath, as gluten behaves very differently at a pH of 12 than at 5 or whatever standard dough is. If this has any effect at all, I would expect it to be tiny.
My best guess is that it will dry out the surface of the dough. It may also pull some moisture from the inside of the dough, in addition to drying out the skin. A fan or breeze will let the air pull moisture from the dough - the exposure to a larger volume of air tends to pull moisture off, one reason it feels cooling. The effect should be greater as the recipe specifies cool air, which tends not to hold enough moisture or humidity to interfere with this drying.
It makes sense that a dough with a dryer skin may be easier to handle during the boiling step, being sturdier and less likely to stretch or deform while being handled. And I'm not sure, but I think a softer dough might be easier to work or shape, or the uneven drying to have other textural effects, which might be the reason drying the dough out a bit is better than simply using less water to begin with.
The dough will be boiled after this step, but while that will add moisture to the dough, the effects should persist. A dough that was dried before boiling will still have less moisture than a dough that was not, after both are boiled - boiling can only add so much moisture in such a brief time. Also, a dried skin on the dough would also help limit water absorption during the boiling, since the water has to work through the skin to reach the interior.
Time and temperature also make a difference - a soak would certainly soften the skin back up, but the recipe's brief dip in boiling water will not have time to soften the skin before the heat starts setting it. It would be similar to how starch forms sturdy, chewy lumps if dumped into hot water, but would dissolve in cold and when heated thicken the liquid smoothly instead of forming clumps. In this case, I'd guess the boiling would heat-set the starches of the dried skin faster than it can re-hydrate.
Another possible analogy that might help would be baking bread - the dough can easily form a skin when baking that changes the texture (by interfering with oven spring) which does not let it rise as easily, making a denser and chewier loaf. Since that texture is usually undesirable in bread, it is prevented by keeping the surface of the dough moist and pliable with water or oil, and scoring the bread to give room for expansion.
It is additionally possible that heat-setting the dough, by boiling, also helps to set the shape and support a sturdy skin on the dough in order to interfere with any oven spring the pretzel dough might undergo, again giving a denser and chewier texture. If so, both effects may stack for a more pronounced result.
Of course, much of this is speculation. The exposure to air will dry out the edges and form a skin, but it is possible that there are some additional benefits (controlling temperature or affecting starch structure, perhaps) that come from adding this step to the recipe that I am unaware of.
It would indeed dry the outer layers out. Honestly, I'm surprised that it would make a big difference, because it would be such a thin crust (unless you leave it for a long time). I've never done this for a pretzel, nor seen it in a recipe. I would love to hear the results of an experiment, though, if you do half "under fan" and half "normal".
That said, I would believe that it makes the pretzels easier to handle, and more likely to maintain their shape on the way to the boiling water. It may also help the pretzels maintain their geometric stability in the first instants of boiling--by creating a dehydrated, tight layer on the outside, it gives less the pretzel less room to stretch and deform.
If you really do dry it out long enough for the decreased hydration to be more than a millimeter or so, then you'll end up with a hydration gradient across your pretzel. In that case, the outer layer should have a tighter crumb than the interior--like the difference between sandwich bread and ciabatta, though less extreme.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.360420 | 2017-04-25T22:46:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81233",
"authors": [
"Fodder",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"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
} |
51569 | How to avoid getting arm hair in food?
Sorry if this question is slightly gross.
I happen to have a significant amount of hair on my arms and the back of my hands. When preparing food using my hands (e.g. kneading dough), sometimes hair gets in the food. How can I avoid this? What would a serious / professional cook do?
Would they wear gloves and long sleeves? Would they shave their arms? Are there other approaches?
Neither gross, nor inappropriate. Welcome to Seasoned Advice. I doubt anyone is going to have a better answer than gloves and long sleeves, but it's worth a shot.
Sounds like waxing or IPL for a semi-permanent solution?
Bit extreme a grown man shaving/waxing his arms for the sake of baking don't you think? I don't think women even shave their arms
Sharpen and test the knives more regularly, that usually deals with the hair on one arm :)
I have a similarly hairy hand/arm issue. I scrub my hands and arms quite roughly with soap, hot water and scouring pad prior to any prep. In an effort to remove any lose hairs before giving them a chance to get in any food. Suffice to say I've never noticed any hair in any of my food.
Gloves may help stop any hand hair's getting in there but I can't see how a long sleeved top would, all you'll end up with is dirty cuff's. If it really does get bad just clingfilm your arms ;-)
To add in to @Doug's answer, Chef garbs may also help, with the long, loose sleeves. The fabric is usually a bit rough which may help catch some of the hairs.
Just cook over an open fire and the flame will cure the problem pretty quick. I've been cooking professionally for a little over 2 years and have almost no arm hair anymore.
This may not be a very practicable answer, but it does serve to explain why it's not a problem for some professionals. +1 from me.
A simpler solution than Doug's scrubbing, but you might have luck just brushing or rubbing at your hands and arms prior to cooking, so that any loose hairs can be shaken off before you begin cooking. Hairs seem to shed rather slowly, if all the loose-ish hairs are knocked off prior to cooking I would expect it to be unlikely for there to be more loose enough to fall (without intervention) within the hour or two cooking a dish usually takes.
Alternatively, you might have some luck rubbing oil or cream on your hands and arms a bit before cooking. It would encourage loose hairs to be shaken off before cooking begins, much like brushing, and it may also let your skin stay a bit moister, the better to catch stray hairs or perhaps prevent them from coming loose as quickly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.360874 | 2014-12-13T18:10:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51569",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Joanne Golding",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin May",
"Mary Jean Sawey",
"Ming",
"Odalys Alvarez",
"Paul Hrustic",
"Sara Boudreaux",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"rackandboneman",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"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
} |
51576 | Substituting instant imitation flavored pudding mix and cake mix in Bundt Cake recipe
Nothing Bundt Cakes makes delicious dark chocolate and white chocolate with a raspberry center. Thrilled to find copycat recipes online, both call for imitation flavored pudding mixes and cake mixes. Can I use a similar recipe for very rich (with sour cream and butter) dark or white chocolate cake from scratch, adding raspberry sauce swirled in the middle? Reading the ingredients of the instant pudding mix, I could add cornstarch, finely chopped dark or white chocolate chips, vanilla flavoring, and anything else?
What recipes are you looking at? Probably this one for the white chocolate raspberry? (I found a couple copies of it, though the other had double frosting.) Not sure about dark chocolate though - the closest I found was a chocolate chocolate chip.
Doesn't your instant pudding mix have sugar in it as well? And by adding additional dry components, I would assume that you would need to adjust the liquid component in the underlying cake recipe as well - possibly with more egg (that seems to be a common theme in cake/pudding recipes). You might also read-through this post I stumbled upon not long ago: http://www.browneyedbaker.com/diy-homemade-instant-vanilla-pudding-mix/.
Yes, you certainly can start from a similar recipe and adjust from there. I would not try to replicate instant pudding mix, though. If you don't want to use a store-bought pudding mix, I would suggest you replace that with a different filling entirely.
My preference is usually to go with a "scratch" recipe that I already like and adjust from there. For a dark chocolate cake with a white chocolate and raspberry filling, you have a lot of options, really.
Most bundt cake recipes make about 12 cups of batter. I think you want only 1 to 1 1/2 cups of white chocolate batter at the most. If you end up with more than 12c total, you will overflow a standard bundt pan, so you can either reduce the dark chocolate cake recipe or you can plan to make some cup cakes with the extra. :-) You'll want to fill your bundt pan to about 2/3-3/4 of the height of the pan depending on how much you expect the cake to rise. I'd expect a light and fluffy cake recipe to rise a lot, a pound cake to rise less. (if in doubt, 2/3 and/or put the bundt pan on a cookie sheet -- I usually put a cookie sheet under mine anyway to avoid a mess in the oven.)
Some filling options
Raspberry -
If you put jam as a filling directly in a cake or brownies, I find that it can tend to be soggy. I think sauce is going to be even runnier than jam. I'd recommend cooking that down (maybe with some cornstarch) to get it to a thicker consistency before using it as a filling.
Alternatively, take a 1-2 cups of fresh or frozen raspberries and toss them in 1-2 T cornstarch and 1/4 - 1/2 c sugar and cook them on the stove until everything turns into a bubbly, thick sauce. (I don't know how much raspberry you want, but about 1 c berries : 1 T cornstarch : 1/4 c sugar)
You can also add a little bit of extra flour to the white-chocolate part of the filling to counteract some of the extra moisture from the jam/sauce, but if it seems really runny, I think you're going to end up with a soggy cake.
White chocolate -
white-chocolate flavored cream cheese filling (8 oz cream cheese, ~ 1/4 c flour, 1 egg, white chocolate chips or whatever you want to use for white chocolate flavoring -- I'm assuming there's enough sugar in the chips)
about 1 - 1 1/2c of batter from your your favorite white chocolate cake recipe + ~1 Tbs extra flour to counteract extra moisture in the raspberry sauce
play funny games with your favorite dark chocolate cake recipe to reserve out about 1/8th of the ingredients and add your white chocolate flavoring/chips to that portion (and about 1 Tbs extra flour)
When you assemble it, put about 1/2 - 2/3 of the dark batter in, then half the white chocolate batter, then the raspberry, then the rest of the white then the rest of the dark.
This is sort of similar to what I'm picturing:
http://famkitchen.blogspot.com/2015/06/chocolate-amaretto-cake.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.361119 | 2014-12-14T04:38:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51576",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Niobe Delp",
"Omar Hatta",
"Pauline Gladwin",
"Stephen Eure",
"Terry Walker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"pyro burgess"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59560 | Is heated up bleach dangerous?
I put my electric flattop oven on self cleaning. This heated up the top of the oven. I then bleached the flattop. The bleach steamed up and made it nearly impossible to breath. The entire room is now unenterable due to the fumes. It is not merely a typical bleach smell. I can't breath when I am inside and my eyes are on fire.
Is there something about heating up bleach that is particularly dangerous?
Did you use bleach right out of the bottle or did you dilute first?
@Kareen it came in a spray bottle. I used it straight.
For what it's worth, when using bleach as a kitchen sanitizer, the FDA recommends 1 tsp per US quart. What you bought was definitely diluted, but there's a good chance it was a lot less diluted than that. (For example Clorox says to use 1/2 cup bleach per gallon of water as a sanitizer, which is 6 times as concentrated as the FDA's recommendation, presumably in order to sell more.)
Incidentally this method also isn't very effective at cleaning. Self-cleaning cycles need to be dry. So to avoid smoke as well as fumes you should do your wet (bleach-based if you like) cleaning, then rinse, then run the self-heat. I'm assuming here that the self-cleaning is for the top -- it would have to be a very badly insulated oven for its self-cleaning cycling to heat the top this much.
@Conor - note that the Clorox website recommends leaving the bleach solution on the surface for 5 minutes, while the FDA recommends 10 minutes, so that may account for some of the difference in concentration (though I doubt that many consumers leave it on the surface for even 5 minutes)
There probably was no diluent left when the surface got hot - all the water got boiled off, then the dry, concentrated residue started to pyrolize...
Never mix bleach with vinegar and inhale. I did this a rushed myself to the hospital to assure I had not done any damage. The doctor assured I was ok but could have been potentially more serious.
Probably generated some chloramines by reaction between the hot bleach and proteins on the stove surfaces. There's no telling exactly which chloramines you created, as we have no idea what amines were on your stove top. However, these things can be quite nasty.
Open windows if possible, and leave home for several hours. Your eyes and lungs are giving you important warnings. Heed them.
Why do you assume chloramines rather than just plain chlorine?
Bleach, 6% sodium hypochlorite, has a pH of around 12.6. To get chlorine gas emission you need to take pH down to around 4. Doing that involves a fair amount of acid. OTOH, volatile chloramines will form at a high pH, such as on a non-vinegared stovetop. Protein or ammonia and bleach are the only required components of the reaction mix.
Besides which chlorine gas smells like HCl, because that's what it turns into when it hits the water in your nasal mucosa.
I know what HCl smells like, and the smell you most commonly get off of bleach reacting badly with something is different, chloramines.
Is that the stuff that makes swimming pools irritating to the senses?
@aitchnyu Yes it is.
+1 "Your eyes and lungs are giving you important warnings. Heed them."
Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite. The fumes being released are almost certainly chlorine, which as you have observed, is quite hazardous. Bleach usually contains strong warnings not to mix with any other cleaning chemical, as some of them will tend to rapidly decompose its active ingredient and release a lot of gaseous chlorine. I expect applying heat has a similar effect.
You are unlikely to have done yourself any serious harm as you're sitting there typing about it, but breathing any more of it is definitely to be avoided.
also keep in mind chlorine is heavy, so pets and kids get larger dose from the lower air, ventilate well and get out of there, first symptoms of poisoning are nausea and face whiteness
@Wayfaring Stranger's answer looks a lot more correct than mine, and makes sense to me. The warning about not mixing it with anything is valid though.
Bleach fumes are already unpleasant, and heating will inevitable:
cause any volatile compounds dissolved in a liquid to be more volatile - what's in it will be cooked out rapidly;
and
most any chemical reaction (including bleach degrading into gas, or reactions with contaminants) to proceed much faster (chemists describe the general relationship in the arrhenius equation, which is not linear, though not downright exponential) - whatever the bleach turns into, it turns into at a much faster rate.
The same applies to the aggressiveness of a liquid chemical upon contact - most corrosive substances will be much more than doubly corrosive at 60°C vs 30°C.
Never burn a cloth recently soaked with bleach. By recently I mean 2 days. Also place at least a 50 yd. distance from the fire. I must have inhaled the fumes. I was out for about 24 hours, headaches, low energy, nausea, slight fever, loss of appetite.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.361442 | 2015-08-03T19:15:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59560",
"authors": [
"Adam Musinski",
"Brady Spencer",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Evorlor",
"Jesvin Jose",
"Johnny",
"Kareen",
"Lethabo Fuphe",
"Luke Shaheen",
"Teresia Smith",
"Thomas McDevitt",
"Tom W",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9436",
"rackandboneman",
"user87294"
],
"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
} |
115072 | What equation should I use for microwaving food?
Prepackaged microwave food typically says to microwave on high for n seconds. It usually says that the instructions are meant for an 1100 watt microwave (give or take).
My microwave is only 950 watts.
What is the equation for me to get the new time? Is it time x (1100 / 950)?
Waw, I have an 1100 watt microwave and all instruction I have ever seen mention 650 or 800 watt machines.
@Willeke I guess microwave wattages vary based on location.
My Stouffer’s frozen dinner says the instructions are for an 1100 watt microwave.
A quick Google seems to show that US nukes are often 1100w. There don't seem to be many of those in the EU other than commercial usage [1850 seems common]. 'Regular' over here is 800w [& that seems to be what all the general package instructions are based on], I specifically went for a 'powerful' one at 1000w. The only 1100w I can find are all combis of some sort - maybe the 'extra' power is used with the grill running?? https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/house-garden/kitchen-appliances/best-microwaves-oven-uk-brand-with-grill-egg-poacher-a9041061.html for some examples
For a really accurate calculation you probably also need to take the power efficiency of the device into account (power consumption does not equal the output of the magnetron), also the density, spatial distribution and the water content of the food as well as the thermal and electromagnetic properties of the plate. Or you just take the instructions as a rough estimate and apply a sensoric assessment to figure out when the cooking is done.
Simple answer
The same equation, because the power or wattage between both your microwave and the reference/recipe microwave are close enough that your formula would be a decent estimate of time with some "tolerable" error (and will work for any case this happens).
Technically speaking this means you just estimated cooking time by thinking it would behave linearly when the power between microwaves isn't that different, which is a decent estimate with some error (but also not really true and mistaken for whenever this doesn't happen).
Elaborate answer
For your specific case (owning a 950W microwave and having 1100W instructions) even though mathematically speaking an 86% difference (950/1100*100) in wattage seems like much, when you take into any consideration the available data like this one (source)
Notice that you can literally validate your formula by checking the data. So if for example you have a 1000W and you have a recipe with 3.10 minutes of cooking time tested with 1200W microwave, your formula estimates the cooking time to be 3.10*1.2=3.72 minutes, but the actual time in the table implies you're off because the real time is 4.03 minutes. So like I said before, decent estimate with tolerable error.
However, in reality cooking time in a microwave behaves non-linearly and thus, whenever the difference of wattage gets larger your formula doesn't work.
To give a formula for that case is harder when you realize the amount of variables to take into account, so this is why tables like the one above exist to give you some perspective of the cooking times. One would think that the table above solves the whole problem, but realize that those are cooking times for a specific food (baked potato); so if you have a food with no data I'd say experimentation is advisable at your own risk :D.
PS: I'm a mathematical engineer who likes cooking and just wanted to provide another perspective on the matter. Hope it helps!
In general, microwave meals are designed to be cooked to a safe temperature throughout, even when a microwave barely puts out the rated power, and that unevenly. This means the meals are designed to handle overcooking. Anyway power ratings are fairly inaccurate as they depend on how well the microwave radiation couples into the food - ratings are based around a defined portion though, so a ready meal isn't as likely to be poorly heated as something smaller.
So one simple approach is to follow the instructions for the highest power stated. This will work well for some things.
You can't assume you can just reduce the time in the same ratio the power is increased, because heat conduction is needed to cook the middle. This is particularly true if starting from frozen, or if it's something you can't stir.
What works for mine (1100W I think) is to use the 900 or 950W instructions, but reduce the time by a little - 30s on a typical single portion that cooks for 5-7 minutes , 1min on bigger things or from frozen, 10s on a dessert that heats up in 40-60s.
Crucially though, this is what I've concluded after trying it - stopping when stuff is bubbling, and checking it's hot through.
If the instructions are for a higher power than you have available, start by following them, then check. It may actually be hot enough but if not, give it a little longer, in the same increments as above (which are only a suggestion). You may find that you consistently need to add the same extra time for the meals you eat, once you've tested
+1 for the general instruction but OP has a less powerfull microwave, so will have to lengthen heating time.
+1 for follow the instructions for the highest power stated.
@Willeke good point, that's easier so I'll add a paragraph. Here I almost never see instructions for more than 950W
Usually, if you have a microwave that has higher power than needed it's easier to just use a lower power setting to match the instructions... You know, not everything needs to be blasted with full power :)
@Luciano that's only sometimes an option. Mine uses vague descriptions rather than percentages, so turning down the power to match the product instructions means finding the manual for the microwave, or guessing. When I do find the manual, I realise that there's no medium-high setting that would give 800-900W; it jumps from about 600W to 1000W, so it ends up slower than a lower power microwave.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.361876 | 2021-04-02T03:08:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115072",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Chris H",
"Evorlor",
"J. Mueller",
"Luciano",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"pacoverflow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53707 | Beans, bacon, and chicken
I am eating a mix of boiled bacon, broiled chicken, and boiled beans (+ salt & pepper). It tastes awkward. What can I add to improve this flavor within $5 to restaurant quality?
(I am not actually the one who came up with this concoction of madness)
Hello Evorlor. We don't do question of the type "What goes with X" or "what to add to X to taste better", because it has no valid answer. You can add any food or spice, and it's up to you whether you'll like it or not. Taste is not universal.
Unless you've made a typo, you should brown at least part of the bacon. Browned bacon will add a great flavor that goes great with both beans and chicken. Keep the bacon fat and just stir it in as well. Just the beans and bacon is good. If you're going for more of a baked beans type flavor, add some brown sugar and ketchup as well.
If the chicken is the star and this is supposed to be a whole meal, you need some kind of starch. Given the chicken marinade and the beans, it sounds like it needs some rice or corn. You could make a little rice pilaf, or put the rice in with the beans. Creamed corn would also taste good with this, but the texture may not contrast with the beans enough. Maybe a cornbread.
Sounds delicious. I should've specified, the chicken is the "hero" of the dish and it has some spice.
Are the beans like a salad on the side? Is the bacon in with the beans?
Everything is solo atm
What kind of spices are on the chicken?
Lemon pepper, allegro hot & spicy marinade, (no s&p)
See updated answer
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.362439 | 2015-01-17T03:18:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53707",
"authors": [
"Anwar Azouri",
"Evorlor",
"HARRY BRANDER",
"Heather McLaughlin",
"James",
"Leeta Cross Brown Chef Leeta",
"Paul Davis",
"amanda connelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"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
} |
51636 | How do you stop banana flower soup from tasting astringent?
I have made banana flower soup 3 times now. The first time it had a nice, unique warming/comforting flavour. The second time it was inedible. The third time it was almost inedible. The recipes I have found call for the banana flower to be soaked in water with a slice of lemon for 1 hour.
Worried that it didn't work last time, I just quartered the lemon and soaked it with the whole thing (squeezed), but still it had that crappy taste (like banana peels).
I noticed this time that it also said use a non-reactive pan, so I did that.
I am wondering if any one can shed some light on what counteracts this taste? I know it can taste nice, and the banana flower is to substantial to waste! Thanks.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! What did you do different from your first attempt, the other times?
Did you peel the outer leaves from the bud? Did you keep or discard the small, yellow flowers? I've only seen people eat the pink "leaves," but I've heard that sometimes the flowers are eaten, but they are extremely bitter.
Yes I used the small flowers and the big pink petals.
I did discard an inch from the base, but I wasn't confident about that, because the position of the base depends on where the flower is cut.
I'm not sure what the differences were. Time to keep a journal I guess?
If the banana flower was astringent it is because of the flower, not the cooking method.
When the flowers are large and young they taste a lot better. If you wait until the bananas are formed and the stem to the flower is long then it will be astringent. The best time to pick the flower is when the stem is 10cm or less from the banana bunch. If the flower is old it will not be as good.
The variety of banana will also influence the taste of the flower. Sugar bananas often have the best flowers. You can eat the pink section but it is not as pleasant as the white section. If you eat the small individual flowers you need to take out the sepal in the centre which is incredibly time consuming.
Putting the banana flower in lime water is simply to stop it from going brown before you cook it. It does not significantly change the flavour.
There are many ways to cook banana flower. Here is my preferred method:
Peel the flower until you come to the white centre.
Discard the red outer section and the individual flowers hidden within this.
I like to quarter the centre and then I place in boiling water and simmer for 15 minutes with some salt.
For me it is delicious just like this with some lime, but from here you can put it in a cooked curry, salad, etc.
Remove the red part of the flower until you see the whiter part and the soft part. Chop this and soak it in a bowl of water with salt for 30 minutes, then rinse it. Wash it again and rub it with salt, then soak it for the last time with the same procedure for 30 mins.
Finally, rinse with cold water.
We Thamilians from south India soak the banana flowers , not the petals in butter milk and then use it in curries .This is our tradional way of preparing. The tender ones tastes amazing when eaten raw unsoaked
The problem is with your flowers. I have non GM bananas in my backyard and they do not taste astringent even if eaten raw. Maybe you have allowed them to overripen or your particular strain was not selected for it's flowers.
Considering the possibility that you do not have any other option but to work with that particular strain alone, I will advise you to try altering the pH with acidic and alkaline broths. Soaking them in neutral tasting fresh soymilk with salt could help. Also, you should definitely try stir frying it before using it because that's a commen method to make astringent foods more palatable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.362626 | 2014-12-16T10:22:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51636",
"authors": [
"Adripants",
"DxAnn H",
"Mike Pugh",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Natasha Thompson",
"Phrancis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30977",
"manchini chindumba"
],
"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
} |
51934 | How to sweeten ganache for a chocolate lining
I'd like a chocolate lining in a banana cream pie, very similar to this recipe. However, I notice in the final pie that the chocolate lining is a little on the bitter side. What is a good way to sweeten it up? I'm no expert on ganache, but my understanding is I shouldn't just add sugar as it will turn grainy. If I melt sugar into the cream before the chocolate, how much should I use?
While adding sugar syrups like corn syrup or invert syrup to ganache is fairly common, it will change the texture of the ganache. You'd end up with something more like a chocolate coating.
If bitterness specifically is the problem, I'd suggest using a less bitter chocolate. Perhaps you can find something with lower cocoa solids that will have a smoother flavor without adding any sweeteners.
Added from a comment since I remembered: A tiny amount of salt can also help to cover bitterness. You could try that.
What do you think of melting sugar into the cream? Would that get grainy? OP, whatever sweetener you choose (if you do end up using a sweetener), how much to use is a matter of taste.
As long as it was totally dissolved, it shouldn't get grainy. I'd probably go with a superfine sugar just to be safe though. My main concern would be that dissolving the sugar would end up with some of the same effects as a syrup (hygroscopic stuff). And also, as has come up before on here, a pinch of salt can do a lot to eliminate bitterness.
Well, it looks like I have some experimenting to do. Lots of options. Thanks for the pointers!
Let us know what you find?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.362948 | 2014-12-24T20:44:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51934",
"authors": [
"427LLOYD",
"Hettie Labuschagne",
"John Rotich",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nizam Damji",
"SourDoh",
"Steven Jacobs",
"arch-imp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31213"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51950 | Putting cure in fry sausage?
We made some venison sausage today. On the packaging for a smoked German sausage, it said do not put cure in if you will be pan frying. I've looked around but I can't find a reason why. We ended up having a little bit that wouldn't fit in the casings and ended up frying that to get an idea what it'll taste like after its smoked. Does anyone know why you shouldn't put cure in pan fry sausage?
Curing salts contain sodium nitrite or sodium nitrate. When these curative agents are combined with the amines in meat and exposed to high heat they form carcinogenic compounds called nitrosamines. As the linked article states, commercial producers often add Vit. C to counteract some of the nitrosamine formation, but the curing mix you have might not include it for economic reasons.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.363107 | 2014-12-25T01:02:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51950",
"authors": [
"Angela Swartz",
"Brenda Griffith",
"Elizabeth Haug",
"Jon Banks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63089 | Why do we dimple a focaccia?
When I was making a focaccia earlier today, I realised that I've never been told why we dimple them before baking. A quick Googling didn't reveal anything, so I'm asking here: why do we make dimples in a focaccia before baking? Is it strictly cosmetic, or is there another reason?
I guess an increased surface area is also nice. More area to get that brown surface.
I have read that the dimples are there to catch the olive oil that is drizzled over the top (sometimes water may also be sprayed) before baking. The little pools of olive oil soak in and further enhance the crust texture and flavor.
I do agree with NadjaCS's point of "olive oil that is drizzled over the top".
I know with some pastry's you add multiple dimples to stop it rising. I could see the dimples in a Focaccia being used to keep the bread flatter.
I once did a kitchen printer setup for a Turkish Bread manufacturer; it seemed that the only difference between 3 of the styles of bread that they baked was how many dimples (if at all) were in the bread... Cooking temperature, proofing times etc were all the same.
This is the reason. It's called "docking" and it's intended to ensure an even rise.
I think this is the answer, in Claire Saffitz's words: "strategically deflating some of the the air bubbles" in order to obtain a flat structure and not a "loafy thing with a big dome".
https://youtu.be/NGnMrM9qDtE?t=652
If I can add a piece of personal experience, I often make a focaccia that rises for several hours and before dimpling I also burst the bubbles that are too big as they would burn in the oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.363214 | 2015-11-03T02:28:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63089",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Cynthia Martinello",
"D morghen",
"Jean Rynes",
"SourDoh",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"matthew castillo",
"william bodie Bill"
],
"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
} |
98754 | What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry
I'm trying to stay away from single use plastics for the environment. The only kitchen thing I have not yet managed to find a substitute for is wrapping pastry in cling film to let it rest in the fridge before rolling and baking. What can I use instead that doesn't let the pastry dry out while resting? I'm interested in a substitute that's either biodegradable or ideally reusable.
I use BeesWrap for just about everything, including pastry wrap, excepting meat. It's made of cotton with beeswax, jojoba oil, and tree resin. It's washable, reusable, and a compostable alternative to plastic wrap.
@bishop Bees Wrap claims to be sustainable but it’s really not: The producer suggests replacing it once per year. For the same price you get a multi-year supply of cling film, and the environmental impact of that is almost certainly less than that of buying new Bees Wrap every year (cotton in particular has a terrible eco footprint). It’s clever but deceptive marketing, nothing more. (It also plain doesn’t work great but that’s another issue.)
Can you clarify how long you typically leave it in the fridge? If it is only in the range of an hour the answers might be different from if it is two days.
@KonradRudolph It also seems kind of gross and too time-consuming. I don't want to wash my wrap. Sorry, bishop. Plastic wrap is perfect for so many uses, and there's no good reason to change to something inferior in every way.
@KonradRudolph I don't dispute that cotton, particularly organic cotton, has a large footprint. I do, however, think it's unfair to claim Bees Wrap is "almost certainly" more impactful than cling wrap. Where's your data?
@only_pro That’s a subjective judgement. Personally I have no issue washing and reusing crockery, why should wrap be any different? (I own BeesWrap because I bought into the idea, and found it to perform poorly in practice.)
@KonradRudolph Right, it's a subjective judgment. We're talking about preference here—there's no one right answer.
@bishop My data is in the fact that it’s substantially more expensive: Price is often a fairly good proxy for resource usage (because, minus markup, that’s what the producer has to pay). Of course it’s not perfect but given our prior knowledge of the cost of the raw material involved I’d be very surprised if I was wrong here.
@only_pro The major argument against cling film is oceanic plastic pollution. It's got nothing to do with its otherwise obvious convenience.
@KonradRudolph The problem with your statement is that you don't give enough attention to the markup. For that reason, price alone is a poor indicator of resource usage. Take fountain drinks for example. You can pay up to $3 for them somewhere, but it costs pennies to make and for the place you're buying it from to buy. Nowadays it's even worse with naiive shoppers looking to go green, and sellers seem to be taking full advantage of that. And this doesn't get into the debate of the lesser of two evils, etc.
@Jorgomli Sure, that can create variation in the results, but the claim "price is a fairly good proxy for resource usage" is still a highly valid claim IMHO - the effect you describe fit nicely with the modifyer used. fairly good
One thing that complicates trying to use price-point as a proxy for resource usage is production/manufacturing costs (over and above resource costs). Given the length of time cling-film manufacturers have had, and the scale of production, it's a fairly safe bet that they've streamlined and cut manufacturing costs to the bone. For something like BeesWrap, with a much smaller market share, and made on a much smaller scale, the production costs are likely to play a much larger part of the eventual price-point.
@Jorgomli You cherry-picked a single sentence from my comment. As mentioned I’m well aware of markup but given what we know about the resources in question, there’s no reason to doubt that taking out markup would change the answer. TripleHound’s comment is more on point — except that we’ve been making wax paper and wax cloth for even longer than cling film.
Price as a proxy for resource usage is a blatant lie from a environment point of view. Usually, the cheapest option for an enterprise is the one that moves most of it's cost as an externality, not the one that uses less resources. Like coal, cheap pesticides, mass antibiotics on cattle, etc etc. It does not reduce resource usage, it only reduces internal cost to the business.
Another alternative, like beeswrap, is one I just found called food wrap. It's apparently a silicone-based, reusable wrap. Haven't tried it myself, of course, as I said I just found it... but if you're looking for a 1-1 replacement product rather than a different alternative or method, I thought it might be useful to check out.
It is less useful than what you think
Frame challenge incoming...
Cling film is very light and made especially for such purposes. The environmental damage is extremely low - which limits what alternatives you can choose. Most alternatives (including those already mentioned in the other answers) will be so much more resource demanding to make, dispose or recycle for it to be worth it. Baking paper, while extremely useful - is full of silicones, so don't put it in the "paper" bin... and it is more resource demanding to make. Teflon, cloth, etc - same deal!
Aluminium foil, for instance. 75% of all Aluminium refined and made is still in use. Because of the extremely friendly "recyclability" of aluminium, it is a very good material. Just not for aluminium foil, it is rarely recycled. People just throw it in the trash. We destroy a valuable resource.
Cling film, on the other hand is dirt cheap to make and can safely be incinerated. If you worry about polluting the sea - I'd see if there are any alternatives to landfilling your waste in your community. As for carbon emissions - Walk once to the store instead of driving, and you'll be in the green even if you consider a life time supply of cling film.
Note: Some cling films are made with PVC, I'd consider switching to the less clingy, but better overall alternative LDPE. PVC contains chlorides and while the environmental impact is still low, if you go for LDPE or similar it goes to negligible. Check the box it came in to find which you have
Great answer. I’d like to add that domestic use of cling film is likely a tiny fraction of the overall use (in restaurants, but also in other industry). Stopping the use of cling film at home has zero impact or, more likely, a net negative impact since the substitute is likely worse, even if it claims to be “sustainable” (e.g. Bee’s Wrap — seems great on paper, works badly in reality).
Sorry, but this doesn't answer the question, which is about alternatives to clingfilm, not the actual impact.
Agree that it is not a direct answer, but still is definitely food for consideration, kind of alternative thinking about the alternatives. Makes me wonder, what was the true environmental costs when compared to true cellophane. It is biodegradable, but how about the impact of the chemicals to make it and treatments it take to make is less water permeable? Really a different question, but worth considering as well.
@GdD That is why I introduced it with the "frame challenge". The result of https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/263661/does-stack-exchange-allow-for-answers-which-question-the-validity-or-stance-of-t seems like yes, it is allowed. As my pre post 131 reputation would indicate, I am not sure if it is common here on SA.
Nice answer. Can you give a few pointers as to why LDPE would be "better overall"?
@Stephankolassa It is mainly the environmental aspect. Edited.
@GdD A well-supported frame challenge to assumptions in an OP's question is always a valid answer. It still might not be the answer the OP wants, but it's relevant information nonetheless.
I wasn't aware of the concept @Graham, I'll keep it in mind for the future!
@GdD It absolutely answers the question. The question is "What can I use instead of cling wrap that's better for the environment?" and this answer says "Nothing, because XYZ."
Aluminum is massively recycled because there is a very strong economic reason to do so. Recycling aluminum is extremely cheap. Producing aluminum from ore is extremely expensive and very energy intensive. In my area, city recycling practically begs people for their aluminum foil - billboards on busses and everything. They'll take greasy, messy, food covered aluminum foil happily. I suspect the capture rate for kitchen foil will probably increase significantly in the coming years.
The OP is clearly environmentally conscious. Citing as a "con" for aluminum foil that people usually dispose of it incorrectly is... disingenuous at least. It is a clearly more sustainable solution than single use plastic under the simple premise that it's well disposed of, which environment conscious people will do, which in turn is part of the premise of the question, not a willful supposition.
@Oxy disingenuous? It isn't people that dispose of it incorrectly, it is the foundries that do not want it as raw material because multiple reasons. Pray tell me, how would you dispose of aluminium foil - environment conciously? Sneak into a foundry at night, cackle maniacly while dumping your used foil into the furnaces? If you return it at a collection site, they will likely just landfill it. It is clearly not an environmentally concious solution, it is not even concious.
@StianYttervik Fair point. Though local foundry malpractice is not a universal "con" point, but plastic wrapper is universally uneconomical to recycle and burned/dumped. Garbage services acting in bad faith can undo even the most environmental friendly actions. They could burn things on open fires, dump biodegradable mass on aquifers/rivers uncontrolled, etc. There's no point in arguing what they can do wrong, but what you can do right.
@Oxy They are not acting in bad faith. My point (as a chemist) is that we (as all of us - humans) are taking a fantastic material (aluminium) and using it in a way which disincentivizes it's recycling. We shouldn't do that - and we should at least not damn all plastic products - some of them are actually the best overall solution. In my post, I have tried to argue that in this case cling film is one of those products. It is like replacing paper cups with ceramic mugs at coffee bars - probably not the most sustainable solution, even if it looks like it.
You don't have to use clingfilm (cling wrap, saran wrap depending where you are in the world), there are alternatives as long as the pastry is not sticky:
Plastic bags: I reuse zippable plastic bags as many times as I can, you can wash them by turning them inside out
Baking paper: baking paper can be re-used as long as it stays clean
Aluminum foil: again this can be reused several times
A damp towel: if all you want is to let pastry rest for an hour in the fridge then a damp tea towel works pretty well. Just make sure it is damp, not wet, or you risk moisture from the towel getting into the pastry and making it too wet
instead of plastic bags, there are also cloth reusable sandwich bags. They are easy to make at home if you want them.
I personally like plastic bags for multiple uses with the zipper giving better humidity control even than the cling wrap. I find it works especially well when making fresh pasta for instance as it creates a nice humidity dome but I like the increased breathing over cling wrap. Pasta is not pastry, but a similar use. All viable alternatives though.
I have reusable teflon sheets for lining cake tins and baking sheets. They also work well for wrapping pastry and dough. With pastry the easiest way is to make a folded parcel with the opening side underneath on a plate or dish. They wash up by hand or in the dishwasher and also save you lots of baking parchment/greaseproof paper and some foil.
Another option is a plastic box only a little larger than the pastry. With very little exposed surface area and very little air in the box it won't dry out noticeably. The two options can be combined - ina box with a small piece of the teflon sheet (an offcut perhaps) on top
I find the teflon sheets available in my area don't take too well to repeated folding, they lose the coating along any creases.
I have always used wax paper to wrap pastry for the fridge. It's always worked for me.
(Note: this is not the same thing as the baking paper/parchment mentioned in other answers.)
For pie crusts, cookie dough, and similar, that's what I use, too. (for yeast doughs, I find the wax paper can either stick to the dough and make a mess ... worst case being the wax paper tears as you're removing it, and then you have to go searching for the torn bits)
Wax paper is awesome but it almost certainly has a larger negative environmental impact than clingfilm.
@KonradRudolph How so? It is certainly much less harmful to wildlife, as it is digestible. I imagine it also breaks down a lot more quickly than plastic.
@GentlePurpleRain Resource cost of production. Harm to wildlife and time of
breakdown are much less relevant and, ideally, don’t matter: General waste rubbish is incinerated, not dumped, and the pollution thus produced by cling film is probably lower than that of burning wax paper, at least with additives: Ideally, LDPE cling film burns completely and the only waste it thus produces is CO2. Admittedly, sustainable wax paper does the same. So what remains is the difference in cost of production.
@KonradRudolph It seems a little unfair to compare the most-environmentally-friendly cling film option (LDPE) to the least-environmentally-friendly was paper option (with additives). Additionally, are you factoring in the environmental cost of production? LDPE is most often made from petroleum, and petroleum extraction and refinement has its own environmental cost, as well as being non-renewable.
@GentlePurpleRain It wasn’t my intention to compare them unfairly, merely to show the range. And yes, cost of production is crucially factored in (first sentence of my comment). The material cost of producing cling film is incredibly cheap. Yes, it’s non-renewable but it’s utterly negligible compared to other uses of fossil oil. My point is, people react extremely irrationally when comparing products made from plastic with those made from other material: Often plastic wins, hands down. Case in point: There’s no a priori reason to even assume that wax paper would be better than cling film.
@KonradRudolph Ok. Fair enough. I don't want to start a debate. I don't actually know that much about the environmental impacts of either; I just wanted to make sure that everything was being considered. Thanks for your input.
If your question can be changed slightly to: What to use instead of cling film to prevent pastry dough from drying out when resting (or storing) in the refrigerator?, here is what I would do. Similar to what others have suggested, find a glass container or plastic tub with lid a little larger than the footprint of the dough. Place a ramekin (smaller than footprint of dough) in it upside down (or something else you have around your kitchen to elevate the dough), add a little water to the bottom of the container, place dough on ramekin, cover with lid. Dough should not touch water, of course, sides, or lid. This method is used by home cheesemakers to create a humid environment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.363431 | 2019-05-01T08:42:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98754",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"GdD",
"GentlePurpleRain",
"Graham",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Jorgomli",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Megha",
"Oxy",
"Reed",
"Spagirl",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Stian",
"TripeHound",
"bishop",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73083",
"user91988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52148 | I left a fully cooked honeybaked ham out overnight, and i am planning on making it into soup-is that ok?
I plan to make soup out of fully cured ham that was left out overnight-since it will cook another two hours, should it be safe to eat ?
Using the ham and the bone would be great for soup! The ham has already been cooked (cured) and since it has been left out in the "Food Danger Zone" has probably had bacteria grow on it. However cooking the ham (boiling it in soup) above 212 degrees will kill any bacteria that may have developed. Also you may want to consider putting the ham and bone in a pot with water only, bring it to a boil and then dump it all into a sink and colender. This will get a lot of the fat or scum out of the soup. Then put the ham back into the same pot, add your stock or water and seasoning with carrots, onions etc. You will have a lot less skimming. Just don't eat the soup cold or let it stand out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.364650 | 2014-12-31T17:46:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52148",
"authors": [
"Licensed Asbestos Removal Limi",
"Mike Belgie jr",
"Wayne Patchett",
"Yvonne Ashworth",
"craig ward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125628"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68086 | What should the consistency of pudding be?
Like the title suggests, I'd like to know what should the consistency of a (chocolate) pudding be.
We don't actually have "pudding" where I am from, so I am having trouble deciding if I have made a pudding or just some sort of chocolate creme or if pudding is nothing else but a glorified random chocolate creme.
I know there are different types of pudding, but still any guideline would be appreciated.
If it helps I am using a mixture of:
cocoa - 150ml
sugar - 300ml
cream - 50ml
cornstarch - 130ml
milk - 820ml
I know I should measure some things by weight, but it's a long story. To clarify when measuring the cornstarch I shake the measuring cup until the starch is nice and compact, so it should be a lot.
What I get is a pudding that is thick, but if I angle the pot it still flows and tries to "escape". I am wondering if it shoul not be so thick that it would refuse to move even when the pot is angled?
It sounds to me like you are making your pudding almost as thick as it should be.
It should be able to stand up a little. In other words, if you spoon some into a desert cup or small bowl, it should make a pile. It shouldn't be solid like ice cream, it should be smooth, but still stay in a pile shape.
Do you have custard where you live? It should be similar to that in thickness. Though custard is very different from
Chocolate pudding.
I'd add that it would seem that the pudding mentioned would be cooked. In general it will be thinner when hot than when cooled. I can't imagine a chocolate pudding served hot.
No, we do not have custard or anything relating to it or puddings. Well, except for Dr. Oetker's ready instant pudding mix or whatever. I was worried if increasing the amount of cornstarch would backfire, but now I will try it with even more as it seems to me I am almost to the point it will hold its own shape if I put it in a mold and invert.
@MaxW you know, I hadn't thought of it not being chilled yet. Haha
It is always somewhat soft when it is in the pot. You have to let it set. After 12 hours or so, the usual pudding can hold its own shape. That is, it won't flow if you angle the bowl, and you can invert a mold of it and it will keep.
That being said, this is just a tradition. You can certainly make it wetter, like porridge or some polentas, and enjoy it that way.
Yes, I was referring to my pudding after it has set for more than a day in the fridge. Inverting a mold is what I will compare it to, thanks!
I've had stuff that I'd consider a pudding that would still slump (ie, wouldn't maintain the shape of a mold after it's been released). If you tilted a bowl of it, it wouldn't flow immediately, but if you let it sit for an hours or two, it would have moved.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.364781 | 2016-04-07T00:52:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68086",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71637 | What happens if you cook chocolate pudding too long on a double boiler?
I am having some troubles getting my pudding consistency right.
The kind of pudding I am trying to make is of just milk, cream, sugar, cocoa and cornstarch. The double boiler I use is a small pot in a slightly bigger pot, filled with water.
Until now my pudding almost always turned out runny, like a thick sauce. Then I had the revelation that this happens when the water level in my big pot drops below the smaller pot, so that only the vapours are transferring heat to it (I am guessing in my case it doesn't work, since there is a gap between the pots and thus the temperature can't escalate much in this way). So I sort of solved this problem by adding more water. This allowed me to get one pudding right (or so I think) but then the next one was runny again. I got pissed and thought I simply hadn't cooked it enough (I usually take it off the stove when I think it is the right thickness, wait for it to cool down and refrigerate overnight). So I put it on the stove again and left it there for a whole lot of time ~50 minutes or more (I have an automatic stirrer to stir it, first fast, then slowly to let the starch coagulate). And THIS time it became so thick I think it can rightfully be classified in a solid body state. There is no hint of runny-ness, but now it is really hard and gooey, when pulled it stretches sort of like taffy or thick gum, it holds a solid shape and you can't "scoop" it with a spoon, instead you only pull it. It is also a darker color than usual, so I am wondering if I might have burned it or just added too much starch or sugar (this time I was experimenting with more sugar)?
All I knew, the double boiler prevents any burning (in my case there are no burn marks, but maybe the milk got burned/heated too much?) and cornstarch, once heated to the sufficient temperature, would just thicken and further heating it wouldn't change anything, unless it is TOO much heating.
My recipe is:
cocoa 150ml
sugar 500ml
cream 50ml
cornstarch 100ml
milk 800ml
(I measure in ml, don't ask)
So, if nothing was burned or heated too much, it could be that roughly a third of the entire mixture is sugar, while only half is milk and maybe 1/16th of the entire mixture's volume in cornstarch is too much? I have never gotten a definite valid correct sample with this recipe to be able to compare to anything and it will be some time before I can experiment again.
It is a bit difficult to address all the points in your question, as it mixes up observations, assumptions and a very strange recipe, but I'll try.
There are three types of sweet dessert relevant here. I'll call them custard, pudding and taffy, although the names are not used with perfect consistency everywhere.
Custard is dairy thickened by egg yolk. It requires very tight temperature control, as it starts forming at 60 Celsius (but that won't be sufficient for a standard custard) and overcooks somewhere around 85 Celsius, turning grainy and unpleasant. To prevent that, custard is cooked in a double boiler, which makes the mixture heat up slower and more evenly. So the answer to your title alone would be, "it curdles".
A pudding is dairy thickened by starch. It needs to arrive at close to 100 Celsius to thicken properly (there are a few degree Celsius difference for different types of starch, all work between 95 and 100 Celsius). Your yolkless pudding shouldn't be in a double boiler in the first place, as it normally keeps the temperature way too low. A starch pudding is prepared by mixing the starch into a small portion of the cold dairy, heating the main portion of the dairy and adding the starch mixture, then mixing constantly until it has boiled. At that point, it thickens and the boiling actually consists of a few blubbs. The thickness/runniness is controlled by the amount of starch you choose (10% of the dairy for standard pudding), not by reducing the temperature. It is a bit more difficult for chocolate pudding, as cocoa powder is partly made up of starch, you might need to experiment with ratios. Also note that ratios are measured in weight, not volume.
A taffy is caramel softened with some dairy. The more typical way to make it is to make the caramel first, then add the dairy. But there are also methods for heating everything together and waiting until a large proportion of the water in the dairy evaporates and the sugar manages to darken. It has the side effect of also caramelizing the milk sugars, giving it a more dulce de leche like effect. While I would have expected it to need a bit more temperature, this is the best explanation I see for your experience. "Stretches" and "can only pull it" are prime examples for describing taffy, and I cannot imagine any other reason for getting this effect with your ingredients. Starch certainly doesn't behave this way no matter how overheated (it simply chars).
The best advice I can give you: decide what you want to have (custard, pudding or taffy), find a recipe for it and follow it. It will have both the ratios and procedures. Then you won't end up doing counterproductive stuff like using a boiler on a starch pudding or oversugaring it.
Thanks, but I'm using a boiler on a starch pudding, because my hotplates are too strong and even on their lowest setting burn the pudding, no matter how fast I stir it. I would just like to know what happens if you cook starch pudding on a double boiler for too long (or on a hotplate, on the appropriate temperature for too long).
In a properly functioning double boiler, it will never become proper pudding, as a double boiler shouldn't let it get to the necessary 95-100 range. So it will stay runny, getting slightly thicker over the hours due to evaporation, but still not tasting like proper cooked pudding. If your double boiler overheats and gets over 100 Celsius, it will burn after enough time. As for the hotplate problem, consider investing in better cookware with a thick bottom, in the extreme case enameled iron will work (if not induction, but then you can simply shove a thin cutting board below the pot).
Try using a heat diffuser for your hot plate/burner. You can get them quite inexpensively on Amazon and other places.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.365016 | 2016-07-24T20:16:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71637",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mathgenius",
"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
} |
62305 | Vanilla beans vs extract
Say I get me some vanilla beans and, say, I am dabbling with pudding at the time. All recipes I've encountered require vanilla extract to be added to the pudding, my question is - if I want to use real vanilla beans: would that be better and how do I decide how much beans to use?
Also, how do I use them? Do I use just the beans or the entire pods?
Slice the pod in half, long ways, carefully. Run your knife blade down the length,scraping the tiny seeds (very tiny) from the inside of the pod. What you collect will be sticky and not look like much, but it is very potent. Place what you collected into your pudding mixture while cooking. One pod should be plenty. You can also toss in the whole pod at this point, but then remember to take it out before the pudding sets up. Alternately, toss the scraped pods in a jar of sugar to create vanilla sugar for other uses.
thanks! But you say one pod for pudding, but how much pudding? Does the pod itself really give anything to the pudding?
@mathgenius How much are you making? I was thinking home kitchen quantities. Most of the flavor resides in the seeds within the pod, but the pod itself certainly will provide flavor (that's where the seeds were). I've also see recipes of folks chopping up the pod itself and adding to custard bases...I guess it depends how much vanilla flavor you like. Experiment to determine your preference!
Well, I'm still experimenting, but let's say 2780ml of pudding mixture.
@mathgenius that's a bit more than what I was imagining. You may need to up the bean quantity. Again, depends on your desired level of vanilla flavor.
Substitution ratios vary from 1 bean per 1 tsp. of extract to 1 inch of bean to 1 tsp. of extract.
In my experience, vanilla beans have more flavor than extract. The flavor of ice cream or pudding is better when made with a bean than with extract. I'm not sure why, but I imagine not all of the aromatic compounds from the beans come out in the extract. For instructions on how to use, see moscafj's answer.
Interesting, I have the opposite observation. Usually extract adds more flavor, it seems to me that it doesn't develop well enough when you add seeds only. Pudding can be an exception, when cooked long enough, not a quickly-heated egg pudding. But in general, I went from using my vanilla beans in baking to making extract with them which I then use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.365491 | 2015-10-05T18:48:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62305",
"authors": [
"Christna Park",
"Debbie M.",
"Giok Kwee Lim",
"Lucia de Souza",
"Mary Davis",
"Nancy Ludwig",
"Noriko Puckett",
"Ray Peacock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mathgenius",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53848 | Sushi rice vinegar proportions
So i'm trying to make sushi rice and i know the essential component is the vinegar/sugar/salt mixture (with the optional kombu, which i don't have access to, so i omit entirely). I would like to hear your opinions on the ratios of the vinegar to sugar to salt. I have seen several but have not chosen my favourite yet. Also does anyone know for certain if salt is added to make the overall flavour sort of bitter-sweet, or... ?
On a related note: how important is the fanning of the rice? I mean, come on, to me sitting besides the rice and fanning with a giant palm leaf to fend off the excess moisture from your rice-pharaoh just seems utteryl ridiculous. In cooking there always have been supposedly imporatnt fancy techniques that are considered essential by every blogger, ever, yet in reality have little to no impact on the quality of the dish.
My goodness, the first recipe in my search result was Alton Brown's (see link) which calls for a whole tablespoon of salt to be mixed into two cups of cooked rice! Whatever you do don't use those proportions.
You can use a desk fan for the fanning, but you want to fan it. Fanning is important for the final shape-ability of the rice.
@ChrisSteinbach The recipe is for 2 cups of raw rice, and specifies kosher salt. AB's preferred brand is half as dense as table salt, so it ends up 9g salt / 2 cups rice, which is still slightly salty (I've made it for years), which is how I got here from Google. :)
I did an online search for the first 10 sushi rice recipes with distinct ingredient proportions and came up with the following ratio (by weight):
1:0.08:0.16:0.02 (Raw Rice:Sugar:Vinegar:Salt)
With cooked rice,
1:0.03:0.06:0.01 (Cooked Rice:Sugar:Vinegar:Salt)
Or, if you prefer:
For 1300g / ~6 cups Sushi Rice
400g or 2 cups of raw sushi rice (about 1200g or 6 cups of cooked rice)
32g or 3 tbsp white granulated
sugar 63g or 4 tbsp vinegar 7g or 1tsp salt
I've not tried these proportions yet but I usually find that a simple average of 10 to 20 distinct recipe proportions gives me a good starting point for experimentation. At the very least averaging helps avoid nasty surprises like the saltylicious recipe of Alton Brown I linked to in my comment above.
Another answer here suggests a Salt:Sugar:Vinegar ratio of 1:2:2, whereas my figures suggest something closer to 1:5:9 if we are talking weight ratios (the other answer doesn't specify).
You asked whether salt would help give the rice a bitter sweet taste. In my experience sushi rice has no obvious bitter taste, but it does have a sweet-sour flavor that the vinegar and sugar lends. Salt helps other flavors play nicely with each other and at the same time adds a delicate flavor bass note of its own.
In my opinion you are unlikely to find a favorite recipe by adjusting the proportions alone. There are preparation techniques to play with, varieties of rice and types of vinegar. Many sushi rice recipes feature mirin, sake, kombu or dashi in the list of ingredients. Experimenting with any of these things will likely necessitate altering the ingredient proportions from what I give here.
When I say that salt adds a "delicate flavor" I'm not sure at all that I'm on target. The taste may be faint, but it's not frail. Nevertheless, I stand by the musical analogy of bass notes in the sense that you hardly notice the taste of salt when you eat (at least this is so if you have the right amount) but you would miss it if it wasn't there.
That's the weight of rice after cooking, right?
@Jefromi Actually uncooked rice. I'll update.
informative and well written answer, thanks! Although i already did look around the interwebs, myself, i was looking for more of this community's opinion
I hover around what I think is 1:2:2 with Salt:Sugar:Rice Vinegar. Use enough so that you can coat all of your rice, but not drench it.
Before cooking, rinse the rice. I believe this removes excess starch from the rice. Skipping it makes my rice sad. After cooking you fan it while folding in the sushi vinegar mixture. I believe this cools it without drying it out and gets a thin coat of the mixture evenly distributed over the rice. Skipping it makes my rice sad.
Remember that you don't make good sushi with sub-par ingredients.
I love the phrase "makes my rice sad".
To make the answers easier to compare maybe you can say whether the ratio you give is for weight or volume.
like Chris said, it'd be easier to know if you mean volume or weight ratio, as that ratio in volume is INSANE (no offense) :D
It is by volume. It has been called into question if this is too much salt, and I stand by my proportions. I do also tend to use far less dressing overall for the rice than I assume is usually used as well.
Measured by volume: 7 rice vinegar, 5 sugar, 2 sea salt (or 1 table salt). Add a piece of kelp if you plan to age it. It is best aged for at least two weeks. If you need to use right away, skip the kelp and melt the ingredients in a hot pan, then cut the heat immediately to avoid cooking out the vinegar's acidity. The vinegar should be measured at 15% of uncooked rice by volume.
This is based on Sushi Chef Institute's recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.365730 | 2015-01-21T13:32:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53848",
"authors": [
"Barbra Colledge",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Hasrul Arba'at",
"Lucius Mayfield",
"Meena Ahmad",
"Modular Cold Room Ltd",
"Monica Miles",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Paul Nava",
"Stephie",
"Walter Harris",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32628",
"mathgenius",
"user32628"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60307 | Cream or butter in a pudding
I wish to know what would be the difference between using cream or butter in a pudding.
I have never used cream instead of butter and do not even know if maybe both can be used at the same time?
What, exactly, do you mean by "pudding"?
Is this in relation to this question? Considering your question history, I'm going to assume that you mean "pudding" as defined in the tag.
@Catija, what other type of pudding is there? To me "pudding" has such a singular, defined meaning as "pebble". :) I am sort of creeped out you would go snooping through my question history, though.
Actually, in non-US English speaking countries, "pudding" is a generic term for "dessert"... so it can mean a wide variety of things. And I didn't go "snooping through your question history"... I remembered your previous question and assumed it was connected. I'm here a lot.
@Catija, well where I'm from "pudding" means only one thing - the creamy-like dessert. It has never been associated with anything else and I haven't seen it being associated with anything else in movies/tv from other countries so I did not know. Sorry about implicating you, lately I have learned a lot of internet people snoop around other people's profiles and such, so...
Butter helps to set whatever you're incorporating it into more firmly. It's also delicious.
Cream is liquid and will remain liquid, unless whipped and incorporated.
Honestly, it all depends on what you're making. Sometimes they can be interchangeable and sometimes they definitely cannot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.366484 | 2015-08-28T14:56:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60307",
"authors": [
"Bill Lachapelle",
"Catija",
"Linda Crawford",
"Marti",
"Missy Randall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76129 | What is the adequate power for a non-commercial Planetary Mixer?
I have a standard mixer that can be put on a stand and its motor has 400W of power. Since it struggles with some doughs and I don't really like its mixing I decided to buy a stand "Planetary Mixer"* (i.e. a non-commercial Stand Mixer with "Planetary Mixing Action"), however I am not sure what wattage I should look for. I certainly won't use it for commercial uses and can't figure out if, say, 800W would be too much.
I also don't know if I can ask here about advice on the model of mixer? Since I am looking for one that has metal gearing and dishwasher safe beaters/parts but am finding it hard to find any information about different models.
* Planetary action means that the beaters rotate on their axis similarly to the way the Earth rotates. Like a planetary system, the whole mixer head then rotates the opposite way, similar to the way the Earth rotates around the sun. This ensures that the sides of the bowl are scraped by the beater rather than having to do it by hand, and that the ingredients become fully mixed.
There is no "too much" with that kind of device unless you are concerned about power usage, safety in case of misuse or noise.
The 800 W or whatever is slightly misleading. It's not just how much power you're using, but how you're using it. For example, on America's Test Kitchen, they found some of the lower wattage Kitchenaid mixers outperformed some of the competition with a higher wattage rating. Given two mixers with identical performance and reliability and what not but different wattage, you'd want to get the one with the lower wattage rating.
I have a Kitchen Aid 5 quart Pro lift model stand mixer. It is rated at 450 watts.
It can handle a recipe using 1,000 grams (about 8 cups) of King Arthur Whole Wheat flour and yields two 5" X 9" loaves. A-P flour requires less power to knead than whole wheat.
More power usually comes with a bigger bowl and small recipes are going to get lost in such a large mixer
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.366650 | 2016-12-04T20:33:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76129",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85531 | Is creme brulee supposed to be fatty?
I just made creme brulee but it felt a lot like I am eating butter.
I know it should be made with ~35% fat cream so it makes sense to be "fatty". I just have never eaten "real" creme brulee with which to make a comparison and am not sure if it really should taste fatty like butter or if I did something wrong.
Maybe add your recipe and process?
I am not sure if your question is answerable. To me, butter and creme brulee taste differently. To others, it may taste so similar they declare it to be "the same". The limit when "fatty" becomes "too fatty" is subjective. From the simple description of "fatty", we cannot conclude if you did something wrong or if you just happen to not like properly made creme brulee.
@rumtscho, I see your point. Well, I didn't provide a recipe, because I was asking for creme brulee in general, like I said - I never ate "real" creme brulee, so I wanted to know if I got it close to real taste.
Am I understanding correctly that you are asking about texture/mouth feel rather than the actual taste/flavor?
@Cindy, I am actually asking about both. Like I said, I have never tried real creme brulee, so I'd like to know if it is normal for it to taste a lot like butter.
No creme brulee should not resemble butter in any way. Not in taste nor in texture. Its consistency should be like that of a thick custard where the eggs determine the firmness of the custard.
We tend to use single cream with 15% fat for our creme brulee. This works very well and leads to a lighter and less fattier result.
I was led to believe you should use creme with upward of 30% fat for creme brulee
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.366828 | 2017-11-09T20:05:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85531",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mathgenius",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88807 | Why you can't reverse cheese curdling in fondue?
I was wondering why you can't "fix" or reverse a "curdled" cheese fondue sauce?
As some of you know - I am taking a scientific approach to cooking and am now fiddling with cheese fondue.
I got three small saucepans, poured some wine to simmer and tried adding in different cheeses to see which would melt in a fondue-favourably fashion, while stirring constantly.
I'm surprised to say two of the three cheeses melted with no problem while the third - Emmentaler, no less, became a stringy, lumpy mess from the start.
Well, since the same happened to the other cheeses the minute I took the saucepans off the heat I thought the reverse reaction should be possible if I return them to the heat, but it did not.
Irreversible reactions aren't something new or strange to me, but I wondered what IS it in this cheese-wine sauce that would cause such an irreversible reaction?
Probably the proteins... that's why you can't uncook eggs.
@Catija, probably. But the issue here appears when I remove the cheeses from the heat. And more often than not lowering of temperature is reversible by heating the solution, I wonder why not in this case.
Most proteins undergo irreversible structural changes when heated. The exact temperature where this happens depends on the protein. In most cases, no covalent bonds are broken or formed during this 'denaturation' process.
But the irreversible nature of the changes means that there's no good way to rescue a curdled fondue sauce (or a curdled egg custard).
Other components present in the environment of the protein (like alcohol, salt) can influence the denaturation process.
In your case, when you first get the wine to simmer, your temperature might just be too high from the start to prevent denaturation of the cheese proteins, suggested temperatures for melting cheese are around 150F (~66°C). And of course, different cheeses have had different treatments during production (some are already heated to 50-55°C), and can have different behaviour when heated. And duration plays a role (the denaturation isn't instantanuous).
Yes, but I encountered the problem with all cheeses when I took them off the stove. I.e. when they lost heat. And usually heat loss reactions are quite reversible by applying heat. Not in this case, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.366974 | 2018-04-01T15:30:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88807",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76098 | Why do you bake Crème Brûlée?
I've seen that you can cook Crème Brûlée on a stove's hotplate, but most recipes call for it to be baked and that is the traditional way to do it.
Why is that so? Is there some benefit to baking it or is it just tradition?
And can you cook it on a hotplate like you would any normal creme or is there a trick to it?
It needs very even heat to cook through without burning (underneath if you cook it on the hob). presumably if you cook it on the hob you need to use a bain marie and for individual ramekins this is quite specialised and large. In the oven you can just use a roasting tin for your bain marie for several ramekins.
You can also use a water bath (bain marie), where the temperature is maintained with an immersion circulator (sous vide), thus freeing up your stove altogether.
@moscafj, indeed you can. That's even more specialised than a stove-top bain marie (IMO). A perfectly sensible thing to use if creme brulee is on your menu professionally.
No need for it to be a "professional situation" I do it at home all the time using my circulator (which more and more people have). Guaranteed consistent results because you precisely control temperature.
@moscafj if your circulator is big enough to cook enough portions for your situation that's ideal. When I looked at them they were a similar size to the slow cooker (which could also work) which would hold max 4 cremes brulees. A roasting tin would really hold twice that.
Most immersion circulators are designed so that you place them in a larger container. So you are not limited by space. I can't upload links to the comment section, but Google: Joule, Polyscience, Anova, Nomiku and you will see what I mean. At home, with my Polyscience circulator...or my Joule, I can easily make one portion...or dozens...
@moscafj OK, I was looking at integrated systems (a few years ago at that)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.367267 | 2016-12-03T10:48:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76098",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84268 | creme brulee caramelized sugar disappearing
I've recently made some creme brulee, poured sugar on top of it and used a kitchen blow torch to caramelize it and capitalise on a finished product.
After that I put the creme brulee in the fridge overnight and when I checked on it in the morning the caramel (caramelised sugar) had disappeared, leaving only a brown trace behind.
I suppose it got dissolved into the creme or underwent some sort of change and it wasn't a hard caramel layer anymore but I wanted to ask for a more experienced user's opinion.
I should also mention that particular batch had less cream in it that it should and it turned out more egg-y.
The precise recipe was:
3 medium egg yolks
200ml whipping cream
80g sugar
Yes, you are correct. Creme brulee exudes and condensates enough moisture that the caramel would disappear. If you want to make it ahead, you have to make the custard only. Caramelization is always done just before serving.
I thought so but none of the recipes I looked at specified that, thanks for clarifying!
Not strictly always - it is possible to freeze a newly made caramel (once it cools) and allow it to defrost when you need it. Needs experience, but valuable when ten minutes just before the meal is more valuable than 40 some days before.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.367434 | 2017-09-09T16:15:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84268",
"authors": [
"Tim Lymington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62206 | Why do egg yolks curdle?
I know that heating eggs up too quickly or (similarly) adding them to a hot soup/sauce too quickly will cause them to curdle. I wonder why?
In a word: Science! The yolk of an egg contains a large number of complex proteins, which are large molecules composed of chains of amino acids. The specific combinations and ordering of those amino acids cause the proteins to fold up on themselves into complex structures, which in turn determine the protein's function.
The bonds which interact between amino acids and fold the protein in a specific way are fairly delicate, and they can be "denatured" or disrupted by the application of heat, salt, or acid, which changes the shape of the protein. The bonds can also reconnect to other, different bonds when the protein is in its new shape. So, when you heat an egg yolk, the proteins eventually change shape and bind to each other in a specific way that causes the physical changes we refer to as "curdling". Here's a neat animation of the process.
This can be avoided when the yolks are heated gently because it takes a certain amount of heat to completely denature the proteins, and it takes a number of unfolded proteins interacting to bind into a new "curdled" configuration. When you heat gently, you're giving the heat enough time to dissipate throughout the food, so that it doesn't exceed that temperature in any given spot and there aren't lots of fully denatured proteins all in the same place. The proteins may still be changing shape, but they haven't reached the shape or concentration where they can bind together and curdle. Which is good, because when they do bind together, those bonds are stronger than the bonds that originally folded the proteins. At that point they're permanently curdled and no amount of cooling will un-bind them and allow the proteins to re-fold on their own. (EDIT: ironically, I stumbled on this article today which describes how some scientists have managed to do just that with certain egg enzymes. Weird!)
The final configuration can also be mediated by other proteins, sugars, etc. in the food. For example, in scrambled eggs the proteins in the whites and yolks combined set differently than either of them do separately. The cooking process can also be done gradually enough to produce a smooth texture even if the proteins are completely denatured. For example, in hollandaise sauce egg yolks work together with liquid butter to form a smooth emulsion; even though many of the yolk proteins may be denatured, they can't fully set into a curdled matrix because the butter proteins, fats, etc. are also present.
A bit more detail on how to prevent curdling in specific culinary applications can be found in this related answer.
If proteins curdle, because a certain amount of heat is reached, why does heating them gently, while still reaching the same amount not curdle them?
@mathgenius I meant to add a couple sentences to answer that and it turned into a couple of paragraphs instead. See my edits; I also stumbled across an animation that provides a nice visualization.
Oh, also: I'm not an organic chemist, so if there are any out there please feel free to correct me!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.367566 | 2015-10-01T18:56:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62206",
"authors": [
"Amanda Leborys",
"Angus Newsam",
"Georgene Reimer",
"John",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"logophobe",
"mathgenius",
"sally madril",
"user61724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53693 | What does the oil do in a marinade?
A basic marinade is acid, oil, herbs/spices. I understand the herbs and spices are for taste, the acid helps meat absorb by breaking down the tissue and taste. What is the oil for?
doesnt have to be oil. you can use another fat, like butter
The oil is for carrying the flavors of the herbs and spices throughout the marinade (and ultimately, into the meat or whatever you're marinating). Some of the chemical compounds in those herbs and spices are more soluble in fat than they are in water, the oil absorbs those flavors and distributes them more evenly throughout the finished dish.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.367836 | 2015-01-16T13:04:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53693",
"authors": [
"Kim Pennington",
"Paris J",
"Robyn Leveton",
"Teresa Edwards",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"rbp",
"sue benford"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53613 | How to write the so called wooden tomato / wooden potato in Chinese (and where to find it)?
I once went to a Chinese restaurant with a Chinese friend, and there was this sort of yam which was white colored and covered with a whole bunch of red/pink dots resembling freckles and these dots would be found inside of it whenever cut. This food was then boiled in a pot of water and other stuff on the table and once soft it could be eaten just like a yam or potato and was very delicious.
My friend said in Chinese it's called wooden potato or wooden potato (something like "mu shu", perhaps 木薯). However, I wasn't able to find this anywhere on the Internet (or, at least, I was not able to find the one with all the red/pink freckles). Anyone know what this kind is properly called (in Chinese and in English), where to find more information about it, and where to buy it?
Thanks.
I have to admit that the first thing I thought about "mu shu" is this... =D
Interesting, how do you write MuShu the dragon from MuLan in Chinese? Anyways, I'm sure this is not it, it could even be that the wording my friend from Beijing used is in some local dialect, and so not everyone may be aware of it, although I don't know for sure. Thanks.
It is written as 木須 (I don't really know Chinese ;)) If you google for 木須 images you get beside images of the pocket dragon images of a chinese dish as well o_o Stir-fried noodles with mu-err mushrooms, egg, cucumber / leafy greens, pork/chicken.
Somewhat different from what I was after, but now I also know about Mù xū (木須). Thanks. :-)
It's not taro? It fits your description bang on
By your description I would say it's taro or 芋头 (yu tao) in chinese
https://www.google.ca/search?q=mu+shu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=J862VLp1ivxSvZODoAM&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1394&bih=827#tbm=isch&q=%E8%8A%8B%E5%A4%B4&imgdii=_
It can be bought in most chinese supermarkets
For more info http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taro
Yeah, I say it's definitely this one. Google translate spells out the pronounciation of 芋头 as Yùtou, I think that's what you meant. I don't know why my friend said it's a wooden tomato/potato, the Chinese spelling doesn't seem to suggest that. Perhaps there are regional variations on what it's called throughout China (?). Anyways, thanks!!!
The 2 items are quite similar and easy to get confused. If your friend is not the person who cooked it then he/she might not know exactly which it is. I am from north eastern part of china and my wife is from the south, we both call it Yu tao. It's just a mistake of identity from your friend.
Thanks. Yes, I think my friend must have been confused by the similarity, that explains it. Is tou pronounced tao by some people in China? My dictionary spells the pinyin pronounciation of 头 as tóu, or just tou since here it's the fifth/neutral tone. Is your spelling due to some regional variation in pronounciation (?). Thanks.
@JohnSonderson It's tóu not tao, as in the same pronunciation as 头. As far as I know there is no variation but then again I only lived in china from the age of 1 to 12.
木薯 (pronounced mù shǔ, literally translated as wood tuber) seems to be nothing other than cassava / maniok / tapioca. Did it look like this?
by Amada44, source
Often only the products made by cassava starch or the starch itself is called tapioca.
In Germany you can find cassava in asian grocery stores but in large "normal" grocery stores, too. I guess this also applies to any other location.
Thank you for your reply. The Merriam Webster Dictionary lists cassava and manioc as the plant name and tapioca as anything made out of its small white grains. I've tasted it and the taste is very similar. However, I am unable to find the species which has the pinkish red dots all over its inside as I was able to see in the restaurant which had it all cut up into pieces on the shelf. Any idea what variety of cassava it might be? Thanks.
Anyways, I don't really understands where inside the cassava the small tapioca grains come from. I don't see them in the picture you posted. Could you please enlighten me? Thanks.
The grains are not inside the cassava. The grains are made from cassva starch, not from the root directly. ;)
Interesting, thanks! So, starting from the cassava, how do you extract the starch and then make tapioca from it? Thanks.
@JohnSonderson this is not a bad question, but you should ask it on its own.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.367948 | 2015-01-14T18:34:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53613",
"authors": [
"Ann McGarry",
"Ching Chong",
"Howard Barnett",
"Huangism",
"John Sonderson",
"Kathryn thayer",
"Lisa Songer",
"Richard Halliday",
"Richárd Takács",
"Samuel Nance",
"eric hewitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32749",
"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
} |
53624 | How do you make tapioca from cassava?
I am curious as to how tapioca is made from cassava. Also, is it possible to do this at home? Thanks.
Just an interesting aside: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1967235_1967238_1967250,00.html
Yeah, from Wikipedia: Improper preparation of cassava can leave enough residual cyanide to cause acute cyanide intoxication and goiters, and may even cause ataxia or partial paralysis. Thank you for pointing out this very important observation. I guess now I won't be taking chances at making it.
It is possible to do at home, but it is very labor intensive and requires equipment that most people don't have at home.
The first major step is to produce tapioca starch (ie tapioca flour). The cassava must be cleaned and peeled, then finely grated or milled to break the cell walls and expose the starch. This mass is then washed in a large amount of water and the insoluble pulp is strained out and the starchy water reserved. The starch-water mixture, called "Starch milk", is allowed to settle for 6+ hours and the water is drained off until a thick slurry is left. This slurry is then either purified further with more water then dried to form the flour. The additional washing of the slurry is important to remove residual insoluble fiber and, more importantly, cyanide-related toxins naturally found in the cassava. Traditional cultures dried the slurry on basketwork trays, but it is more efficient to do it in an oven at low temperature with regular raking and turning. The dried starch would then be sifted and used for cooking.
Making tapioca balls or pearls from tapioca starch is relatively easy compared to the processing of the cassava. The tapioca starch is mixed with boiling water to form a dough which is then kneaded and rolled into the desired size balls. The tapioca balls are then cooked in boiling water until transparent.
Other sources:
http://www.fao.org/livestock/agap/frg/AHPP95/95-81.pdf
http://phys.org/news90080234.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.368304 | 2015-01-14T22:31:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53624",
"authors": [
"David Drew",
"James Slaymaker",
"John Sonderson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Viet Le",
"Will Hay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32749"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53668 | how long to cook stuffed chicken breasts
I have chicken breasts stuffed with rice. How long should I bake them and at what temperature?
You may get some variety in answers on this, but the most important thing is to make sure the chicken itself reaches ~ 160 F. Use an instant read thermometer to check centers, remove at ~ 155 F, tent with foil, rest ~ 5 minutes.
The time and temperature can vary widely based on a lot of different factors. What's important is the final temperature. Chicken breast is safe and largely considered palatable at 165F (74C). Use an instant read thermometer in the thickest part of the breast.
Just to give you an idea where to start, here are several recipes for Stuffed Chicken Breasts from Cooking Light.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.368490 | 2015-01-16T00:24:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53668",
"authors": [
"Garden Veranda Ltd",
"Jason Schock",
"Miami Unique Limo",
"Sian Henry",
"Vikki Semik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53832 | Will this pan works with induction?
I am thinking about buying two pots online. I looked at Amazon.ca but I have a hard time to know whether the pots I am looking at will work on induction. How can I know without being able to stick a magnet on it?
Consider this product for example. Do you think it is going to work on induction?
@setek no, not every steel (and also not every stainless steel) is induction capable. It depends on the way it was tempered. Some forms of steel have aligned crystals in their microstructure and are magnetic, others have chaotic crystals and are not magnetic.
Oh, really? Sorry, my bad. I've never encountered a stainless-steel pan/pot that didn't work on my induction stove.
You can call the manufacturers and ask them if it is "INDUCTION READY" The packaging & the insert with specifications & instructions should say that. Youu can ask the customer service at Amazon too, may be they will have the answer. But I also located an answer on the internet, which I am including the link: amazon.com/H36009-Stainless-Steel-Stockpot-16-Quart/forum/Fx7ZGB2U7J21S8/-/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B008RF6310
It will not work well. A comment on the American Amazon site claims that a magnet will not stick to the pot. The pot also does not have a heat diffusion bottom with extra material that could be magnetic.
Stainless steel can be made magnetic, but most is not.
To see the link to the product, start at Amazon.ca, scroll to the link to the U.S. site, and then go through the comments.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.368597 | 2015-01-21T03:09:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53832",
"authors": [
"Geraldine Martin",
"Ming",
"Patrick T",
"Stephanie Sossong",
"Thomas Frimpong",
"char hatfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jurgen koller",
"papin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53979 | Is it safe to cook pork chops that thawed on counter overnight?
Is it safe to cook pork that thawed on the counter overnight?
I voted to close as a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat, it's actually more of a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/is-there-a-problem-with-defrosting-meat-on-the-counter
No. It has been out in room temperature for far too long to be safe to eat. Pork chops will be completely defrosted after 2-3 hours, which means they have been in the 'danger zone' for 6-8 hours. If you are defrosting over night, I would recommend putting it in a bowl of water in the fridge.
I don't think there's even any need for the bowl of water.
@logophobe That might just be because my fridge is somewhat temperamental, and sometimes decides that an appropriate temperature is -4 degrees instead of +4. I've learned that with the bowl of water, my food will defrost anyway :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.368766 | 2015-01-25T19:02:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53979",
"authors": [
"Clayton Lemon",
"Jessica Cummings",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lance Tifenbach",
"Rae Gibson",
"Tim Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"logophobe",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54028 | Flank Steak Sous Vide - Blood Spots?
I got a SV wand for X-Mas, so have been doing alot of that this month.
I did a flank steak today, which I cut into 3 parts, 3 bags, and did at 52 Deg C for 4 hours. I then Ice Bath'd all three pieces, and 2 went in the freezer, and one went in the fridge.
For dinner, I pulled the fridge version, and warmed up at 48 Deg C for 30 minutes while preparing Lomo Saltado fixins.
When I was slicing the steak, against the muscle grain, I ran into 2 or 3 small blood spots (bright red pockets in the meat - maybe 1" across and spread across 1" worth of slices. I took them out, but was wondering if anyone knows what they are, and what that means? I've cooked many steaks in my 30+ yeas on this earth, and had never seen that.
Second, follow on question: if I want the other 2 steaks more well done, can I pull from the freezer 90 minutes before another meal, and SV at 54 Deg C, or does "twice cooking" them introduce new problems?
Thanks in advance for your feedback!!!
I would think the red pockets are liquefied fat and/or water with red dye in them (and some myoglobin, which is what makes red meat red, but often dye is the bigger reason).
If it's steak from a supermarket, it's probably thoroughly dyed, so maybe some of the dye (or a lot of it!) stuck with the fat. Blood wouldn't be bright red, it would be oxidized and a nice brown/gray (if it were even in the steak - almost no blood remains in a steak, it's not why they're red). If you're used to grilling or similar methods, those would allow the fat (and water) to drip off, while SV won't: you're packing it in a bag and keeping the water and fat inside (that being the point of sous-vide cooking, after all).
Thanks @Joe M. This makes sense to me. I usually get my steak from a butcher in the area (San Francisco: Guerra Quality Meats), but there was a sale at Andronico's, so I got the flank steak there. Would the existence of this red spot indicate a quality issue with the meat - or just part of what you get with SV that you don't get with Grilling? Any way to avoid for the future? THANKS!
I'm not a SV expert, so I'm not sure - but I think it's not significant.
Flank steak consists of the abdominal muscles, primarily the rectus abdominis muscle. The superior epigastric artery and vein* pass through the muscle. Sometimes, during processing, small clots will form inside the blood vessels which will manifest as blood spots when the muscle is cut perpendicular to grain.
*The drawing linked is of a human, but in this case bovine anatomy is similar.
Thank Didgeridrew! What's weird is that I have never seen that before when grilling a Flank Steak. I guess the SV prep left the juice in while grilling lets it out!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.368888 | 2015-01-27T03:17:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54028",
"authors": [
"Angie Hopper-Young",
"Gastroenterologists of Midtown",
"Joe M",
"Lions Team Roofers",
"Mary_D Jones",
"Patrick Cooke",
"Shamir",
"becky bahr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33078"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66144 | Does adding sugar to tomato type sauces affect acidity?
Many(most?) tomato based pasta sauces have added sugar, it is generally a very small amount. I have always heard this was done to reduce the acidity.
My main question: Does this little bit of sugar increase the pH enough to be noticeable?
Or, is this just to cut the sourness and balance the flavor
(have we come to expect a slight sweetness in our pasta sauces)?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5/67
Relate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/24733/8305
Weak organic acids such as those found in fruits and vegetables (citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid) don't react with sugars. 1 There is no change in acidity, which you correctly defined as measured by the pH.
At the same time, sweet and sour are two tastes which are real antagonists - adding something sweet actually reducess the sourness we perceive, as opposed to just distracting us from it. So the sugar changes the sourness (the taste), but not the acidity (the chemical property). Hearing it otherwise comes from the fact that most people don't even realize that there is a difference between the two terms, and use them interchangeably.
1 They can partake in reactions as catalysts, for example to create invert sugar when cooking up sugar syrup, but the acid itself does not react away.
I think the blurring between the terms unfortunately is pretty thorough by now. When someone says "it tastes pretty acidic", they're clearly talking about taste not chemistry, and from there it's not a big leap to "it's pretty acidic". So you're kind of stuck trying to infer from context which they mean.
@Jefromi indeed. In cases where the distinction matters, it's impossible to rely on common knowledge. Luckily, it's not really an issue in most cooking contexts.
Flavor wise, it gets even more complex: Adding sugar AND vinegar can make a tomato sauce that tasted unpleasantly sour taste great, even though you just made it even more acidic.
@rackandboneman "tastes good" or "does not taste good" is indeed much, much more complex than some kind of measurement of sourness, acidity, or whatever.
(2nd comment, unrelated) see sweet and sour sauces - they can be so sour they will eat the seasoning off your wok if you braise something in them, and yet won't taste inedibly sour....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.369126 | 2016-02-02T19:40:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66144",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Isabel Lopes",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Laura Stephens",
"Melissa Morgan",
"Sean Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75756 | How can I keep streusel topping from getting soggy?
I make this Sweet potato casserole for Thanksgiving, it has a streusel like topping. Usually I can bake this at the destination, but this year I need to bake at home and take. I have a baking dish that has a heat resistant plastic cover and an insulated carrier. I know that the topping will get soggy if it is tightly covered after baking. How can this be avoided?
How long are you traveling, and how long will it be between when you take it out of the oven and when you serve it?
Actual car time about 15 minutes. Not sure how long it will be till it hits the table, maybe around an hour.
Are you planning to keep the casserole warm, reheat it or just serve at whatever temperature it has at dinner time?
Assuming that you want to serve the casserole hot and the streusel crispy, keep the casserole and the streusel separate until almost serving time.
This means you will have to bake the streusel on a cookie sheet until crisp and ready, then let them cool uncovered and transport them in a separate container.
Your casserole base contains eggs, so it must be baked. You want to avoid a "skin" or "crust", so cover with foil at least part of the time or even the whole 30 minutes. (Depends a bit on how wet the mash is.)
Depending on the logistics at the destination, either keep your casserole warm in your carrier or pop it in the microwave for a bit to gently(!) reheat it.
The right time to put the streusel on top of the base is a short while before serving - long enough that the hot mash can warm them up and that they can get a tiny bit soft at the bottom (more authentic!) while staying crisp on top. A few minutes should suffice, but a quarter of an hour would still be fine. But keep the casserole uncovered.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.369458 | 2016-11-22T18:07:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75756",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
102957 | What is the best way to store cake?
It is commonly accepted that bread goes stale faster in the refrigerator, does this also apply to other wheat flour baked items, such as cakes and quick breads?
If a cake is expected to last for 3-5 days is it best to keep it covered on a counter or refrigerate it? Will it get stale in the refrigerator?
Possible duplicate of How to store a double iced cake
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18492/how-long-can-a-stacked-carrot-cake-be-stored
What kind of cake are we talking about?
@Stephie Everyday chocolate,yellow, spice etc made with flour,eggs,fat & liquid, not cheesecake. Looking for a general answer regarding items going stale in the refrigerator, that applies to most cakes,muffins and quick breads.
Yes, cakes will go stale faster in the refrigerator, as will most baked goods with a high starch content.
Staling (as discussed over at Serious Eats) has to do with starch recrystallizing. As Harold McGee explains (pp. 541-542 of On Food and Cooking):
Staling is now understood to be a manifestation of starch retrogradation, the recrystallization, water migration out of the granules, and hardening that take place when cooked starch is then cooled.... The initial firming of the freshly baked bread loaf, which improves its ability to be sliced, is caused by the retrogradation of the simple straight-chain amylose molecules, and is essentially complete within a day of baking.
The majority of starch molecules, the branched amylopectins within the granule, also retrograde. But thanks to their irregular structure, they form crystalline regions and expel water much more slowly, over the course of several days. This is the process responsible for the undesirable firming in texture after the bread has become sliceable.
Basically, when you mix starch and liquid together in a dough or batter and then heat it, its crystalline structure breaks up and it absorbs water, giving bread and cakes their "moisture." After the starch cools, it gradually goes back to its original form, thereby expelling moisture and hardening, producing the quality commonly called "staleness."
All of this is just as true for the starches in cakes as they are for breads. McGee goes on to confirm that staling recrystallization proceeds most rapidly at temperatures just above freezing. He also notes that certain emulsifiers will retard staling (such as egg yolks and true buttermilk). I would add that in cakes, the higher sugar content and the fact that sugar is hydrophilic can help cakes retain moisture longer. Hence, some significantly enriched breads and richer baked goods like cakes tend to stale more slowly than lean breads.
Nevertheless, the chemistry of staling in cakes is still basically the same, and it will happen faster at cooler temperatures as long as they are still above freezing.
Thus, if your primary goal is to prevent staling, storing cakes and quick breads at room temperature is best for a few days. For longer storage, wrap tightly and store in the freezer rather than the fridge. (Staling happens very slowly below freezing.) As moisture loss outside the cake will accelerate moisture migration out of the starches (and thus staling), covering unfrosted cakes and cut surfaces is essential.
Of course, staling is not the only concern in shelf-life of cakes. Some frostings may not do well sitting for days at room temperature or particularly in hot weather. Some may even become unsafe. Cakes or quick breads with a high moisture content due to added fruits, vegetables, etc. may also begin to grow bacteria or mold when left at room temperature for several days. In those cases, you have to balance the benefits of refrigeration in preventing spoilage with the minor detriments of staling. (Obviously if it's a food safety issue to leave a cake out at room temperature, it's best to refrigerate or freeze it for storage.)
What to do if your cake has begun to stale (either due to refrigeration or merely sitting at room temperature for several days)? The starch crystallization process is mostly reversible, so heating the cake above around 140F will begin to restore the cake to its previous state (as it will with bread). Obviously not all types of cakes (especially frosted ones) may allow such reheating, but it can help with quick breads and simple unfrosted cakes. However, reheated cake should be consumed immediately, as the interior of a stale cake has already been somewhat depleted of moisture, and a cooled stale cake will become progressively worse (hard and dry).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.369628 | 2019-10-18T16:15:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102957",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86957 | Dried tomatoes vs. dried tomatoes in oil
I have a soup recipe that calls for 24 oz. dried tomatoes in oil, drained and patted dry. I would like to use dried tomatoes (not in oil), but don’t have a clue how much to use.
Is there a conversion by weight? Should I substitute by volume?
One solution is to rehydrate your dried tomatoes with water and add them by volume. If it would be me I'd rather just measure by volume from the beginning, since they have almost the same size in oil or not.
I would probably substitute roughly by volume. 24 ounces in oil looks to be 2-3 cups, based on my memory of jars I've bought and a quick Google image search to confirm.
But I wouldn't do that with them fully dried - I'd rehydrate them in water or stock (the ones in oil tend to be less thoroughly dried out), and then cram them into your measuring cup (because they're certainly crammed into the jars with oil) and aim for 2-3 cups.
I might also add a tablespoon or two of olive oil to the soup to compensate for what's inevitably in the tomatoes even if patted dry.
I tried to find a good conversion by weight based on nutrition facts (usually works!) but unfortunately sun-dried tomatoes in oil are sold by weight including the oil, but the USDA nutrition facts are for drained tomatoes. For what it's worth, based on a label from a specific brand (found a photo here), the ones in oil are 6/19 carbohydrates by weight (and does seem to be including the oil - it says they're also 5/19 fat), while the USDA says dried without oil are 55.76/100. The carbohydrates are all from the tomatoes, not the oil or any additional water, so that should indicate how much tomato there is.
So: 24 ounces * (6/19) / (55.76/100) = 13.6 ounces. But I'm not terribly confident about that estimate, because it's based on so little evidence, and there's a lot of room for variation here. It's at least in the right ballpark, though - I have about 6 oz of dried tomatoes that look to be about 1.5 cups, depending on how packed they are.
Since your recipe calls for 24 ounces, I would expect that to be by weight, not volume. You could therefore simply use 24 ounces of the plain dried tomatoes.
The one caveat to that is if the recipe meant "24 ounces of tomatoes and the oil they were stored in, without the oil" instead of "24 ounces of tomatoes that have been removed from the oil in which they were stored." If the recipe intends the latter, then you can simply do the above no problem.
If however it meant the former, then you have a couple of options. You can either estimate the amount of oil that would be in the jar (for a 24 ounce jar I would estimate ~4-8 ounces, depending on how tightly packed the tomatoes were) and subtract that from the amount of tomatoes you use, or simply use the full amount and have slightly more tomatoes than called for.
If it were me I would just use the full 24 ounces-- soups are very forgiving.
My 3 ounce bags of dried tomatoes have a volume of about 1 cup. It would take 8 bags/cups to equal 24 ounces, that would be way too much. I’m trying to figure the amount of tomatoes in a 24 ounce jar of dried tomatoes in oil.
Try to rehydrate before cooking and then use the same amount as in the recipe.
You can adjust the other ingredients afterwards.
(I do assume you will unlikely rehydrate 10 x the amount required).
This is because oil and water densities are not too dissimilar. Moreover the tomatoes called for by the recipe could have been rehydrated, which is a possibility when preparing tomatoes in oil vase.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.369995 | 2018-01-08T03:27:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86957",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58028 | What device to use to chop/dice tomatoes?
I make chunky salsa in 2 quart batches. I have terrible knife skills, it takes me way too long to dice the amount of tomatoes needed for a batch. I am looking for a piece of equipment that will chop or dice the tomatoes into appox. 1/4 inch pieces in a quick and efficient manner.
I cut the things in thick slices and put them through a french fry cutter.
That gives me nice tomato cubes without much hassle.
Incidentally, the cutter works great on peppers, bell etc, too; nice square bits, little effort; plus of course you can make french fries or cottage fries.
Working as a cook myself... unless you really like chunky I would go with a blender. Issue with a blender about half the tomatoes will be a purree before you get rid of all the big chunks and if you start cutting up the tomatoes it wont take all that much longer just to dice em..
Blender quick but half will be a purree ?
Dicing all of it will be nice even dice but takes longer.
Which is more important nice and chunky or speed?
Tried this it was "okay" It was faster than dicing by hand, but to get a decent consistency I can only do 1 or 2 tomatoes at a time. I'm thinking a food processor might be my best bet.
I have something similar to this. The size of the pieces it chops into just depends on how long you run it - the longer you run it, the smaller the pieces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.370260 | 2015-06-05T19:07:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58028",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Guy Camp",
"Jonathan Roberts",
"Mike Duerr",
"Sonya Roberts",
"claudiu claudiu",
"cry me a river",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67572 | Which plastic wrap is okay for oven use?
On television I have seen cooks use plastic wrap, then foil over a pan of food that is going to be baked. I can see how this would stop the chemical reaction between certain foods and the aluminum and possibly form a tighter seal on the pan.
How do I know which plastic wrap is okay to use in the oven i.e. won't melt all over my bakeware and/or food?
Do I look for a certain plastic formulation?
Will the packaging tell me a certain wrap is okay at typical oven baking temperatures (300°F-425°F)?
The plastic actually does not reach 300°F in the oven.
According to a forum post at Cheftalk, the dish beneath the plastic releases steam, which cools the saran wrap to 212° F, which is still below the melting point.
However, you should not just use saran wrap. Saran wrap easily shreds, and there are special foils for heating food which are usually refered to as reynolon. These are stronger and more resistant against releasing chemicals into the food. Check the forum thread above for more information.
What about the part that's touching the pan and not the steam?
@Cascabel Good question. I've seen it mentioned in the forum post, but I assume that if you use an oven-appropriate container, it should be relatively easy to remove it.
Touching liquid water will guarantee that it doesn't reach boiling point. Steam can get hotter than liquid water. There are plastic films designed for oven use.
DO NOT PUT NAME BRAND GLAD CLINGWRAP IN THE OVEN!!!
Clingwrap melts below 200 degrees. Save yourself the frustration, and learn from my mistake. Be careful with information that you receive from the internet.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.370414 | 2016-03-19T19:23:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67572",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Chris Walker",
"Crystal Tankersley",
"Nzall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"sesquized"
],
"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
} |
129498 | Do candy making temperatures change at high altitude?
Do temperatures, when making candy (soft ball, soft crack, hard crack, for example) need to be adjusted for high altitude? If so, is there a rule or chart that applies?
This brings up a related question in my mind, but I don’t want to ask it (yet) in case it’s fully answered by your question: is candy cooking temperature an indirect method of measuring remaining water content? Or is there an entirely separate chemical or physical process going on?
@fyrepenguin Below caramelization temperature, it’s the former.
Excellent question. The boiling is affected by pressure, but I suspect that the caramelization won't be. Whether you can reach the necessary temp for caramelization at very high altitude, I don't know. Highaltitudebaker sort of confirms the effect.
According to Colorado State University Extension, you should subtract 2°F for every 1000ft above sea level from the target temperature, when making candy.
From their foodsmartcolorado.colostate.edu
This adjustment allows the candy maker to control the degree of
evaporation necessary to achieve the proper sugar concentration for
the desired end product.
At sea level, the boiling point of liquids is 212°F, but for every 500
feet above sea level, the boiling point decreases by 1°F due to less
resistance on surface molecules. For example, at 5,000 feet water
boils at 202°F, which is 10 degrees less than at sea level. The lower
the boiling point, the quicker evaporation occurs, so at higher
elevations, this faster loss of water can result in a sugar mixture
either becoming too hard or grainy if the recipe is not adjusted for
the elevation.
Long story short - yes. However, it will be only to an extent and it is dependent on the exact point at which you are making the candy. As far as I know there isn't any sort of chart, though it should be fairly easy to make one with some experimentation if you have a sugar thermometer.
The boiling of liquids at lower temperatures at lower air pressures (as you get at altitude) are related to the pressure of the gasses against the liquid surface (This is a simplistic view, but it works), basically this means that the gas above holds the water in so that it can less easily evaporate. At boiling point, the energy in the liquid allows the water molecules to have high enough energy to push back and freely escape the system. There's a more complex explanation over at the Physics SE
When you make candy you initially boil a sugar solution to drive off the water and get the sugars to fragment, react with each-other, and drive off natural water contained in the sugar molecule itself in the process called caramelization. You don't evaporate the sugar itself much at all, so that bit is independent of pressure (I think).
To quote the linked Bakerpedia:
First stage – thermal decomposition and fragmentation to yield glucose and fructose. These sugars can individually lose water and react with each other.
Second stage – isomerization of fragmented sugars (aldoses to ketoses) and further elimination of water to form the sugars’ anhydro forms.
Third stage – additional fragmentation, polymerization and subsequent formation of volatile flavor compounds such as furan, maltol, ethyl acetate, diacetyl, etc. as well as brown colored compounds such as caramelan, caramelen and caramelin.
The water content and temperatures below for each of the physical stages (i.e. soft ball, hard crack etc.) at normal cooking conditions are taken from this page from The Flavour Blender:
Stage
Temp range (C/F)
Sugar content (%)
Thread
106-112 / 223-235
80
Soft ball
112-115 / 235-240
85
Firm ball
115-121 / 240-250
87
Hard ball
121-130 / 250-267
92
Soft crack
132-143 / 270-290
95
Hard crack
146-154 / 295-310
99
As you can see, there is still quite a lot of water in the last two stages. Because the temperature at which water boils off will be constrained by the altitude, it will be harder to reach the first stage and then progress to the next stages as the physical temperature of the mix will be lower.
However, I suspect (without actually trying it) that once you reach the desired water concentration, the temperature of the mix should rise to meet the suitable point. This will take longer than it would at sea-level. The last 2-3 stages might well be independent of the water content and take the same sort of time as you would expect, as these stages are more about reactions of the sugar molecules than driving off water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.370590 | 2024-11-05T00:26:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129498",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
} |
59589 | Is Pickwick green tea deceffeinated?
I am referring to this brand: http://www.amazon.com/Pickwick-Green-Tea-Original-Packages/dp/B003YBNJH8
The box doesn't say anything. I drank several and while I felt weird, my pulse was normal. I can't find any info on this tea and their website is in non-english languages only. Anyone got an idea?
Green tea contains caffeine naturally. Here is a reference for general amounts in beverages Mayoclinic Nutrition. As Memj said, Decaf products are generally labeled as such.
From the Pickwick.nl using Google translate:
Have you ever heard of theine? That's just another name for caffeine
in black, green and white tea. But how much caffeine now actually
contains a cup of tea? A cup of black tea contains approximately 30 mg
of caffeine. At an average cup of coffee is 85 mg. Rather a time no
caffeine? Choose one or Rooibos herbal blend.
It's not specific for their green tea, but does say to choose herbal blends if you don't want caffeine.
Caffeine content in tea depends on the cultivar, method of cultivation, and age of the leaves (shade-grown buds and young leaves having the most), but not the general type (black/green) of the tea.
Black tea is withered/oxidized before being dried, whereas green tea is usually roasted (for Chinese tea) or steamed (Japanese). This processing does not significantly change the caffeine content. Any difference between black and green tea produced from the same leaves is due to differences in brewing - green tea is usually steeped for a shorter time than black.
Shade-grown tea is very expensive (usually grown for matcha or gyokuro), and cheaper tea is made from the older leaves, which have the lowest amount of caffeine. It's therefore probable that this tea is naturally low in caffeine.
Do you have a source backing up your claim that older leaves have less caffeine?
http://chadao.blogspot.com/2008/02/caffeine-and-tea-myth-and-reality.html - specifically, section II ("Caffeine levels in various teas").
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.370952 | 2015-08-04T16:27:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59589",
"authors": [
"Alan jones",
"András Salamon",
"DeLayna Beck",
"Jill Read",
"Marilyn Richards",
"Melissa Hollifield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59611 | Fruit flavour profile
Does anyone know of where can I find the flavour profile of most known fruits?Something like blueberry is a sweet-tart fruit as well as raspberry,etc.
From this .pdf on fona.com about flavor profiles:
Everyone working to create a new flavor needs to have a common understanding of the desired flavor profile and the flavors they taste during its creation. This can be difficult since everyone’s perception, expectations and experiences are different. That’s why using words called flavor descriptors is so important to the flavor development process.
Follow the link to the .pdf for a list of flavor descriptors for many fruits and related items.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.371129 | 2015-08-05T09:20:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59611",
"authors": [
"Darren Wileman",
"ThatBoi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142472",
"jenny stone",
"ralphie boy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75912 | Why use an acid when doing a scallops dish?
I'm trying to understand more about balancing a dish and I was wondering, why would you add some acidity to a seared scallops dish?
Shellfish is usually somewhat sweet in flavour. Acidity is the natural balance to sweetness.
Per this image https://pt.pinterest.com/pin/384424518172237883/ , shouldn't we also be able to balance the sweetness with spice and bitter?Why choose only acidity?
You can use other things per your liking. Citrus and certain vinegars are used a lot simply because they pair well with shellfish (and fish).
F....! pinterest and their mandatory signin, pls provide alternative source for image :)
Here it is : http://1m8t7f33dnra3sfk6v2rjurs.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FlavorProfile_BlogSections_Draft3-01.png
Cindy, do you know if there is a book or list that tells you what pairs well with what?
@CarlaRaquel Yes, there is. It's called The Flavour Thesaurus. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flavour-Thesaurus-Niki-Segnit/dp/0747599777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480423939&sr=8-1&keywords=flavour+thesaurus
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.371224 | 2016-11-27T13:43:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75912",
"authors": [
"Carla Raquel",
"Cindy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59618 | Anyone know of any completely flavorless syrups?
I'm looking for a syrup that has absolutely no flavor... not even the sweetness you find. Just as bland as you can get it (think water). I need this syrup to absorb other flavors as I'm trying to make something savory but the natural sweetness in corn syrup or vegetable glycerin is destroying it. Anyone know of any?
Thanks
What exactly are you trying to make? Just a thick sauce?
I wouldn't call it a syrup, but have you considered using either arrowroot powder or cornstarch to make a thick sauce? Arrowroot is the more neutral but often pricier choice.
I don't know if it'd help, but glucose is less sweet than fructose for the same amount of sugar molecules.
try e469, carboxymethyl cellulose - there is some sweetness, but you can use much less to archive same thickness than with glycerin. Experiment with gelatin or agar - maybe you'll succeed to get the right texture using weak solutions.
You've tagged the question [tag:baking]. Does this mean that you need something which is heat-stable up to e.g. 200C?
Definitely think you need to explain what you're doing to make this make sense. Do you need the sugar to help yeast rise for example? Is this affecting the texture of the product (intentionally)? Are you replacing syrup in a recipe?
Are you trying to make... gravy?
A syrup is by definition a thick sweet liquid made using sugar. If you are looking to make a thick savory liquid, perhaps you want to look into thickening agents. Starches and plant-based gums are the most common thickening agents. Some examples include:
Starches: arrowroot, cornstarch, potato starch, tapioca
Plant-base gums: guar gum, xanthum gum, alginin
Each of these will have its own unique qualities so you might want to research further into which meets your need best.
The two thickener that will most likely result in a clear, "smooth" thickness that is slightly similar to a syrup would be likely gelatin or pectin. However both of these will be much thicker at cooler temperatures. So depending on your application you will need to alter the concentration. Meaning, if your savory liquid is suppose to be consumed at room temperature or cooler, make sure not to added too much of gelatin or pectin. Try to test the thickness of your savory solution by taking a small sample aside and chilling it to room temperature.
There's no "almost" about that "by definition". Syrup is a sweet, thick liquid made of sugar and water. A non-sweet syrup is like dry water: a contradiction in terms.
@Marti: Unless you use Aqua Dehydrata. Or water powder / instant water, as I like to call it. Patent still pending. It's amazing: One teaspoon powder, add water, and poof: Instant water.
"Unique qualities" includes the exact texture and how it'll vary with temperature so further research is definitely a good idea. I'm not sure I can think of anything that would get as thick as corn syrup without starting to gel up, but hopefully there's something close enough for the OP.
@WillemvanRumpt Patent all you want. I've developed a technique to achieve the same thing without even needing the powder! I can't reveal the details right now but I'm looking for commercial backers who can see the potential in this idea.
@WillemvanRumpt : it's already been patented : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water
@Joe What a scam; it took me two seconds to find prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice
@acbabis : ice isn't of much use in farming. Dry water is : http://modernfarmer.com/2013/07/powdered-water-just-add-water/
@joe: Pffff. Inferior stuff. It still contains 95% liquid water. Not exactly what I call dehydrated water. My freeze-drying method removes virtually all the water from the water, leaving a clean, odorless, powder.
@WillemvanRumpt : it can contain 95% water. It binds water to keep it dry, but it can still come out through some processes.
@Joe: I trust you, but mine doesn't have any water in the water any more. Just clean, dehydrated, waterless water powder, which just needs a drop of water to turn the water powder in to water. And you do realize I'm just mucking about, right?
Oh, and before I forget, +1 for the answer :)
Achieving a syrup-like consistency necessitates something like a sugar. If you boil sugar and water together (simple syrup), you get that consistency. If you boiled it without the sugar, you'd end up with an empty pot after the water had boiled off, but would never see a change in the consistency beyond the water evaporating into steam.
It's unclear what you mean when you say you're trying to use this "syrup" to absorb other flavors. Certainly you can use a milder, "unflavored" syrup such as simple or agave in a savory preparation, as long as you tone down the inherent sweetness with fat, salt, or acid, but the use of a syrup is largely textural, and it doesn't seem to me that a "syrup" is really what you're looking for. A syrup is, in itself, a flavor component in addition to all its other qualities that I and others have mentioned.
Perhaps chia seeds will work for you?
When you add water or other liquid, the seeds are transformed into a gelatinous mass. The gelatin will take on the taste of whatever you add to it.
A typical ratio is 9:1 (such as 3 cups of water to 1/3 cup chia seeds. To change the consistency, add more or less water (or whatever liquid you want to use).
Methyl cellulose (food grade wallpaper paste) is as flavourless and syrupy as you can get. It is used in many barcode products like salad dressing, and savoury sauces
$100 for a 5Kg bag, 20g makes a litre
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.371355 | 2015-08-05T14:02:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59618",
"authors": [
"Asha V",
"Ben Huckstep",
"Bonita Davis",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Hopwood",
"David Richerby",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Marian Smith",
"Marti",
"Megan Rowe-Jones",
"NadjaCS",
"Peter Taylor",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tracy Pixler-Anderson",
"Vicky Nolan",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"aebabis",
"espring",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"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
} |
54123 | frozen chips always take longer
Often I cook frozen oven chips and frozen fish (in batter) in the oven at the same time. The cooking instructions for the chips usually say 20 minutes (or less); the fish usually more than this. They require the same temperature, usually 220C
Why is it that (if I follow the instructions) the chips are always undercooked and the fish is always overcooked? It's the same with any manufacturer's product; the coking times always seem to be wrong. I have tried using different positions in the oven but always the same result.
Have you measured the temperature in your oven?
I assume this is something you put on your own pan? Are you spreading out the chips? If they're piled up they'll cook more slowly.
Over the years, I've come to assume that the frozen oven chip manufacturers routinely lie about how fast their product cooks, and routinely add 10 minutes to whatever value they claim. That generally works out about right for me.
I would imagine that density plays a part in this. In my oven one half is much hotter than the other, so I take advantage of this side and always cook the chips on the right and the fish or whatever else it may be, on the left.
@Batman, yes the temperatue is roughly correct - anyway if it was wrong then presumably both would be either undercooked or overcooked, not one of each. Wayfaring Stranger, I'm glad someone's found the same as me! Jefromi, yes, always spread out in one layer. Thanks, all, for suggestions.
My personal experience with frozen oven fries is like Wayfaring Stranger's, it takes longer to cook them than what the manufacturer suggests. I think though this comes down to personal preference. If I do follow the instructions then I get fries that strictly speaking can considered cooked, they're hot throughout, but they can be fairly soggy and not anywhere near as crisp and brown as I like. So I generally bake them as long as they can stand, to the point where a few the tips are black and maybe one or two smaller ones have gone completely black and inedible. This takes the fries to the other extreme, arguably I've overcooked them and they're dried out, but that's the way I've come to like them.
In addition to simply cooking your fries until you think they're done, regardless of what the manufacturer says, you should make sure that you're baking them the correctly. The answers to the question How to bake Frozen French Fries have some good advice. In particular, it's important that the fries be spread out evenly in a single layer on a pan. Try not to crowd the pan too much, that will make them take longer to cook. Also flipping them half way through will help them cook more evenly and faster.
I don't have much experience with cooking frozen fish, so I don't know why they would end up being over cooked when you follow the manufacturer's instructions. You might try cooking them separately. You can bake fries in a toaster oven if you don't need to cook that many, and you can probably do frozen fish in one as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.371903 | 2015-01-28T23:25:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54123",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Caroline Barber",
"Cascabel",
"Esther Kershaw",
"Karen Lesure",
"Megon Vos",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"connersz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"quilkin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55172 | Bitter Cucumbers
I was watching a cooking show and the chef made the comment that if you use a large basic cucumber (not hot house, persian, kirbys, english, etc.) before you peel it, cut off about half an inch of the ends and rub them on the opposite sides, then throw the cut off ends away and peel as usual. I normally buy persian, hot house, english or other types but I purchased some of these larger cucumbers. I did what the chef said and they were great. I did this a few times, and I take my time picking out long, slender, firm, green fresh cucumbers. I started buying these when I thought the price was right but then I thought taste them first to see if they were good to start off with. They were. I pickled about 4 gallons of persian cucumbers last week and tasted the ones I thought might be bad, they were and tried the trick. Did not work. All cucumbers were USA products and grown in California. My friend brought me some big cucumbers last night and we tried the trick. Well, she eats anything but it did not work. Has anyone heard of this trick or knows why it works sometimes? Maybe the age, the girth of the cucumber, not straight or even in size, any ideas?
Just a link to the trick : http://lifehacker.com/remove-a-cucumber-s-bitterness-by-chopping-and-rubbing-1632826153
You peel the cucumber before eating it?
Thanks to the link and yes I have to peel. My Mom is elderly and her digestive tract is bad. I peel everything and process and cut teeney tiny most hard foods for her.
I think you are supposed to do it until white milky stuff comes out, but I never had a bitter cucumber, and I have even grown them too big and old and yellowing before picking, like the size of a big fat baseball bat. I just peel and scoop the seeds out of the cucumber just like it was any other melon and the flesh tastes just fine.
You have made my day...but really... as big as a fat baseball bat? It tasted good? What on earth did you do to it? My Dad use to grow veges and once in a great while we would get zuchinni that looked like watermelons. They were awful no matter what we tried to do to them.
I didn't do anything except harvest it late. They keep growing until you pick them or they start to rot. When they get older the skins yellows and toughens and the seeds get firmer like melon seeds are supposed to. You see, a cucumber is normally harvested before its ripe, that's when it's good to eat. If you let it ripen, you can't use it the same way anymore because it's become a ripened melon at that point and you have to treat it as a melon
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.372188 | 2015-02-26T18:38:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55172",
"authors": [
"Christine Roeder",
"Cristy Clark",
"Donna Hansen",
"Escoce",
"Huangism",
"Shannon Boelter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"rfusca",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57741 | Why does tilapia and swai fish taste like catfish?
I have been cooking fish for over 40 years. Catfish is a fish I can not stand. My family buys and loves tilapia and swai and no matter how I cook, grill, bake, fry, season, marinate, flour it, breadcrumb it, and use panko and even try to make fish fingers, it still tastes like catfish. I bought farm raised and wild USA and outside. Lemon, soy, different vinegars and spices from all over the world and marinated overnite and even fried like fish and chips with a beer batter. The only thing I did not do is put bar-b-que sauce on it and ketchup. My family and friends love it whatever I do to it but it still tastes like catfish to me. I love fish but this is really terrible and no matter how it is brought to me, I recognize these two fishes by raw filet sight and it never has a fishy smell. Are these two fishes in the catfish family?
I agree completely: tilapia is not delicious.
Interesting. Tilapia and catfish have very different flavors to me. Catfish tastes--strong in a way that's hard to describe, and can definitely be off-putting to some. Tilapia is mild and doesn't have any real character. So I'm surprised that they taste the same to you. Interesting... One possibility is just don't eat tilapia?
Swai and catfish are biologically related, but Tilapia is a Cyclid and as such quite far removed. I think the biological relation is not all that critical to their similar taste which you dislike though.
The taste of fish relies on a few factors such as:
Their living environment (Fresh, brackish, salt water)
The type of soil on the water bottom (silt, sand)
The diet of the species (other fish, water based plankton or bottom dwellers)
Catfish is a bottom feeding freshwater species and likely to have a relatively similar taste to other species that share their living environment and diet. As such I'm willing to bet you also don't like the taste of Carp very much.
Perhaps the solution lies in finding a fish that has a similar texture to Catfish but is a sea dwelling fish eater. That way you might get the appreciation from your eaters while being able to enjoy your own dishes more.
A lot of tilapia and catfish are farm-raised (as are carp) ... which mean that #3 are more likely to be similar. If tank grown, possibly #1 as well (although salinity and temperature are different between species).
Is lobster a bottom feeder because I adore lobster? No catfish taste there.
A lobster is not a fish :)
What is lobster then, and also crab and shrimp? We and I enjoy those all the time, frozen true, but I thought they were all fish? Happy Face but now Really Confused Mr. Richard ten Brink
They are crustacaens. A very different type of animal and as such I can't confidently say that the environment + diet = flavor equation works the same way for them.
@RichardtenBrink thank you for the info on Carp. My uncle goes fishing all the time and brings fish for me to cook since I am the only one left in the family who will cook the fish other than his sons. I will tell him not to bring Carp.
My dad really hates catfish, especially after seeing them cannibalize off each other and eat feces while living in the septic tank when he was a kid.
But he loves tilapia.
I think that coming from other peoples' reviews about catfish, and how tilapia tastes, your problem might be the tilapia's mild flavor.
Tilapia is less watery than catfish. I personally eaten tilapia before and seen how it's prepared.
First of all you need to prepare it correctly. Defrost it in warm water if it's frozen, for a couple of hours. It might be better to purchase fish whole, because you have to make sure to clean out the underbelly thoroughly, without bursting any of the guts. Every time, use a lot of vinegar, just to make sure that it's clean.
Sprinkling some salt on the tilapia would make the fish have a nice, juicy texture. This would be nice when you pan-fry it, as you get a nice crispy skin with a juicy, meaty texture for a fish.
If there's some off-taste after you tried all of that, then you got bad fish.
"cannibalize off each other and eat feces". It's no coincidence that catfish (AKA basa, panga, and swai) and shellfish are considered unclean by some religions.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.372695 | 2015-05-24T08:22:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57741",
"authors": [
"Joanne Ward",
"Joe",
"Ray Butterworth",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Sally Rondo",
"Sharon Kostenbauder",
"bob",
"corretta haire",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"user33210"
],
"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
} |
54327 | How to make a stable culinary Parmesan foam
I have Knox powdered gelatin, soy lecithin, and a 0.25 liter ISI whipper. I just need to make one cup of this special liquid to pour into the whipper but I do not know the ratios of cheese, water/milk, lecithin, and gelatin. I heard you also use egg whites but the more I research about this the more I'm confusing myself -.-
Im serving this in small amounts as a garnish for a lobster bisque fyi. I do not want the foam to melt into a puddle on top of the warm/hot bisque within 5ish minutes,
Someone help me out pls
First of all you are better off with Xanthan Gum instead of gelatin. Xanthan gum is relatively heat stable whereas gelatin is renowned for its inability to withstand any heat above 35 °C.
200g parmesan grated (including rind).
400ml full fat milk.
1 tbsp
soy lecithin.
Bring to simmer 5 min, then blend and pass through fine sieve. Taste for seasoning now, bare in mind you want it to be over powering at this stage.
Allow to cool and then blend in:
another tbsp soy lecithin
one tsp Xanthan gum.
If warming for serving do not boil or even simmer as this will make the foam weak.
Personally I blend and scoop the foam off the top. However I see no reason why this couldn't work in a siphon.
Regarding egg white and Hy-foamer (the molecular cuisine equivalent to egg white, where soy lecithin is the substitute for egg yolk). These are used/useful in fat free foams such as raspberry coulis. They don't work well in fat based ones like the Parmesan foam you are attempting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373053 | 2015-02-03T01:16:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54327",
"authors": [
"Amy TorigoeDenny",
"JOPHES THE FOX",
"Linsay Bradbury",
"Monica McAloon",
"Thomas Bos",
"grahamlambournevirginmediacomg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54416 | Cheese Extract - How to Use it?
I've recently bought cheese extract (or essence - the seller didn't know the difference and the bottle says 'cheese flavour' and smells like a room full of cheddar).
I've never used it before but was sure there was something online for how to use it - but I can't find a thing. I just find recipes using cheese.
I imagine it's probably used to enhance the cheese flavour of dishes that can't afford to use much cheese but are their recipes that just use it as a flavour enhancer? My sister recently became dairy free (these diet fads are the bane of every family cook)and I thought it would be nice for her to have some flavours she likes.
Please help!
Best regards,
Amber
Never heard of it, but might be worth trying it in something simple and cheap to make like a cheese sauce. Just to see how it tastes.
Yeah you're probably right. I need to practice with some pie crusts this weekend so I could put some in one of the experiments and see how it goes.
Cheese is often in a recipe for texture as well as flavor: it is stretchy and creamy, as well as "cheesy." One exception would be sauces, or baked into a casserole, in which the cheese is all melted in and is almost entirely there for flavor. I'd suggest attempting a cheddar cheese roux sauce, using soy milk instead of dairy milk and adding a small amount of the cheese extract.
You will need to experiment to get the proportions right, so hopefully your sister likes mac-n-cheese :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373215 | 2015-02-05T08:25:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54416",
"authors": [
"Dianne Voisin",
"Doug",
"John Isdell",
"Michael Sellar",
"Sally McDonald",
"amber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55679 | Slowing motor and electric smoke coming from Magic Bullet blender?
I have a Magic Bullet blender at home and I have been using it for the past month or so everyday to make some smoothies. I always blend fruit (both frozen and fresh). I'm not sure if the contents that are blended are related, but I've noticed the blending seems to have slowed down lately. The motor runs noticeably slower and the machine doesn't vibrate as much as it used to.
Has anyone had this experience? In addition, the blender has some smelly gas coming from the bottom, where there is a vent for the motor. Does this mean the unit is already wearing out? I only started using this a month ago, and I'd be surprised that it's already breaking.
Does anyone know what the gas signifies, even in other similar kitchen appliances?
Sounds like it's dead or dying.
It's basically dead. The insulative enamel surrounding the wires in the motor has become overheated. That is where the smoke is coming from. If you continue to use the unit the enamel will degrade completely resulting in an electrical short. It is actually a bit of a fire hazard, so I would suggest discontinuing use of the unit.
It is possible that the unit is defective. Given its age I'm sure its covered under warranty. Early failure of electric motors can also be from excessive load. It may be that your unit is not intended to process something so substantial as ice. Another thing to note is that if the unit is jammed and cannot spin, you should release the power immediately. This is the fastest way to burn out any electrical motor. That goes for a cordless drill and the like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373362 | 2015-03-14T00:43:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55679",
"authors": [
"Amber Gise",
"Amy Puliafico",
"Catija",
"Holly Anderson Dollyhollister",
"Paul Dunstan",
"Wayne Dyble",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"michael hintz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55718 | active dry yeast and rapid rise yeast
My recipe calls for 1 packet active dry yeast. All I have is rapid rise instant yeast. How much instant yeast do I use in substitution?
If you're making the dough by hand, you can substitute 1:1, expect the bread to rise a bit faster using rapid rise or instant. If you're using a bread machine, use 25% less (slightly over 1 3/4 tsp to substitute rapid rise or instant for one packet of active dry).
From King Arthur Flour:
One time when you might not want to use instant and active dry yeasts interchangeably is when you're baking bread in a bread machine. Since bread machines use a higher temperature to raise dough, substituting instant for active dry yeast 1:1 may cause bread to over-rise, then collapse. When baking in the bread machine, and substituting instant yeast for active dry, reduce the amount of instant yeast by 25%.
Good point about making bread in a bread machine, even though I'd never do that, because all the joy lies in kneading the dough by hand!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373541 | 2015-03-15T16:21:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55718",
"authors": [
"Faye Empson",
"Frieda Fong",
"Gigili",
"Magda van Rhyn",
"Rutuja Dhadas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"sanabel eltawil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55875 | What can i use as a corn syrup substitute in icing?
I am making an icing for eclairs and normally use icing sugar, melted chocolate, and corn syrup and refrigerate it overnight. I don't want to buy corn syrup for a couple of Tablespoons. What can I use instead ?
Making your own sugar syrup should work.
Corn syrup can be replaced by a sugar syrup. Combine one cup of pure cane sugar with 1/4 cup of water and heat over a low flame. Cool and use directly in a recipe. If preferred, cover the pan for three minutes to help remove sugar crystals, then add 1/4 teaspoon of lemon juice or cream of tartar to the pan and stir frequently until it reaches the soft ball stage (a drop of the syrup will form a ball when immersed in cold water). Cool and store in a sealed container at room temperature. It should keep for up to two months.
Alternatively, add granulated or brown sugar to a recipe that calls for corn syrup, cup for cup, then increase the amount of liquids used in the recipe by 1/4 of the amount of sugar added.
For your use, you'll probably want the liquid version.
I make a version of the eclair icing that doesn't involve corn syrup at all. I use cocoa powder,chocolate chips/coins (semi sweet),butter,water,icing sugar,and heavy cream. This version of a ganache topping results in a very stable topping for many desserts. It can be reheated with none too much fuss.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373652 | 2015-03-20T02:33:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55875",
"authors": [
"Don Reininger",
"Richard Denney",
"Sandra Scarr",
"Valerie Jackson",
"carlos devillasante",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134081"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55904 | Tea infused with caffeine
I am trying to increase the level of caffeine in everyday tea to 150mg. I am using powder caffeine with L-theane. The powdered caffeine is obviously very bitter how do I mask the taste without adding fruity style flavours
Scott
Welcome to [cooking.se]! What kind of tea are you using? For example, is it a delicate green tea or a robust pu-erh? See also this similar question and this question on [coffee.se] about reducing perception of bitterness using salt and other questions on this site about salt and bitterness. But if pure caffeine is what you're after, why not just take a caffeine pill and enjoy your tea without the added bitterness?
The average caffeine content of black tea is around 50mg/8oz. Green tea is much lower in caffiene, around 30mg. My guess is that you're trying to replace the caffeine kick of coffee, which is more in the 150mg/8oz range you specify.
Further, you can increase the caffeine content of black tea simply by brewing it longer. Assam tea is particularly high in caffeine.
So my first suggestion is that you just drink three mugs of very strong brewed black tea, rather than adding powdered caffeine.
If that doesn't satisfy you, the time-tested way to reduce bitterness in tea -- as any Englishperson could tell you -- is to add milk or cream. I see no reason why that wouldn't help cover for the bitterness of powdered caffeine just as well.
You cannot "mask" bitterness, once a flavor is added to food or drink, it stays there. Sometimes people prefer to mix in other flavors which more or less distract them from the bitter taste. You'll know yourself best which flavor works for you, it is dependent on the person. Many of the common examples (like honey) don't work for everybody.
The second thing you can do is to dilute it. Use whatever you want - cream, more water, something with its own (distracting) flavor. Just add enough that the taste becomes pleasant to you.
Of course you can mask bitterness ... with salt, but this likely won't end well with tea, though I know some people do exactly that to their coffee (which will create very surprised, probably WTF? reactions in people served that coffee if they do not expect it - the taste is markedly different...)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.373796 | 2015-03-21T09:07:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55904",
"authors": [
"Aaron Requilman",
"Ashley Olivetti",
"Karina D",
"Megan Berner",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"shaik karimulla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55940 | Turkish delight sauce or syrup
I want to make a turkish delight syrup for topping purposes! So i can pour it over my ice cream! Any idea on how to make this?
Turkish delight is simply syrup cooked with starch and flavoring until it has the texture we know. If you want the same taste but in a liquid form, take any standard recipe and leave out as much starch as you want, possibly even all of it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.374091 | 2015-03-22T12:24:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55940",
"authors": [
"Emz Anscomb",
"Fiona McLean",
"Jerry Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132991",
"yolanda w"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55997 | Can I use diluted lemon juice in place of rice wine vinegar
I'm making some Korean chicken and am out of rice wine vinegar. Would a diluted lemon juice work
The recipe only calls for a tablespoon of vinegar so it doesn't form a large part of the dish.
Do you have any other kind of vinegar in the house?
Lemon is a bad substitute for any kind of vinegar because the acid component of those two ingredients is chemically different. In vinegar this acetic acid, in lemon juice this is citric acid. The taste of both acids is markedly different.
When you only need a bit of rice vinegar, you can dilute normal alcohol vinegar 50/50 with water to get a similar concentration of acetic acid. You'll miss some of the flavor of the rice, but unlike lemon, alcohol vinegar and rice vinegar have acetic acid as the acid component.
Edit: Rice vinegar tends to be 4% acetic acid while normal alcohol vinegar is about 8%. That's why you need to dilute it.
You are going to get similar results but not the same flavor. I don't think you need to dilute the lemon juice although I would research the pH level of both, because this is the reason the recipe probably calls for the vinegar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.374170 | 2015-03-23T19:59:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55997",
"authors": [
"Arun das",
"Ashley Batty",
"Catija",
"Eva Marie Taylor",
"Fern Graf",
"Simon Denyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56030 | Idiomatic combinations of peanut butter, jelly, and bread
Is there a reason why, at least in the US, that:
1) on dry bread, we typically eat peanut butter AND jelly, not one or the other;
2) but on toast, we typically eat either peanut butter OR jelly, not both?
Must be your family or region. The straight up PB or J sandwich is not uncommon at my house. Practically speaking, PB&J on toast is much messier than PB or J on toast, with the jelly sliding off the warmed peanut butter in the open-face format. Seems like a somewhat low-quality/verging on off-topic question.
Um... where did that come from? I grew up eating plain PB sandwiches with no jelly... untoasted.
@Catija, how did you deal with mouth weld? Whenever I've had PB on untoasted bread it's taken extreme measured to get my mouth open again.
@GdD Using a more robust bread (e.g. whole wheat instead of white, or simply thicker slices) tends to make an untoasted peanut butter sandwich easier to eat.
Not sure what makes this a “low-quality” question. The history of peanut butter in the US is entangled with its development as a profitable commercial crop. Likewise, it would not surprise me to hear that PB&J sandwiches were invented or at least promoted by a business that had PB or J interests (which accounts for many other dietary habits in the US). Hence the question.
PB AND J on a warm slice of toast will be a melty-mess.
The answer is mostly just "it's tradition", as with most questions like this.
I do think the pattern you've described isn't quite the actual one. What really happens is that we tend to eat peanut butter and jelly on sandwiches, and put one or the other on single slices of bread, because with a sandwich you can spread one thing on each half and put them together, but with a single slice of bread it's messy. Sandwiches might be on toasted bread, though - untoasted is common and easier but plenty of people like toasted bread for sandwiches. Similarly, there are certainly lazy people out there who'll just spread something on a slice of untoasted bread.
Beyond that, it's just what we do.
Within my household, growing up, I often had just peanut butter in a sandwich. Just jelly generally didn't happen for a simple reason, that without the peanut-butter first placed on the bread, the jelly would soak through. The same logic was present for peanut butter and honey sandwiches, or jelly and cream-cheese, and this was why I generally never had a tuna sandwich packed in my lunch unless there was lettuce protecting the bread.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.374298 | 2015-03-25T01:33:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56030",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Matt Price",
"Matthew Butterick",
"Nathan Brown",
"Nikia Fourroux",
"Steph Larkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34453",
"john3103"
],
"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
} |
56069 | Cake help urgent!
I am baking 1kg chocolate cake and it is already in oven from 50 mins. I'm baking it at 180 degrees temperature. The cake has risen well. But the mixture is not set yet. (I did the toothpick test) I can feel it moving. I have shifted the cake to the first rack a minute before,earlier it was in the middle rack. Please suggest what's wrong?
I would need to see the recipe, but if is rising you may just need to wait, ovens and recipe times don't always match-up.
Here it is.
Ingredients
All purpose flour 200 gm
Coco Powder 50 gm
Condensed milk 1 tin
Soda Water 1 cup
Baking powder 2 tsb
Soda Bicarbonate 1 tsb
Vanilla Essence 1 tsb
Sugar 2 tasb
Butter 4 tasb
I mixed butter, sugar, condensed milk and vanilla essence and mixed it well.
I sifted flour, coco powder, soda bicarb and baking powder for 3 times.
I added the dry mixture to the wet one alternating it with soda water and mixed well.
Looks good, I would just wait, keep an eye on it check every 5-7 mins until it gets close. One question, if you press lightly on the top with your finger does it bounce back?
Yes it does bounce back and nothing got stuck on my finger when I touched it. The top looks baked .But it looks like the mixture below is still not set. It's moving..
And the question for today is: What happened? How did it come out? Was it pudding, or cake, or what?
@Ecnerwal it was perfect. It was the best cake I ever baked,nice,spongy,moist. I think oven is old so it wasn't able to maintain 180.
Nothing is wrong.
Continue baking until the toothpick comes out clean. The toothpick test is more definitive than time and temperature (and temperatures are not always what they claim, but don't drastically alter yours without feedback from a RELIABLE oven thermometer..)
As I mentioned in a comment on another post, I once had a bad recipe (from a fancy book, even) that I followed with great care, making chocolate soup twice in a row by following the recipe EXACTLY. A wiser than I at the time relative pointed out that there must be a problem with the recipe, and I should just bake until it was done (per toothpick) and it made cake.
A number of factors other than "oven thermostat inaccurate" can lead to times being off - shiny .vs. dark pans, temperature of the batter at the start of cooking, altitude...
Ok. I think there must be a problem with the oven. Its pretty old.:(
But yeah reading your comment I'm relieved. Thank you so much. I just hope it comes out perfect.
altitude! could you elaborate? altitude changes the water boiling point, but afaik baking does not produce boiling and should not be affected by that.
@PA. I'm just going to have to send you on a link, as this is way more than I can put into a comment, and I'm not that much of a whiz at it anyway: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipe/high-altitude-baking.html
It is possible that the cake will bake to completion if you wait longer. As Ecnerwal said, it doesn't matter what the book says about time. A cake is done when it is done, and you have to test it for that. "Bake for X minutes" is rarely a good thing to do, it just gives you an initial idea of how long it may take.
But there is also a high probability that this recipe will not produce a cake. It has no eggs at all, it has very little gluten, and it has a very high amount of liquid. I don't know how much "1 tin" of condensed milk is, this varies internationally, but I guess it's anywhere from 150 to 400 ml, making your ratio of flour to liquid anything from 0.7 to 0.4. It also has almost no sugar. The little gluten from the flour is probably not enough to bind it.
It is therefore much more likely that baking will produce something pudding-like, which will stay spoon-soft forever. If you have a roast thermometer, stick it into the cake itself and measure, if it gets above 95 Celsius but doesn't set visibly within 10 minutes, then there is not much point in baking it longer. The good news is that, even if it stays soft, it will likely be edible. As long as you like the taste, you can serve it from bowls, maybe combined with fruit or topped with whipped cream.
Condensed (as opposed to evaporated) milk has LOTS of sugar, actually.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.374551 | 2015-03-25T20:59:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56069",
"authors": [
"Anthony Marchant",
"Chef_Code",
"Chris",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gloria Rachelle",
"Mubeena Shaikh",
"PA.",
"Teresa Tillery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4369",
"sofiasonu",
"user12083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56297 | How to make double cream 48% for tart filling (not for whipping)?
In my country it is impossible to get double cream (48% fat). The highest fat content I can get is 35% whipping cream. I have some recipes which require double cream and I don't want to substitute it with 35%.
I want to know if there is a way I can make 48% cream myself.
Could I add butter to the 35% cream to make a liquid double cream? - which wouldn't whip but that is ok
I heard that you can make butter from cream if you whip it long enough. Could I whip the cream a little bit and then let it set back in the fridge. Would that change the fat content?
Could also somebody please explain to me how double cream is made on industrial level.
Thanks
Possible duplicate. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/40028/67 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34341/67
This isn't an exact duplicate (since Matej is not interested in whipping), but I think that some of the solutions mentioned in the linked questions would work better for him than for anyone who wanted to try to whip the extra-fat cream!
Double cream is made by letting the milk separate into fat and water phases (cream and milk), then mixing the cream and milk in specific proportions. This is homogenized, forcing the cream into tiny bits so that they don't separate again.
So you can't easily extract the milk to increase the fat content. I have seen home homogenizers, which would let you add pure butterfat. Whipping it could work as an alternative, but the agitation risks having the opposite result, turning the cream into butter.
If something like Agar Agar, or a small amount of Carageen is melted into the warmed butter (powdered form, while whisking/lightly whipping after coming off the heat, or bloomed into the warmed heavy cream, it would add the extra thickening that you are talking about without actually changing the flavor, altering the "double cream" (if being used as a filling for say, a tart), set up lovely and invalidates your argument.
I got my Masters in Pastry with a specialty in Alternative Baked goods. Molecular Gastronomy is a significant part of that. I would absolutely use powdered product to start, such as the two I mentioned...commonly available in Whole Foods (in the United States), some shops that specialize in Vegan products (as both are Vegan), though the amounts required aren't an exact science (as it depends on moisture in the air where you are, the fact of are you using European Butter (higher fat content and less water) than American Butter, if the butter is salted or not, how hot the melted butter is when you add the gelatin of choice, altitude and the speed at which you do the process.
For the amount of double cream mentioned above, I would approximate roughly 1/4 teaspoon of Agar Agar, OR 1/3 teaspoon of Carageen. It will make the process a little more labor intense, however, the results may very well surprise you.
Just my two cents...Do with it as you will. I hope you enjoy, and if it works, please, do a follow up post.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Lori. Welcome to Seasoned Advice :)
Thank you. Always glad to share the knowledge I have in the hopes that it helps someone.
Wouldn't I have to warm agar to ~80°C, then cool it below ~40°C, for it to work properly?
Double cream is made
By heating and swiftly cooling cream with a specific recipe (temp and time).
Making it at home is unreliable this way.
To make heavier cream at home you do just like you said. Mix unsalted butter and 35% cream. In the USA butter has a minimum of 80% milk fat. So you do your math.
3/4 cup of heavy cream (35%) + 1/4 cup of butter (80%) = ?
I am going to round off here if you don't mind.
35% of 3/4 cup is roughly 1/4 cup of pure milkfat. (Or 5/20ths)
80% of 1/4 cup is 4/5ths of that quarter cup or 4/20ths cup.
(4+5)/20 = 45% just a hair shy of 48%. Add another tbsp off butter to get just about your 48% (a total of 5tbsp of butter per 3/4 cup of heavy cream)
Melt the butter gently on medium heat, pour melted butter into your mixer, begun mixing on low and drizzle your heavy cream into that. Don't mix too long or you'll start to whip and or turn it back into butter.
It's going to come out real thick at any rate and you want to get it in the fridge and cover it quickly. Use within 24 hrs so the fat doesn't precipitate out of the milk.
Thanks for the down vote, but it would be nice to learn why, and perhaps give a comment as to how my answer can be improved. I ask this because it IS indeed the way to make cream heavier at home.
I didn't downvote, but this method will not yield a result that will work for many applications(some sauces and whipping come immediately to mind.) The fat in cream is physically and chemically different which is why it is emulsified naturally. You'd need to find a way to re-emulsify the fat into the milk which your method will not do. Any product using this method will have to be served warm and with enough starch to make the difference between whipping cream and double cream not important anyway.
The questioner specifically said he doesn't need to whip it which is why this answer is what he needs. You could whip it anyway with pressurized air, that emulsified it as its whipped (that's not really whipped though as we know)
The point is that this method is not a good one for the application. If you'd actually read my response you'd have learned that for a tart filling, the tart would either have to be served too hot to eat or the filling fortified with enough starch to compromise the flavor and make the difference in using just plain whipping cream pointless. That's why no cookbook of repute lists this method in its pages.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.374902 | 2015-04-02T15:58:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56297",
"authors": [
"Cremation Service Boerum Hill",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Ileana Ile",
"Joe",
"Joshua Engel",
"Lori Faith Bouer",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"malcolm dawkins",
"rackandboneman",
"vicky thomas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92395 | Medium-rare sous vide steak - achieving coloring without slicing?
I have a nice piece of prime beef (for the sake of example, let's say NY strip or filet; I observe this with both cuts). I cook it sous vide at 130 degrees for 45 minutes. I immediately pat it dry and sear in a very hot cast iron at 1m/side.
If I immediately plate it, and cut into it, it is grey throughout. The texture and juiciness is undoubtedly medium-rare, but the color is uniformly grey.
If I slice the steak post-sear and let it rest for a few mins, it turns red (I've read that to achieve the rosy medium rare color, the myoglobin in the steak needs to contact oxygen). Slicing pre-plate isn't a problem with ribeye or strip, but when I'm making a filet, I'd prefer to plate it unsliced.
My question is, is it possible to achieve the red color without slicing the steak? i.e., is there a technique so that when I make the first cut into the steak, it's already rosy red? If I rest it either following the water bath, or following the sear, will that do the trick?
In your question, you appear to contractict yourself. Many in the US consider 125F (52C) to be medium rare, not 130F (54.5C).
Then you sear it in the stove top which will increase the internal
temperature.
What color do you want? Red = rare. Bright pink = Medium rare. Dull pink to gray = medium
I am totally unfamiliar with slicing into cooked beef causes it to turn ed
Please clarify?
I suppose that is a contradiction if you want to be pedantic, but it is also irrelevant to the question - the 5 degree difference and being pedantic about red versus pink don't change the fact that if I cook the meat at this temperature, slice it, it eventually turns red/pink. If I immediately cut it, it is grey throughout (non-red/pink). My question is whether it's possible to achieve a non-grey color at this temperature, without slicing pre-plating. What does the difference between red and pink have to do with the question at hand?
Are you doing Sous Vide -> dry -> sear -> rest -> cut? or sear -> cut -> rest? Are you actually cutting it and watching it literally "turn red before your eyes? Regardless of what temp you cook it to, the myoglobin should not "turn" the meat red. Unless you're talking about the colour of the juices that run out and you're letting more of it escape,?
My observation for cooking steak sous-vide and avoiding this issue is as follows:
If I cook it in a complete vacuum, it really stays gray for a longer time. Cooking in a zip-loc bag helps me shorten the time the steak turns red.
Normally you’re not supposed to rest the steak after sous-vide cooking. However, resting can also help (without cutting into it) the steak turning red from gray.
There's a phenomenon called blooming that occurs with sous vide cooking. Basically the interior red/pink meat needs to be exposed to oxygen in order to take OB that rosy hue. So to answer your question, no you have top slice it. If you're eating a steak whole you can cut into it and watch it change color over time.
"...to take on that rosy hue" is almost guaranteed to be what was meant. This seems like a simple mistype on a mobile device to me, as very little else would fit, contextually.
Try using a zip-locked bag and letting it rest for 30 minutes before searing.
The same thing happened to me. I was trying to impress some relatives from out of town with my steak. I cooked 2" thick prime Kansas City strips in the sous vide in vacuum-sealed Bags at 129-degrees for 2 hours. I then seared it on a 1,000-degree charcoal grill, one minute per side. When I cut into it, by the color it looked well done; it was totally gray--no red or pink.
The next day I sliced up some cold leftovers, and by then it was dark pink. One of my relatives saw it and said that Is how I like my steak cooked.
So, the rest before searing might be the key.
This answer has received a flag for not actually answering the question. Very specifically answering the question as asked is required here in a way unique to Stack Exchange. I think I can edit what you've got to allow the answer to stay, but it still won't be a great answer. A great answer would be after "next time", and you telling us how that solved the problem. If you're interested in upvotes, you might want to delete this answer (you can always undelete and edit) until then.
I edited the answer to better fit our format. It is absolutely your right to undo or change anything I've done. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.375341 | 2018-09-21T17:26:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92395",
"authors": [
"Brian Mansfield",
"Cynetta",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56379 | What can I use to replace onions on sauces?
Is it possible to replace onions with another vegetable on sauces and get a similar flavour?
Why? Are you trying to avoid allergies? (If so, this is probably a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/44800/1672 or http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2596/1672.) Or does someone not like onions so you're trying to sneak around?
Hello and welcome to the site! You could really improve your question if you give us more information to work with: What are you trying to achieve (you obviously won't get the same results) and why? A scenario sometimes helps...
Garlic! But really, more info is needed as to why not just use onions. If it's an allergy, then any allium is probably not going to work.
I'd say shallots would be your best bet. While they are both part of the allium family, shallots tend to have a sweeter taste that's less sharp than your average onion. Spring onions, leeks and chives might work as well but do keep in mind that they're hardly perfect substitutes as they're more peppery than they are sharp and pungent.
However, if you don't want to use onions due to an allergy, I can only recall having read about an ingredient known as "asafoetida" but that's the extent of my knowledge. You might want to check that out.
maybe this is not very "cheffy" but then i am not a cheffy cook anyway...
In sauces i've used Chive, Celery (long) and Leek with moderate success. Chive i like especially but i use differently from onions, in red sauces especially i keep about half of it back and add it to the sauce with 3-5 min to go so it doesnt only work as a substitute but also add abit of another dimention to the dish.
In casseroles and baked dishes the same celery and Leek work really very well.
For celery and Leek you need to find the right "cut" to acheive the desired effect and possibly think of an other ingredient such as ginger or nutmeg to balance out the exra sweetnees you are bringing to the dish.
Leek is really great for people who think onion is "too strong".
I have used leek in recipes calling for onion on multiple occasions to get rid of some leek.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.375711 | 2015-04-05T06:01:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56379",
"authors": [
"Alicia Vanbergen",
"Anne Love",
"Cascabel",
"DONNA SMITH",
"Eamon Hynes",
"Ecnerwal",
"Elizabeth Harkins",
"Madeline Ramos",
"Paul Richards",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
} |
56400 | How do I cook frozen Goya Empanadas in the microwave?
How do I cook frozen Goya Pizza Empanadas in the microwave?
Does the package have instructions?
This from their website:
Directions
Keep frozen. Cooking: In a skillet or deep fryer at 325 degrees F,
preheat enough oil to cover the empanadas. Fry for four minutes or
until golden, turning occasionally. Drain on paper towel. For Best
Results: Fry from frozen state. We do not recommend cooking product in
microwave oven.
This suggests to me that there is no good way to cook these in the microwave.
Having said that, there is probably nothing dangerous about cooking them in the microwave, although I generally keep a close eye on anything I've never microwaved before just in case. You may need to experiment cooking from frozen vs. cooking from thawed but there are four of them in a box so knock yourself out.
If getting the surface to brown is a problem you could try using a microwave crisper. Microwave crispers come in a couple of forms: a reusable bag (a bit like a popcorn bag) marketed under the name "Brown and Crisp" and what looks like a non-stick steel pan. If these aren't readily available I don't imagine they will make such a difference to your end result that it will be worth ordering them specially.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.375919 | 2015-04-05T20:37:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56400",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Funeral Service Ditmars Park",
"Gretell Alarcon",
"Jaxson Channell",
"Kimberly McLaughlin",
"Leslie Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63085 | Remove Cilantro Stems?
Is it necessary to first remove the stems from fresh cilantro when chopping it for a recipe? If so, how much of the stem should be removed?
The stems are edible and flavorful, with a crunch that may or may not be desirable in your dish, but the lower portion of them tends to be a little stringy. I always trim off the bottom, but as for the rest of the stem, it depends on what I am making.
For raw dishes where it is chopped quite finely (koshimbir, pico de gallo) or even ground to a paste (chutney), or if there are other crunchy textured ingredients, I will chop and include the stem (the middle to upper part, where there are also leaves branching off, or as much of it seems tender).
If I am cooking it (as a seasoning in a soup or dal) or if it will be wilted and steamed as it is tossed with a hot dish, then it is also fine to include it (chopped).
For other things (raw, where a crunch will be out of place), I only use the very tender parts of the stem with the leaves. Or if the leaves will be more visible as a garnish or accent, I might strip the leaves from the stems more carefully and not use any (or much) stem.
This is generally how I treat most herbs that don't have a woody stem, at least, if the stem has a nice flavor like the leaves.
For most herbs, if the stems are tender, it is fine to just chop and add. Of course it depends on the application. For example, as a garnish, sometimes stems with leaves work, sometimes not. Then, there is also the SE Asian tradition of using stems and roots of cilantro in marinades and rubs (no leaves). My own metric, for almost any herb, is if the stem is so dense that it will be noticed as "stem", I don't use it. Otherwise, it gets chopped and added.
SE Asian - stems and roots are what recipes are referring too, roots very important. Many western growers trims the roots, and this not very helpful!. Leaves are mostly for garnishing
I pick the prettiest leaves off the stem to use (chopped as necessary) as garnish. Without getting nuts about removing all of the stem (or I do get nuts about it, depending on the dish), I chop up more leaves to use in the dish. What I'm left with is a few leaves and lots of stems. I chop off the root end of the stem (where the stem becomes paler), and then I throw the bright green stems and remaining leaves into the food processor and whir with a little bit of oil and vinegar. That's a no-waste cilantro dressing that I can use if the dish needs more cilantro flavor, or save in the fridge for weeks for a bit of cilantro when I want it later.
It is not necessary to remove the leaves from the stem, it's a matter of aesthetics. The stems are a bit woodier, big pieces can negatively affect the texture of the dish. However, the stems are full of flavor. What is wasteful of effort or cilantro (and many other herbs) is a bit subjective. I find the method above a pretty good balance of conservation of the ingredient and effort, and overall fussiness.
And while being frugal: No need to throw away the pale roots, they're used quite a lot in Thai cuisine (grounded down to pulp in pestle & mortar). They freeze well, so just save them up for when you're in the mood for a curry :)
@WillemvanRumpt nice :)
When cooking I would always chop the stems to include them as seasoning while frying/cooking and leave the leafs for using them either freshly in the end over the dish or mix them into the dish right (a minute or so) before you serve it. This way you will still get flavor out of the stems (in a different way), and also they soften up and look great.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.376064 | 2015-11-02T22:46:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63085",
"authors": [
"David Cybulski",
"Derek Broad",
"Gabriella Latham",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kalash Kaur",
"Karen Millar",
"Mat Lamb",
"Mike Fanning",
"Paul Rooks",
"TFD",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"niall milne"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56796 | Baked tortilla chips: how to make them quicker and more consistent?
I like to make corn tortilla chips by cutting up store-bought tortillas and baking them at 350 for ~20-25 minutes without oil or salt. However, I've found that the last few minutes are highly variable - they go from perfect golden to burnt brown very quick. I've had to toss quite a few sheets because giving an extra minute or two resulted in burnt chips.
I also try to flip and rearrange the chips about halfway through because another large source of variability is the chip's placement within the oven - usually chips near the front crisp up much quicker.
These issues are further compounded if I'm baking two sheets of chips at the same time, which is often the case.
I've thought of a couple things, but haven't tried yet:
Bake at a lower temp for longer.
Dehydrate the tortillas somehow before baking.
I'd rather avoid the first option, and I haven't thought of a means of doing the second.
Does anyone have suggestions for baking tortilla chips in a more consistent manner?
When I'm trying to brown stuff in the oven, I'll often switch to broil w/ the oven cracked so I can actively watch the color change and pull it at the right time. It's often a thin line between golden brown and blackened husk, so working with the oven open is pretty important. (and not getting distracted and turning your back for 30+ seconds)
Hmm the problem is that it takes ~20 minutes of baking to get to the stage where the golden => burnt transition takes place. Since this ~20 minutes is variable, I always end up obsessively checking every few minutes for 20-25 minutes. It's annoying :/
The broiler is faster ... you crank the heat way up, and place the food right near the heat source. The disadvantage is that it only cooks from one side, so you might need to pull it a little early, turn everything over, then put it back in again.
Do you also rotate the tray in the oven? We make tortilla chips in the oven also, but it's usually while we are preparing or cooking something else so we are always looking in on the chips and we spray oil on them before they are put into the oven. We haven't really had a problem with the cips burning as long as we rotated the pan halfway and tossed the chips a few times during the baking time.
I broiled on low and just watched them. Didn't take more than a few minutes per side and they browned relatively evenly. Actually they looked store bought and they tasted delicious completely unseasoned
In case you would like to try the method we use (minus the oil and salt)
Adjust oven rack to middle position; heat oven to 425 degrees.
Spread tortilla strips on rimmed baking sheet; drizzle with oil and
toss until evenly coated.
Bake until strips are deep golden brown and crisped, about 14
minutes (tossing the strips halfway through).
Season strips lightly with salt; transfer to plate lined with paper
towels.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.376498 | 2015-04-19T17:46:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56796",
"authors": [
"Ali Cook",
"Chester",
"Clint Stone",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Joe",
"Jordan Jackson",
"Margaret Avant",
"Shravan Kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35000",
"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
} |
56881 | creaming butter vs adding to flour in cakes
Most cake recipes call for creaming the butter and sugar first, then adding liquids and flour alternately . Recently I have seen several recipes instructing to add cool butter in small chunks to the flour/sugar mixture beating after each butter chunk, then adding the milk and eggs. what does this produce? Thanks
flaky dough usually done for biscuits or crusts, dose not sound like a method used for cakes.
Can you post one of these recipes?
Not exactly a duplicate, but related to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55584/how-does-the-order-of-mixing-ingredients-affect-the-resulting-cake
@Chef_Code Mixing the butter directly into the flour is sometimes used for cakes: http://www.joepastry.com/category/pastry-components/cake-layers/white-cake-layers/
As Jason Sandeman already said in his answer, adding the butter to mixed dry ingredients (including things other than sugar) is called the "two step" or "two stage" method. Many professional bakers recently have advocated using it to produce more a more tender crumb with a velvety consistency.
In terms of food science, the difference is primarily due to gluten production. In a typical creaming method recipe, the butter and sugar are combined to create bubbles, and those bubbles are stabilized by alternating additions of flour and liquid, which form gluten strands to support the bubbles. The cake rises high due to big bubbles and a support structure.
When the flour is combined with the fat first, the fat envelops many of the flour particles, inhibiting their ability to interact with liquid when added later. Thus, less gluten is formed. Bubble formation is also inhibited somewhat (and bubbles are smaller sized). That means an exceptionally tender cake with a fine crumb, but which won't rise quite as high or be as "light."
The reason it's called the "two stage" method is to differentiate it from a "single stage" mix (or a "quick mix"), where all ingredients are just thrown together, as in a boxed cake mix. (I believe the "two stage" method was originally developed in the 1940s or 50s, when boxed mixes were first becoming popular.) The problem with the "single stage" method is that it will fail with "high ratio" cakes, i.e., those having a significant amount of sugar compared to flour. In that case, a "single stage" mix won't allow the moisture to dissolve the sugar granules fully, resulting in a somewhat "crunchy" or "mealy" sugary texture (like a sugar cookie).
If you don't want your financiers to taste like a sugar cookie, you need to dissolve the sugar thoroughly. And if you value tenderness over lightness, try adding the flour along with the sugar to the butter before the wet ingredients.
Have you heard of anyone trying a hybrid approach where some of the fat is creamed with the sugar and the rest of the fat is cut with the flour? I wonder if that would produce some middle ground of tenderness and larger bubbles.
@DolanAntenucci, I don't recall seeing a recipe like that. As I mentioned, the gluten production is important; mixing the flour with fat will inhibit gluten. Bigger bubbles are good, but if they don't have the gluten structure to support them when they expand in the oven, I'm not sure how effective they will be. If I had to speculate, this hybrid approach might produce something closer to the two-stage result. To achieve a middleground, I imagine you'd have to cream sugar with fat, cut part of the flour with fat, and add in the rest of flour afterward (for some gluten). But that's a guess.
Creaming the butter and sugar together incorporates air into the mixture. The air is trapped in the butter and sugar mix.
The other method is known as a Two step method... Cakes won't rise as high that way, but will have a smooth texture.
The two are slightly different, and will produce different results. The reason for using the two step method is when your sugar is equal or greater than the weight of the flour in the mix. This way you avoid the mixture splitting.
I just baked a cake using this method, actually... and I noticed that it does in fact have more sugar than flour in the recipe. (It's the Blitz Torte recipe from ATK, if anyone's curious). The cake layers are actually two-part each: a dense but very smooth cake with a meringue layer baked directly on top.
This sounds like a simplified version of, indeed, an ice water pie dough, where you do not beat but cut the butter into unleavened, optionally sweetened/salted, flour, eg by using a pastry cutter, stout wire whisk (used like a pestle - works a charm but takes some physical force, but hey you'll be eating rich pie later :) or bladed food processor (usually not very effective, will melt too much of the fat) and then join the resulting crumbs with very cold water (so they will not melt and dissolve).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.376775 | 2015-04-23T00:19:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56881",
"authors": [
"Angela Slayton",
"Athanasius",
"Catherine Roberts",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Gloria Perez",
"Jeremy Shelton",
"Robin Clark",
"Shaun Hicks",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"kathy flom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56937 | How to calculate optimal temperature to extract specific compounds from herbal teas?
When making any kind of tea, I understand that water temperature can make a big difference with flavor. I'm wondering if we can also use precise water temperatures to selectively brew for specific compounds in herbal teas.
Is it possible to calculate an optimal water temperature for extracting a chemical compound in a plant/herb based on other chemical information; like density, melting point, etc? If so, how?
No, calculating is practically impossible, there are too many variables. It's not about density and melting point, it's about tons more.
The way you'd go about it is like everything else in biology: empirically. You'll have to brew your herbs with different temperatures (and ratios of herb to water! These are very important) and use some method for measuring the resulting solute. Sadly, you'll likely need expensive lab equipment for that, although some specific compounds may have characteristic reactions which allow for easy analytical chemistry.
If your compound is very interesting, there is a chance research on it has already been made. You can search Pubmed and Google scholar for phrases like "Extraction of X from Y" where X is the compound and Y the plant. Try doing it with an account which has access to scientific journals' paywalls, for example by becoming a subscriber to your nearest university's library - many will allow this for citizens who are not immatriculated.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.377168 | 2015-04-25T19:23:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56937",
"authors": [
"ANN-MARIE Gayle",
"Chandrasekaran Chandru Sriniva",
"Gwyneth Evans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135482",
"mick evans"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124223 | Is ortolan, as food, distinct from other songbirds?
Whole roasted ortolan has been a French delicacy for centuries. For purposes of cooking and eating, does the ortolan have any characteristics that distinguish it from other songbirds of the same size? Or can other songbirds substitute for it in the dish?
I would have thought the gorging behaviour in the dark would make them quite distinct culinarily.
Not sure, but I hear you can get others for cheep.
Given that they are gorged on grain, I would expect them to be fatty and taste like the grain. How different this would be to another similar passerine bird, such as one of the seed eating finches prepared in a similar manner, I don't know.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.377318 | 2023-05-19T14:33:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124223",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"User65535",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.