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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
57085 | How do I prevent my tempura chicken from getting soggy with time?
Why does by bite-sized tempura chicken turn soggy after some time? They are really light and crispy when I initially deep fry them, but they gradually becomes soggy after 15 to 20 minutes.
My chicken pieces are cut bite-sized and marinated for about 30 minutes with fresh minced garlic, chilli flakes, salt and lemon juice in the refrigerator.
I am using icy-cold batter with 1:1 ratio of flour and cornstarch mixed with refrigerated club soda and ice cubes with minimal mixing.
Once I am ready to fry, I take out the marinated chicken pieces, prepare a small quantity of icy-cold batter, dip chicken pieces in batter and drop them in hot oil. They come out wonderfully light and crisp but eventually turn out soggy if served after 15 minutes. I have also noticed that last few pieces of the chicken I fry don’t even come out light and crispy as the first ones.
What am I doing wrong?
also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20297/best-way-to-hold-deep-fried-foods
Just as reassurance: it doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong in the preparation, you're just asking for something that's nearly impossible. The crispy batter will continue to absorb moisture and it'll eventually go soggy - the only way to avoid this is to eat it as fresh as possible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.377411 | 2015-04-30T10:06:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57085",
"authors": [
"Carson Kivari",
"Emily Hill",
"Robert Duncanson",
"The Cox's",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57129 | What everyday ingredient will emulsify rapeseed oil?
I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required?
Mustard powder is also an emulsifier, but probably with stronger (and less well-suited) flavor...
In the recipe you describe (all water and alcohol based) you'll be much better off with alcohol-based almond extract, which is often available. If you emulsify oil in whole eggs, you'll end up with something like mayonnaise. Egg whites might work; this might be fine if you're making something like a pisco sour, which contains egg whites. What's the target drink?
@hoc_age Egg whites would have less flavor, but most of the emulsifying power of eggs is in the yolks.
I've never actually seen an oil-based extract and I'd assumed (possibly incorrectly) that part of the definition of "extract" is that it's an alcohol-based solution... I have almond oil (and anise oil, peppermint oil, etc), which is extremely concentrated and you use only a drop or two instead of a tsp, but that's a different product, entirely.
I second that @Catija I too have never heard of the product, just the concentrate.
@Catija I have seen "alcohol free extracts" which are oil based (usually at health food stores). They're generally the flavor oil diluted in a neutral carrier oil. It's technically incorrect, but they do label stuff that way.
I think you will have much better luck if you just wait to get an appropriate almond extract. Aside from the difficulty of mixing an oil based flavoring, you'll run into texture issues if you do get it mixed. Generally an emulsion will be thicker than the component liquids. Further, the flavor probably won't be what you want. If you're creating a water or alcohol based solution, an alcohol based extract will flavor it better. Oil based extracts are generally better for things with a higher fat content for the flavor to disperse into, ie: even if you get the oil emulsified, you won't have an almond flavored liquid, you'll basically have almond flavored droplets suspended in another liquid.
If you really want to go ahead, I'd recommend lecithin and/or a hydrocolloid like guar gum. Both will result in the end product being more viscous though.
Went for an egg yolk in the end, there should be enough sugar and alcohol in the product to adequately preserve it for it's lifespan. Won't use an almond extract at all next time as it's too strong and has given the whole thing an unwanted amaretto flavour!
I have some suggestions for alternative emulsifiers, and a concern to express using eggs given the intended purpose of your syrup.
Alternative Emulsifiers
As to how "every-day" these are, it will depend on where you are in the UK. I can find these easily in the states at places like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, etc in the bulk spice/flour aisle. Lecithin by itself is a lovely emulsifier, and usually readily available in candy/cake decorating shops. Here are two more:
Gum Arabic
Bartenders have been making a "gomme syrup" as the simple syrup base for classic cocktails for many-many years. The gum arabic provides a really silky-velvety mouthfeel without being too viscous. It is a 1:3:6 parts gum:water:sugar ratio. Recipe Ex: 1 gram gum arabic, 3 grams water, 6 grams sugar(fun twist...try using invert sugar, honey, or malt extract for extra flavor depth). The sugar and water will be heated together until they have dissolved, followed by the addition of the gum, and vigorous stirring. Hydrating part of the gum in a bit of your water allotment overnight prior to making gomme syrup is very helpful. You can choose to add the ginger/lime/alcohol based flavorings at the end of this step, or while the emulsion is being created.
After making your gomme syrup, create your emulsion by adding the almond oil to the syrup slowly while you blend with an immersion blender (or some other high speed mixing device). If you have any other flavorings to incorporate, add them at this step.
Xanthan/Guar/Agar-Agar
These are all thermoreversible hydrocolloid gelling agents that when hydrated will help provide emulsifying power for you. Guar gum, particularly, does better if it has had 3+ hours to hydrate before you heat it...from personal experience. Amounts of these will vary, but there are some really great synergistic benefits you get from combining xanthan and guar gums(increased holding power, etc). Experimentation will give you the best final ratios.
Note on Eggs for Cocktail Syrup Use
I love eggs in cocktails. Most of the experience I've had with their addition is usually at the time of the drink preparation, specifically for its immediate service. Yahtzee.
However, making a cocktail syrup that you will be keeping around for a while with raw eggs gives me pause in this case. Unless you have a way to pasteurize the eggs or the final mixture, you may wind up harboring a rancid mess with quickness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.377549 | 2015-05-02T16:32:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"authors": [
"Arokiaraj Francis Anthony",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Debbie Bateman",
"Erica",
"Fritzel Mercado",
"Hilary Martin",
"Nigel Lovejoy",
"SourDoh",
"Toby Wilson",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86615 | How can I pipe multicolored flowers?
I've seen beautiful multi-color piping with buttercream frosting where the outer part of the flower is a different shade than the inner part. Here's an example:
How can this be achieved? Is there a way to make the colors change without using multiple piping bags?
There are a few different methods to achieve this. The end goal is to get layers of different colored frosting in rings in your piping bag. The method I ended up preferring uses a piece of cling film/plastic wrap along with your piping bag and tip. This method also makes it easy to have colors change as you progress.
Start by cutting off a square piece of cling film (about 12"x12" or 12"x15"). In the center of it, either pipe or spread a 1/2 inch thick layer of the color you want to appear on the outside in a rectangle about 4 inches wide and 9-10 inches long (be sure to leave an inch or two on either end of the rectangle. On top of that, make a narrower rectangle with your second color but going the full length of the first. Finally, put a very narrow rectangle or strip of the center color on top of that.
It should end up looking something like this:
At this point, carefully roll the three layers into a cylinder, making sure the ends of the largest rectangle meet completely. Twist the cylinder ends to close them and prepare your piping bag with the tip you want to use. Trim one end of the cling wrap and feed that end into the piping bag. Twist the end of the piping bag to close and you should be ready to start piping!
Part of why I like this method is that it's pretty simple to let your colors drift to change what the primary (outermost) color is by adjusting how you lay out the colors. So, if you want four colors and you want the outermost color to change from darkest to second darkest and the innermost color to also lighten from the third to fourth color, you could lay it out like this, instead:
In this case, the darkest blue stops where the second one is the full width of the frosting rectangle. I used the same shades of color in this example but you could use any collection of colors you want. As you pipe, it will muddy a bit but, all in all, it's pretty effective.
Different thicknesses of frosting layers and widths of bands will change which color predominates. A thin outermost layer with a thicker, wider middle layer will tend towards tips of the outer color with a predominance of the middle layer.
Interesting. I've only done side-by-side in a bag (you load one color onto one side of the bag, then the second color, and squish the air out to combine (example result), or stripes where you paint gel coloring in the bag, then fill it with a lighter color.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.377969 | 2017-12-22T04:33:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86615",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85853 | Can I use sugar as a pie weight when blind baking at 425F?
I found a recipe by Brave Tart (Stella Parks) for pie crust that's blind baked at 350F. I'm using it for one pie but I have a Cook's Illustrated Dutch Apple Pie recipe that uses a different recipe for the crust and bakes it at 425F. The recipe calls for using white sugar to weight the crust when blind baking, which is really awesome because I don't have any pie weights and I've been really concerned about using dirty pennies.
I'm worried that the sugar will melt at this temperature. Will I need to find different pie weights or can I bake the pie crust for longer at the lower temperature and have it come out nicely?
The problem with using sugar is that you'll waste some of it. If you don't have pie weights just use a handful of coins.
@GdD waste? How?
You're pouring sugar in, then back out again, there's always going to be some lost @Catija.
I think a quarter teaspoon isn't much to lose.
The recipe is login only @Catija, so I couldn't see the amounts. 1/4 teaspoon doesn't seem enough to hold down a crust, but if it does then that certainly isn't enough to worry about.
The recipe using sugar as a pie weight is the Stella Parks one, which is free to access. You fill the pie crust with sugar but baking it (at 350F) doesn't affect it. You can use it for something else... like more pies. :)
Unfortunately sugar decomposes at 367F/186C, so I don't think using it at 425F is a good plan.
That said, I think that lower-temperature blind baking will work on pretty much any pie crust recipe. I've used it on both the Stella Parks recipe you mentioned, and Kenji's easy pie dough and it worked fine.
The benefits of using sugar and of blind baking at a lower temperature are described in yet another article on Serious Eats. The lower temperature reduces the puffing and deforming, and the sugar is just easy and effective. None of it is associated with any specific pie crust recipe, so again, should be fine on the Cook's Illustrated recipe.
Of course, you can also always just pick your favorite plain crust recipe and use it on every pie you ever make that calls for a plain crust, even if it includes its own unique variation, and then you'll know exactly how to deal with blind baking it (with sugar).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.378206 | 2017-11-23T05:45:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85853",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
} |
86386 | How can I make curved gingerbread sheets for a gingerbread house?
I'd like to make a single cylindrical tower for my gingerbread house this year, about 8 inches in diameter and probably 6-8 inches tall.
This doesn't have to be made in one piece. I'm fine with building it out of 2-4 curved pieces and seaming them together.
What I do not want is to use many flat gingerbread pieces and end up with an octagon or dodecagon that "pretends" that it's round.
The goal of this is to find out a good method for making curved sheets of gingerbread by either shaping them while baking or after.
I'm planning to use Stella Park's recipe for gingerbread to be used for construction, which notes that it's soft (for cutting purposes) when removed from the oven, but I'm not sure if that's soft enough to try to shape after baking, too.
We want pictures of the completed project...!
If you're shaping after baking, the tighter you're trying to roll it, the more likely it's going to break. If you can, you want to put it in a mold (so you're compressing the back side), rather than drape it over a plug (where you'd be stretching the front side) when you shape it.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7928/67
related! https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/304644/293034
Not knowing your recipe too well I’ll assume a gingerbread with a rollable and cuttable texture, like for gingerbread men.
I would use a few empty cans with a slightly smaller diameter than your tower design.
If you cut the can(s) lengthwise in thirds or so, you can drape rectangular strips of dough over them with only some bend, which will put only little gravitational stress on the soft dough during baking. Make sure that the total width of the segments is more than the 360 degrees circle to allow for shrinkage and some extra to cut the edges to fit.
Bake the dough on the molds (with a layer of parchment, ideally) and let the parts cool on the tins as well.
Assemble as you would for the straight walls. A spare can can help keep the parts upright and in shape until the icing “cement” has hardened.
Molds like this are done in French cooking for Tuiles. Often a wine bottle or rolling pin is used as the mold.
One thing to watch out for is that many cans are coated on the inside, and this coating burns in an oven. So test your cans first.
Consider baking your cylinder in or on a mold. (Idea shamelessly stolen from the Great British Baking Show, where this has been done several times.)
To bake in a mold you would need two pieces that would nest inside each other leaving exactly enough room for the uncooked dough. You would need two to keep the cookie from sliding down/off during the early stages of baking before things firm up a bit. Bake completely and cool slightly inside the mold to prevent sagging, then unmold to finish cooling. The benefit of this method is that it allows for a complete cylinder in one piece, but the drawback is having to find two appropriately sized cylindrical pieces of metal or ceramic to bake in (ideally the outside at least is springform, so that you can get the mold off of the baked cookie), which I suspect may be difficult. An easier alternative may be to find something appropriately sized that you can line with cookie dough, and then line and fill the cookie dough with something like rice or beans to bake (think blind baking a pie shell).
Baking on a mold would be much easier. Simply find a couple of half-circle molds, which you could perhaps make yourself with bunched-up foil, drape the dough over and bake. The downside to this method is of course the seam, but it does require baking only two pieces, so only two seams.
Personally, I'd take the blind-bake style approach above, providing you can find a correctly sized cylinder for the outside.
OK, considerable work, but if you cannot get bending while warm of mold ideas that seem promising, you could construct it out of baked or cut circles stacked and mortared together. A lot of circles of course and you may need to reinforce the inside to keep it stable. You could even do it from blocks, but that would be even more tedious construction.
I think it's probably the least good option, mostly because it's got a different appearance than a "smooth" baked cylinder would, but it's a good rethinking of the problem.
No question this is, and I intended it to read as a last ditch, if other options fail. I would not even do this as circles myself if I needed to do it, but as arcs pieced together for less waste but more piecing. But, if you wanted a brick effect for the tower, it would be a more viable option.
Rings would be more efficient than discs, and allow a central rod - size the rings to fit a length of dowel or similar
Stella Parks recipe will curve right out of the oven. You have about 45 seconds until it starts hardening. Use ov-gloves or something similar bc the dough is SUPER HOT.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.378404 | 2017-12-14T17:00:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86386",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"MeltedPez",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100927 | What is a stable frosting for a cake that will be in warm temperatures at an outside party?
I'm hosting a party for my son who's turning three at a park. We'll be under cover but not air conditioned - and we're in the middle of a hot Texas summer. The party is early in the day so it's likely to only be around 80-85 Fahrenheit. Still not an ideal temperature for my go-to, a simple American buttercream.
Is there a frosting type that will keep looking good on cupcakes and be stable for assembling a small two-layer cake at this temperature for the two hours of the party? It's also the only part of the cake my son is likely to eat, so it should taste good and I'd prefer to avoid shortening-based frosting.
I'd read that Italian buttercream does well at warmer temperatures but it's also got uncooked egg whites, which isn't great sitting outside for a while and with kids (2-3 years old), I'm hesitant to use it.
Italian butter cream is made with Italian meringue and does not contain uncooked egg whites. The sugar syrup is between 240°F and 260°F (depending on the texture desired) when added to the whipped egg whites and easily brings them up to the safe temperature for eggs in the process.
@LightBender The sugar doesn't stay hot long enough to pasteurize them. https://www.seriouseats.com/2018/10/italian-meringue-buttercream-frosting.html
They are equating pasteurization and cooking. To pasteurize eggs you bring them up to a relatively low temp (140-150°) to prevent them from actually cooking. This lower temperature necessitates a processing time of about 5-7 minutes in order to sterilize them. The sugar syrup in Italian meringue cooks the contents by bringing them above the safe temperature of 170°, though only for a few seconds. The surface temp of my meringue reaches 180° while adding the syrup and is still at 110° after ten minutes of whipping.
Of course, if you are still concerned, I usually make my Italian meringue using cartons of pasteurized egg whites for the convenience anyway. (I make between 24 and 48 quarts of IBC at a time, which is a lot of eggs to separate and lots of extra yolks to use up.) Just make sure they are pure egg whites with no additives and the expiration date is at least a month away, though preferably 8 weeks or more.
I'm not 100% sure it'll hold up ... but caramel frosting tends to come from American Southeast, so a warmer climate. Dulce de leche would be similar (and also tends to come from warmer regions)
Here is an interesting entry from King Arthur Flour, who should not have a major stake in the game. They hit a bunch of varieties with a hair drier to see how they held up. Their test though was only on holding up to the heat, not safety though. One could suggest using pasteurized eggs as an option though to get around safety concerns.
Quick summary, they liked Italian Buttercream among the buttercreams they tested. Shortening over butter helps, but I am in the group who really dislikes the taste of "buttercream" made with shortening over butter, but would go by taste on that. Of the ones they tested though, cream cheese frosting held up the best, so if the cake is one that would match with cream cheese it might be a good choice.
Fondant is another option which may hold up well to heat though personally, I find it for looks only, not taste.
Have you considered Royal Icing?
Still contains egg, but it's certainly not going to melt in hot weather.
From the link -
Royal icing is traditionally prepared with raw egg whites, which have a very small chance of transmitting salmonella poisoning. Meringue powder or ready-to-use, pasteurized, refrigerated egg whites (wet eggs) can be used with similar results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.379171 | 2019-08-23T18:32:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100927",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"LightBender",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97553 | Are these almond cookies likely to be a success if I make them vegan by substituting coconut oil for butter?
I love these cookies from King Arthur Flour for a variety of reasons, including that they're delicious and they only need five ingredients, which I always have in my pantry. I particularly love the thumbprint version where you press a dent in the center and fill with jam before baking.
I do love the way they taste but I have friends who are vegan and I'd like to try substituting the butter with coconut oil. I've had really great success with cookie recipes that make use of coconut oil (like Brave Tart's rolled sugar cookies which use both butter and coconut oil) but this is a flour-based cookie and it's still using part butter.
So, is the recipe below likely to have issues if I sub the oil for butter? With only the almond flour, butter and sugar really doing much, my concern is that they won't bind together as well or that they may spread more. One of the comments from KAF said that the butter acts as the binder, so I'm not sure if the coconut oil binds as well... particularly since one of the comments says:
Loved this cookie and the low carb aspect! Tried it again, replacing butter with coconut oil. Flavor was great, but the cookies fell apart. Any advice on the ratio of fat I should have used.
So, anyone have any thoughts on how to avoid this? More/less coconut oil? A different butter substitute (I'm not a huge fan of margarines and their fake butter flavor)?
I'll probably try it out if no one has an answer. I don't have any refined coconut oil on hand (not interested in adding the coconut flavor), which is why I'm asking instead of just trying it. Fortunately, the batch size is small, so it's easy to do test batches.
Gluten-free Almond Flour Shortbread Cookies
Ingredients:
3 3/8 ounces almond flour
1 1/2 ounces softened butter
3/4 ounce confectioners' sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
Directions
Preheat the oven to 350°F. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper.
Mix all of the ingredients in a small bowl until a cohesive dough forms.
Scoop 1" balls of dough onto the prepared baking sheet; a teaspoon cookie scoop works well here. Arrange the balls of dough about 1 1/2" to 2" apart.
Use a fork to flatten each cookie to about 1/4" thick, making a crosshatch design.
Bake the cookies for 8 to 10 minutes, until they start to turn light golden brown on top.
Remove the cookies from the oven and cool them on the pan for 10 minutes. Transfer them to a rack to cool completely before serving.
My experience with coconut oil was fairly one-to-one substitution worked, in brownies. Not sure about these cookies. Mom used to use margarine for all her baking, is there vegan margarine?
butter is fat + water ... so you might need to reduce the coconut oil slightly, and add in some water. Some brands of margarine actually have water in them so it's easier to use them as butter replacements
Ok, so I did a little experiment (still not answer-worthy because of more substitutions), using coconut flour and coconut oil. The dough was incredibly crumbly, like the coconut flour “soaked up” the oil. Added a tiny bit of water, with no significant difference. Didn’t dare to add more than a scant tablespoon. Still couldn’t shape flat cookies, because they would crumble immediately. Baked little balls. Still fall apart if you look at them sternly.
You probably need longer chain fatty acids than coconut oil provides. Palm oil is a possibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#Fatty_acids There have got to be others.
Summary
Pure coconut oil is not an adequate replacement for butter in this recipe. However, coconut oil and water appears to work as a substitution when using ratios between 4:1 and a 5:1 coconut oil to water by mass.
Cookies produced with pure coconut oil fall apart when touched. Ratios of 4:1 and 13:2 coconut oil:water worked in my test.
However, the substitutions tested did not produce an exact match for the recipe produced with butter. (h/t rumtscho for catching the omission of reasons to predict this outcome).
Empirical Tests
Test Procedure
I used a batch size that was 1/3 that of the included recipe, or
32g Almond Flour
7g Confectioner's Sugar
Equivalent* of 1/2 ounce butter
A pinch of salt (quantity too small to measure)
The butter equivalents tested were:
15g Coconut Oil
13g Coconut Oil and 2g water
12g Coconut Oil and 3g water
1 tbsp butter, as marked on the butter package (16g in this trial)
Batches were mixed in the order specified in the butter equivalents list on the same equipment. All batches were placed on a single tray and baked at the same time
Two of the batches were divided into 6 cookies instead of 5 to make them distinguishable from the other batches.
Results
Coconut Oil, No Water
Cookies produced with a 1:1 replacement of butter with coconut oil were extremely fragile. I believe this reproduces the result reported in the complaint cited in the question.
I decided to give up trying to transfer them to a cooling rack after fracturing all cookies in the batch multiple times, so I do not have post-cooling observations for this batch.
Coconut Oil and Water, (13:2) ratio
Cookies hold their shape when handled but crumble readily when chewed. Compared to butter cookies, these are slightly harder along the bottom, and have more snap (it takes some effort to break by bending).
Coconut Oil and Water, (12:3) ratio
I was not able to notice a difference between cookies of this batch and cookies of the 13:2 coconut oil to water ratio batch.
Butter
Note that 16g of butter (instead of the planned 14g) was used, possibly skewing comparisons.
Cookies produced with butter produced results that were between that of the coconut cookies with and without added water; they crumble easily in the mouth but not during handling, and can be broken easily by hand.
Conjecture and References
Some wheat shortbreads are made with oil and water instead of butter, so having an oil and water emulsion as a replacement for butter may not be critical; therefore, it may suffice to simply replicate the fat:water ratio of butter, which is approximately 5:1 by mass.
The existence of vegan shortbread recipes that use vegan butter substitutes suggests that commonly-used vegan butter substitutes may also be acceptable; building on the earlier conjecture, it may suffice to replicate the fat:water ratio of a commercially-available vegan butter substitute. Earth Balance has a 4:1 fat:water ratio by mass.
The original conjecture before empirical tests was that coconut oil and water added in a 5:1 or 4:1 ratio by mass would be an acceptable substitute for butter.
Dairy Butter Characteristics
Dairy butter has a nonzero amount of water. This American source reports about 16% water and 82% fat for American butters.
Using these numbers, this recipe contains about 42.5g butter, which contains about 6.8g (or ml) water. Substituting butter with pure oil removes 6.8 out of 9.3ml of non-oil wet ingredients (2.5ml from the vanilla extract); if non-oil wet ingredients are important, this is a significant change.
As noted by rumtscho in a comment, butter is an emulsion of water and fat and may behave differently in a recipe compared to adding an equivalent amount of fat and water. A difference between butter and coconut oil with added water was observed in empirical tests.
Vegan Butter Substitutes
Earth Balance original spread (easier to read form here) has a significant amount of water. From the calorie counts (assuming 9 Calories per gram of fat) and the fact that ingredients other than oil and water are listed as <2% ingredients, Earth Balance appears to be around 20% water.
Other Shortbread Recipes
So far, I have not found a directly-comparable recipe.
I found three recipes for wheat shortbread; one without any added water, another that adds water in the form of syrup, and a third that suggests adding plant milk as a binder but discourages it. The first recipe is evidence against the inference that added water is strictly necessary. The third recipe is weak evidence that it is not necessary to have all fat and water emulsified beforehand.
However, almonds and wheat flour have considerably different characteristics, so it may not be straightforward to generalize from successful wheat flour recipes.
I am impressed with the effort you put in that answer. However, I am not comfortable with your assumption that one can just "add the water". The water in butter is emulsified, so adding water plus fat behaves very differently in dough than adding butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.379493 | 2019-04-18T15:45:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97553",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Steve Chambers",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
129383 | In which situations is it OK to use boxed, pasteurized egg whites for baking?
I have been searching for info about using pasteurized boxed egg whites in baking applications. There are two (distinct) cases that I'm interested in but I'm not sure if it's better to seek out a more all-encompassing answer or go with one specific case at a time. As far as I can tell, most existing discussions on the internet about using boxed egg whites don't often relate to specific situations, so I have no clue whether they would apply in my cases. They also tend to focus on meringues specifically.
I'm also somewhat averse to waste - but I see potential waste on either side of the situation.
If I test the whites in the two applications and it doesn't work, hopefully I'm able to stop before I add additional (more expensive) ingredients but if the issue is they deflate sooner, I may not be able to tell if it's "safe" to proceed.
If I keep using whole eggs, I'll be up to my ears in yolks (the good part of the egg) and I already have a dozen in the freezer I haven't used. Also, my ice cream maker doesn't work right now.
The uses in this situation:
The recipes I'm making (and why this ends up being such an issue) are:
Swiss Meringue Buttercream - Specifically, Stella Parks' recipe. Egg whites are fully-cooked with the sugar in a double boiler (SMBC, Chocolate SMBC).
"White Mountain Layer Cake" by Stella Parks (from BraveTart). Egg whites are used like whole eggs, not whipped and folded in.
Together, these two (three) recipes use 14 (20) whites, which is just a lot of yolks for one day of baking.
What have I found so far?
I've found quite a few references about this around the internet and here on SA.
Can I make meringues with commercial egg whites?
Regards to meringue cookies
Answers indicate pasteurized eggs aren't great for meringue and does mention using stabilizers like cream of tartar and recommend using whole eggs.
Buying Unpasteurized Egg Whites
Regards to macarons, while the question is about whether unpasteurized egg whites are available, it cites similar concerns and questions whether pasteurized + cream of tartar is acceptable.
Answer links to next example, recommends using whole eggs instead of cartons.
Why do egg white cartons warn that pasteurized egg whites shouldn't be used for whipping or meringue?
Regards to meringue cookies, questions why a box of whites warns that they aren't recommended to be used for whipping or meringues when the OP was able to use them just fine.
Answers focus on the riskiness of using boxed whites and how outcomes may vary based on temperature used for pasteurization
And around the internet.
Food 52 "Will the carton egg whites whip up for baking?"
Some answers say pasteurized whites won't work, others say adding cream of tartar gives similar results, or will get good results if you persist in whipping for longer, etc. One answer linked to a write-up of a test they did in their blog for SMBC where it worked fine.
Reddit/AskBaking "Liquid Egg Whites that whip to stiff peaks"
Mixed answers, some saying it works, others saying they can't get it to work or that it takes longer.
Domino sugar "Tips on how to make meringue successfully"
Outright rejects boxed whites and requires separated whole eggs, citing pasteurization as the concern - but tells you to fully cook whites to avoid salmonella.
Then again, it also states that old eggs should be avoided, which many macaron recipes expressly call for.
Bake Club "Pasteurized Egg Whites"
States they can be used in many applications but may take longer to whip, doesn't recommend using any stabilizers
There's more but these are representative of my issue - some people say it works fine (with caveats, usually) and others say it doesn't and shouldn't be tried.
The core of my confusion.
Few of these resources seem to dive deeply into creating an outline for specific cases when it is or is not "safe" (from a success perspective) to use pasteurized boxed egg whites. Many seem focused on one application or broadly apply the rule to every application. Unfortunately, there are a few things about this that leave me confused.
The first step in SMBC is to cook the whites over a water bath with the sugar and cream of tartar. If that's the case, why should it matter whether the whites are pasteurized or not? I'm pretty sure that whatever I'm doing is far less controlled than what's going on in a plant where they're carefully controlling temperatures to gently pasteurize the whites. Heck, I've managed to cook them at least once (oops!).
In the cake recipe, the whites are being used like whole eggs and aren't being used for aeration as one might in a angel's food cake - surely the pasteurization can't matter here? But would it in an angel's food cake that uses a meringue - or one where whites are whipped without sugar/heating?
Also, "Meringue powder" is a thing. Powdered egg whites with stabilizers and/or sugars that need to be rehydrated but otherwise seem to work fine for meringues, macarons, royal icing and other whipped applications. I'm not sure they'd work in the cake recipe, though.
Given this, it seems likely that there are many applications where pasteurized boxed whites (or meringue powder) is fine and will be successful and others where they should be avoided, so the undercurrent pressing people to avoid using them always seems a bit unwarranted.
The question
As such, I'd like to get a better idea of specific cases where separated egg whites or meringue powder will work just fine and what people should consider when deciding to use these products - whether that's adding stabilizers or longer whipping times or whatever.
It's probably also worth noting that there's myriad ways that meringues can go wrong that have nothing to do with the eggs - such as humidity, .
Great answers to this question will hopefully consider both the specific uses mentioned above (SMBC, cake batter), while also addressing other uses of egg whites in baking/meringue. Great answers will also avoid questioning the premise and telling people to just use whole eggs and go make custard or ice cream with their yolks.
Yes, this question risks being considered too broad but I'm hoping it will eventually be something akin to the Cooking Terms or food storage questions.
My great Aunt used them just like regular in anything she cooked. Sometimes it requires a little more mixing but adding tartar can help hold it firm it up as far as your whips for pies. Her macarons always came out just fine. She makes candy, pies, cakes, cookies.
Hello Mike, thank you for contributing! Our site works differently from discussion forums and others, and we are somewhat strict on having the answers being very direct. So I removed the other parts and left your sentences which are advice about using the egg whites. All the best for your aunt, you're lucky to have learned from a baker such as you describe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.380133 | 2024-10-16T14:54:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129383",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116978 | When marbling cake, can density of chocolate cake impact the rising of the vanilla cake?
I have specific bakers who I really love their recipes for different kinds of cake - for example Stella Parks. Because she doesn't have a recipe for a marble cake, I'm trying to decide whether I'll be successful when trying to marble two of my favorites of her cakes.
Some of the concerns I have relate to density of batter - for example, a chocolate cake that's more fudgy/dense might prevent a lighter vanilla cake from rising properly. The two recipes I'm looking at are found on the Serious Eats website - Chocolate, vanilla. I've created a table below with the amounts of primary ingredients for comparison purposes, as a note, both recipes are supposed to be for a three-layer cake:
Ingredient
Chocolate
Vanilla
Flour
9 oz all purpose 3 oz cocoa powder
16 oz all purpose
Sugar
16 oz light brown
16 oz granulated
Butter
12 oz
8 oz
Liquid
12 oz coffee 6 oz chocolate, melted
16 oz whole milk
Eggs
6 large, cold 3 yolks, cold
3 large, room temp
Leavening
1 tbsp baking soda
4 1/2 tsp baking powder
With all of the extra eggs, the density looks concerning. Is it? Would I have more success if I find another chocolate cake recipe that's more similar to the vanilla cake?
While there's an existing question that focuses on baking temperature and time, I'm curious whether there are other factors worth considering.
I wouldn't mix those two cake recipes, personally. The chocolate cake is much more dense than the vanilla, with almost twice as much liquid. Further, in the recipe, the vanilla batter is fluffed up, whereas the chocolate cake isn't (and can't be). I would assume that, if you mixed those two, what would come out of the oven would actually be two layers, with the chocolate on the bottom.
When I worked in a bakery, how we did the marble cake was that the chocolate portion was exactly the same recipe as the vanilla, with 10% of the flour swapped out for cocoa powder.
And (to me) that's the big downside of marble cakes - the chocolate parts look so tempting, but they're actually a disappointment, just being a slightly chocolate-flavoured n sponge cake (note UK usage of sponge as in Victoria sponge, which includes butter).
Not gonna argue with you. I made lots of marble cake in my time, but I didn't eat it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.380649 | 2021-08-26T19:57:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116978",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78244 | Extracting flavor from lemon zest
What are some good ways of getting the most flavor out of lemon zest and into sugar+water?
I’ve steeped them in the liquid that was just to the boil and left it to cool.
But I wonder what better techniques might be available. I beleive that the “essence” is oily and doesn’t wash out into water-based solutions easily.
What would Alton Brown do?
The flavor of lemon zest is in the oils contained in the skin, the best way to extract them is to mechanically extract them, steeping in hot water isn't going to do much for you.
First, grate the zest using the finest microplane grater you can get, the more surface are you have the better. Second, you need to crush and/or grind the zest to get the oils out. If you are using sugar then a great way to extract flavor from the zest is to crush the zest into the sugar, the sugar acts as an abrasive and grinding agent. You can do this in a mortar and pestle if you have one, or if you don't using the back of a spoon to crush it into the side of a bowl works pretty well too. If you aren't using sugar then crushing still works, just not quite as well. You want to keep crushing until you have a strong smell of lemon coming from it, then crush a little longer.
Once you have your sugar and zest crushed up you can add it to hot water and mix .
So how does crushing —pressing the oil out— allow it to mox and not just float on top of the water?
The flavor in lemon zest is in the oils, and oil and water are not going to mix. You could try and emulsify it, that is mixing the oil and water together to form a suspension, however I suspect that's not going to work. Maybe it would help if you explained the result you are trying to achieve.
lemonaid. But I didn't want to run afoul of the “no recipies” rule.
Many lemonade recipes call for lemon zest, sure some of it sits on the top but you can live with that. Try crushing like I suggest, then boiling it all up, let it cool, then add your lemon juice - I bet it will come out well.
@JDługosz The lemonade recipe I use has you cut strips of peel and boil it when making your simple syrup.
The one consideration you'd have with the crushing method is to extract too much, which might not be the result you'd want.
Time is your friend here too. After crushing, let the sugar-zest mixture stand for several minutes, up to as much as a half hour, to let the sugar absorb the oil that's been released.
In lemonade the sugar, fruit juice and particles should all act as a bit of a dispersant and help the oil overcome its resistance to staying in solution with the water I think you will find. Initially it may have the tendency to want to separate, but a vigorous mixing should overcome this and it should stay in solution, well, at least longer than I would allow a good old fashion lemonade to stay around. A small pinch of sea salt is also considered a dispersant, but that will alter flavor. Hmmm, lemonade, salt, tequila, might work too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.380851 | 2017-02-09T08:47:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78244",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"JDługosz",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60343 | Moisture in Vegetable Bin
There is moisture in my vegetable bin. What can I do to prevent this? I do not have a separate control for the drawers. The refrigerator temperature is set at the manufacturer's recommended setting.
Another option is to use these storage devices which have 4 different humidity/airation settings http://smile.amazon.com/Prepworks-Progressive-International-LKS-06-Lettuce/dp/B000OUY2QO/ref=pd_sim_79_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1YYKDAT43G49M5CCCH42&dpSrc=sims&dpST=AC_UL160_SR160%2C160
Unless you are not storing produce in the vegetable drawer (aka crisper) you want moisture there. It keeps your produce from drying out. If there is excessive moisture in the crisper , make sure you are not putting in overly wet produce. You can line the drawer with paper towels to absorb excessive water and to help maintain a even humidity.
I actually use paper bags for that purpose. The paper towels get soggy too fast (unless you plan to keep changing them) and make me worry about mold/mildew issues. I don't know if the paper bags work as well, that is just my solution.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.381231 | 2015-08-29T14:30:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60343",
"authors": [
"Denise Chadburn",
"Pat O'Callaghan",
"Prairie Hawk",
"Rita Lambert",
"Tricia Stickel",
"WetlabStudent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60365 | Can I put any kind of bowl into a steam/rice cooker?
due to some paranoia issues with the microwave, I would like to heat up my food using a steam/rice cooker instead. Can I just put all my refrigerated food in a bowl and just put it in the cooker, add a little water at the base, and turn it on?
Are there any health concerns to take note here? e.g. the bowl might melt, BPA issues, etc
For the amount of time it will take for this to work, you might as well use the stovetop, which is designed for this -- but if you must, read your manual for instructions on how to use the rice cooker as a steamer. Using a steamer basket inside the cooker pot should work; I'd recommend sticking with just the basket itself if possible; stainless steel is plenty safe.
If you are going to put a bowl or dish in there, use ceramic or stainless steel - both of those should be fine, and unlikely to leach strange things into your food. You might be able to use some plastics, but I'd think that heating up plastic with your food in it is more likely to put stuff you don't want to eat into the food than microwaving in a ceramic bowl would.
From what I've read about using bowls other than what came with the rice cooker, I would use the bowl that came with the rice cooker. The bowls that come with rice cookers are chosen specifically for using with the rice cooker, because not all bowls can be used in a rice cooker. I certainly would not risk a plastic one or one that is not designated heat safe. The rice cookers that I've seen use a metal plate or burner at the base of the cooker so I'd be sure that any bowl used in a rice cooker is suitable to come in contact with direct heat, and not all bowls are. best to stick with the designate bowl for that rice cooker - not worth breaking it for one meal. Good luck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.381360 | 2015-08-30T03:42:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60365",
"authors": [
"Erin",
"Holly Wood",
"Sarah Burks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144551",
"jimw98277"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60416 | Alternative for Buffalo wing sauce
What can I use if my family does not like Buffalo wing sauce or any hot sauce for that matter?
I found a recipe for wings and potato casserole that sounds good but not if it's hot.
Does your family not like the flavors associated with hot sauce? Or do they just not like the "burn" of the hot sauce?
What is the result you are trying to get?
There are plenty of places that serve wings with more mild sauces ... barbecue sauce, sweet & sour, etc.
Really, any sauce you use with other savory meet dishes can be nice on chicken wings. Options include:
BBQ sauce
most Asian ready made sauces at your grocery store (teriyaki, sweet and sour, etc., even better make a homemade version of one of these sauces)
honey mustard
melted butter (or extra virgin olive oil) with garlic, Parmesan cheese, and your favorite herbs
lemon or lime juice & salt (possibly add honey if you like it sweet)
vinegar & salt
real maple syrup and salt
peanut butter and jelly sauce (some of these recipes include chilies, which you can ignore)
you can even wrap wings in bacon, for a dryer but quite flavorful wing
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.381540 | 2015-09-01T14:49:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60416",
"authors": [
"David Zane",
"GdD",
"Hannah Tomlinson",
"Janet Guglielmo",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"John Clark",
"Mercedes Ventura",
"Stelios Charalambides",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jesper lagerberg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60453 | Can I cook ribs by starting them one day and finishing the next?
I am serving ribs at a party, but I can't be at home that afternoon. If I cook them the day before and then finish them off right before party, will them still be tender?
It's tender, but it's not necessarily fall-apart-tender if you chill it down. Alton Brown's stew recipe makes use of that trick so you can have tender meat in your stew that doesn't just turn to rags. http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/season11/stew/stewromance.htm ; see scenes 9 through 12.
What methods would you be using for cooking? If you are doing a low and slow approach, reheating will be no problem.
Pardon my confusion, but are you asking about partially cooking on the first day and finishing on the second; or do you want to fully cook on one day, then re-heat before your party? Thanks!
The easy (but potentially expensive) answer is sous vide. If you can carefully control the temperature, you can cook your ribs for 24-48 hours before finishing and serving. See this recipe for an example.
If sous vide isn't an option, you can still chill and reheat the ribs. There are several brands of pre-cooked refrigerated ribs in grocery stores that exemplify this. I believe the texture would be more firm, but it could still be very delicious. For the sake of safety, please chill them as quickly as possible. If you stack them into a large pile, it will take a long time to chill, giving bacteria a chance to grow.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.381687 | 2015-09-02T18:00:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60453",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Joe",
"Kayleigh Newbold",
"Peter Hoeschele",
"Sheila Houston",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lisahardwarecentrecouk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61603 | Are my dried moong dal beans bad?
I have some moong dal that I bought at an Indian market a few months ago. I've stored them in a sealed tupperware container. When I opened them today (to make them for dinner tonight), they smell strongly - not necessarily bad, but pungent. Is this normal? Or have they gone bad?
I prefer to keep Moong Dal in BPA free containers or Jars. They stay dry. It's strange that there is a strong smell in them. I have never encountered smelly moong in all these years. Maybe like @banavalikar said, it must be the tupperware causing it. When you wash them in water check if there are tiny insects are not floating around. If they are then you found the culprit.
Check expiry date if you still have the packet. I usually cut off the date and place it in the container for future use.I don't trust some Indian stores with long life products. They often forget to remove expired products from shelf. I almost bought kgs of spices from a store which had expired a month ago.
It does sound strange to me. I always get my lentils and pulses for months and store but never they smelled pungent.
It will have its own characteristic aroma.
If it is rather pungent there should be some reason as to why. Please analyze it.
Wash it and check if the smell goes off. If not, I would be hesitant to use it.
Moong dal has a characteristic odour that concentrates over the time in a closed container (like Tupperware). So you are good. Just make sure that the dal is not stuck in clusters, has changed colour or has developed mold. In which case you will have to discard it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.381853 | 2015-09-09T14:27:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61603",
"authors": [
"Erin Kushner",
"Jesse Tetti",
"Sheryl",
"Unnamed Being",
"User56756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34243"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94358 | Are there different grades or styles of bacon?
In commercials and when I go to restaurants (even fast food!) the bacon that I get is a reddish brown color and seems to be mostly meat, or at least meat textured. However, when I buy bacon at the grocery store, it's inevitably almost all fat. It curls badly when cooked, creates a ton of grease, and never looks anything like what "professional" bacon does.
I've tried thin sliced, thick sliced, apple wood smoked, etc. , etc. and I always seem to have the same problem. I try to look through the packages and I can never find anything that has mostly meat (lots of white fat). Even when I find a pack that looks good, it seems like the few slices I can see are meaty, but the rest are again mostly fatty.
So, what is the secret? Where do restaurants get their perfect bacon? Do I need to ask the grocery meet department for a secret stash of pro bacon? Do I need to go out of my way to a special shop? Is there a name for what I'm looking for other than "bacon"?
I'm in the US, Texas. I know other countries have different ideas of what "bacon" is (right?).
As this is not the first question we get about bacon: Advice on how to prepare should go in https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29776 and other preparation-specific questions. This one should stay for describing styles of bacon and their differences.
...or maybe the author should clarify the question because the main issue described is about cooking bacon. He/she is assuming it is a style/grade issue.
Well, my main concern is the look and feel of the bacon. Even coloring, consistent texture, and more meat content. I don't think it's only a cooking technique because of the amount of white gristly fat that I can't seem to avoid in store-bought bacon. If I'm way off base, an answer could be "You need to change your cooking techniques and that will solve your issues because...", but right now I feel like there is some "restaurant grade bacon" that I can't find.
@JPhi1618 give the advice in the link provided above a try.
@JPhi1618 I would definitely consider looking for local butchers, especially those that process for home farms and hunters. They will typically either smoke and cure themselves or work with a smokehouse and will tend to work with hand selected bellies. Curing will vary, so you may need to try more than one, The will often have sliced in the counter though so you can see exactly what you are getting and may well be using lighter curing and less artificial coloring and may well custom slice it for you to your desired thickness. It will come at a price, but that is to be expected.
How are you cooking it? If you cook it too fast, the fat won't have time to render, which will leave a lot of rubbery fat. The bacon your getting in the restaurant may appear more meaty because the fat is fully rendered.
Co-incidentally Epicurious put up a video all about bacon today. I don’t think it answers your question, but you might find it interesting.
I was really hoping that the user Grade 'Eh' Bacon would answer this...
The 'special shop' is sometimes called a butcher.
In answer to the side question: yes, other countries have a different idea of what bacon is. Thank you for anticipating the issue and making your question specific.
Wait, what? The perfect bacon is what you bought in the shop. The "meaty" restaurant stuff is crap. All the juicy delicious fat is gone!
I've found the opposite to be true!
You might want to try using a bacon press.
In the UK there are two main cuts of bacon.
There's "streaky bacon", which is cut from the pork belly. This is mostly what you get in the US.
There's also "back bacon" which is cut from the pork loin. This is generally more popular and is very much leaner than streaky bacon. In the US you call it "Canadian bacon".
You can also get "middle bacon" which is cut from both, i.e. a contiguous cut from belly to loin - a piece of streaky bacon and back bacon combined.
In the US, there is another cut typically called cottage bacon that is from shoulder. It is typically more fatty than back bacon, but far less than belly, or streaked as you would name it and has a consistency somewhat mid between the two, closer to meaty bacon than ham of back bacon. I have never seen it produced commercially, only at home and a few custom smoke houses. Here at least most back bacon tends to be cured like a semi-hard ham with little to no fat and used for things like pizza and breakfast sandwiches, not often as a side. We seem to have more of an addiction to bacon fat.
As well as streaky bacon and back bacon, there is also collar bacon and neck bacon (not sure if these last two are the same).
More explicit answer for the USA: USDA says that bacon is not graded.
Is bacon inspected and graded?
All bacon found in retail stores is either USDA inspected for wholesomeness or inspected by State systems that have standards equal to the Federal government. Each animal, from which the bacon is made, is inspected for signs of disease. The "Inspected and Passed by USDA" seal ensures the bacon is wholesome.
Bacon is not graded.
I am going to say that in most cases, labels like premium, artisan, etc. are marketing gimmicks. I do not know of any labeling rules that will tell you a given bacon is from a better quality pork belly than another. But, there is certainly a difference, and cheap bacon is just that, cheap and been made from the cheapest pork bellies obtained in mass. In general, they come from large hogs that are fatty and have little lean in their bellies. Meatier bacon, more lean tends to be from younger animals which are less economical for mass producers so will cost much more and tend to go to restaurants at a higher price. Family restaurants like breakfast houses will mostly use common bacon, and the will also tend to oven prep it as offered in comments which allows for more even cooking, cooking in quantity and controlling curling.
If you want leaner, that is with a higher amount of muscle tissue, that is what typically the windows on bacon packs are for, taking a look. The cheaper, mass produced will seldom be high meat content though. The specialty (read expensive) ones will have a better shot at lower percentage of fat. If however you find a butcher shop, especially one that cures and smokes their own meats, that is when you will likely find bacon that has been made from hand selected bellies with the highest muscle content.
I have been lucky in that local stores have started carrying raw pork bellies, so I make my own and can hand pick my own bellies and get the meat content I want. One thing you should know though, if you go over a certain level, some people do not like the results. At the highest level of muscle, the bacon can start to be too lean for many people's taste and start to become tough. More muscle content can sometimes also increase the tendencies to curl as well because the muscle can contract more during cooking than the fat. Again, going to the oven might be the easiest approach to reducing this.
"windows on bacon packs" are in my experience strategically abused to show all meat and no fat. There are probably whole departments that design ways to push as much meaty parts into that window. Similar gimmick to "artisan" label.
@aaaaaa The windows on the back of commercially packed bacon Is in no way strategically abused.
@cindy i am not sure if that's sarcasm, sorry. Or you mean those large windows that show basically whole bottom slice? I had to google to find those, don't remember myself
I've certainly seen cases of window to bacon alignment that made it look like a better cut than it really was. I won't go so far as to say it's intentional, but it does happen on certain package styles.
@aaaaaa Not sure how they do it, but yes, the windows are far from full-proof. You can almost be assured though, if the window shows 90% fat, you are going to get at least 90% fat. Honest though, until I started making my own, I had largely given up eating any and never the mass packaged. I estimate that most mass produced seems to me to be about 70% fat. When I raised pigs, I had about 30% fat. I think buying bellies, am probably at 50/50. I think, but will not swear, that why the windowed look seems better than real is the way the slices are stretched.
@aaaaaa Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound sarcastic. I should have elaborated. What I was aiming at is that in most commercial production the process is automated. And while some of the windows are larger than others, what you can see is just what happens to land there.
In addition to the ovens used at restaurants, many fast food joints cook their bacon in a press, which renders the fat quicker and prevents curling. You can get a similar effect at home using a bacon press like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Norpro-8-75-Inch-Bacon-Press-Handle/dp/B0000DDVV9
"Irish" Bacon is made from the back of the pig, not the pork belly; it's much leaner, but hard to find in Minneapolis where I live.
In my experience, 'center-cut' bacon tends to have a much higher meat/fat ratio than major brand bacon. It's also more expensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.382051 | 2018-11-29T15:39:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94358",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Ed Avis",
"Fattie",
"JPhi1618",
"Lonidard",
"Michael Hampton",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spagirl",
"Tim Lymington",
"Wolfgang",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"cad",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71020",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"takintoolong"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61759 | Device to install on a bottle to only spill drops
When heating up cold food in microwave it oftens comes out pretty dry, and I like juicy food. So I add 1 or 2 teaspoons of olive oil on the food before heating it. I'd be easier though if I had some kind of small device
add a smidge of water to your left-over noodles before cooking them in the microwave - the steam works wonders.
I'm sure I've seen some device similar to the one described by Jay that only allows 1-2 drops of the liquid to come out. Ask in a specialized store.
Consider a "Soy Sauce" bottle.
Can you please clarify. Your question title mentions "drops" but your body says you use 1-2 tsp of oil. Which do you want?
1-2 tsp is the quantity, I just want to spread it uniformily on the food which is hard using a spoon or a normal bottle.
I did a cheap kitchen hack by reusing an empty Sriracha bottle after cleaning and drying it up for my oil drops. Here is how the bottle looks:
And it is perfect for dropping oil. The nozzle also lets me increase or decrease the diameter of the oil drop.
If you don't happen to like this sauce, try it with some Asian food. You'll love it mostly!!!
What you are looking for is pretty common and can be bought in most markets in the kitchen section. Or ordered online by search "olive oil bottles". They look like this:
You can get them at liquor supply stores, they are used in bars for easy pouring of liquids inside bottles
The inconvenient to this "device" is that it doesn't spill drops as is.
I have one of these and it does not allow for droplets; it slows the pour down based on the magnitude of the wrist movement behind it.
@JWiley Thought the title says "Drops" the question body says 1-2 tsp... which implies that the OP isn't actually looking for something that allows drops. The question is unclear.
Plastic squeeze bottles come in a variety of sizes, offer a bit more control and are very inexpensive. Just make sure to get one that is food grade.
Another option for oils is a mister.
That allows you to spray a bit of oil across all of the food - or spray it on the pan for cooking. There are a lot of different kinds of misters (as well as just 'sprayers' more like what you'd use to spray water on a plant or similar; the "misters" mostly work by pumping to pressurize).
Mio bottles would be quite handy. I've used them for cooking oil when I need a small amount for camping trips.
relevant reddit discussion on the safety of reusing the bottles
An oil/vinegar cruet is designed for exactly this purpose:
Plastic bottles are cheap. I bought 3 mustard dispensing bottles from the pound store (with the narrow head). I have used them extensively for vinaigrettes and controlled drops of sauces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.382833 | 2015-09-15T19:14:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61759",
"authors": [
"Cassandra Blake",
"Catija",
"Dana Ford",
"David Kemp",
"Diane Keck",
"Eleiza Ribates Cacatihan",
"J. H.",
"JWiley",
"JamesENL",
"M P",
"Margaret Thompson",
"Melissa ONeill",
"Merve Çetiner",
"Noldor130884",
"Optionparty",
"SnakeDoc",
"algiogia",
"drake035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61786 | baking time adjustment when baking large quantity of fish
Do I need to increase cooking time when baking many more fish fillets than receipe calls for.
On a Single Rack
A preheated oven will cool down depending on the amount of food put into it, but will lose more heat due to the opening of the door. As long as they are spread out enough, the cooking time will be affected very little.
On Multiple Racks
Assuming you do not have a convection oven: when baking on separate racks of the oven, the heat radiated by the coils is now blocked by the other food. This will increase the time necessary and will also require you to rotate the dishes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.383104 | 2015-09-16T19:57:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61786",
"authors": [
"Barbara Collins",
"Elizabeth Robertson",
"Sally Palmer",
"Utham Kumar Jamadhagni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146670"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66617 | Correct measurement for chicken broth powder to water
I have some concentrated chicken broth powder in a jar but no instructions that explains how it should be mixed with water.
What is the standard chicken broth powder to water mixture?
I know that the concentrations may differ depending on the product, but assuming this product is on par with the average?
I think they all can very. I would try a teaspoon with a cup of water. Taste it and go from there.
I think that's a good starting point.
While I totally agree with the other answer that this is depending on what you like, I have googled and found directions from two different well-known brands.
Knorr and Maggi actually have very similar instructions.
Knorr says one slightly rounded teaspoon for one cup (250ml) of water.
Maggi states 1 tsp (5g) for 1 cup (250ml) of water.
So I'd suggest to try it with 1 tsp for 1 cup and see if it needs adjustments.
The amount is totally subjective. In general, I prefer lighter amounts in soups and heavier amounts in any flavorings (I.e collard greens or broth powder used as spice.) Cooking is really more art than science, so precision is not usually my top priority. For whatever you are cooking, and if it is safe to do so, add a small amount, stir and taste. Chicken broth powder usually has a high sodium content, so treat it as flavored salt. If more "saltiness" is desired, add a teaspoon, stir, taste, and repeat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.383212 | 2016-02-17T21:24:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66617",
"authors": [
"Amanda L",
"Escoce",
"John Bourland",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Nicole DeGrande",
"Venita Nietie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"sandra scales"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61841 | What gas output required for home stir frying?
I love stir fries, but I've never been happy with the result from using my 2400w electric nonstick wok.
I've bought a nice heavy steel one and know I need a gas burner but not sure of the output I really need? My bbq has a 12000btu output side burner (about 3.5kw) which will obviously do better than the electric wok, but is this enough?
What is the optimum output to use without getting into the professional output range?
A little off topic, but I think you can get a very decent stir-fry with one of those portable butane burners. I have the Iwatani 35fw model and it can put out about 15000 btu's for a little bit of time. It's very well made and heavy duty enough to handle that type of heat. Best part is that you could take it outside and to that stir-fry outside. If your range is not powerful enough, I doubt your range exhaust will be able to take all the smoke that comes off of 15000 btu's.
Another alternative would be to go induction. I also have an induction cooker that is made for a wok. So instead of the glass top being flat it has a concave surface to accommodate a wok. But you must have a 36cm wok, as this is the right size to fit inside the indent. Too small and the wok wobbles and doesn't quite sit right. Too big and it is steady but the cooking area has been reduced, the sides don't go up as high.
I will also say that the induction does put out about 1800watts of power, which is enough to sizzle things inside, but the cooking area is rather small. Also since it's induction the sides don't get nearly as hot as if it was a flame wicking up the sides of the wok.
But either way, that electric wok will not be hot enough to produce a more restaurant style wok dish. I will say that I have modified my outdoor dirty kitchen's gas range to replicate that one big column of fire, that you can find in a commercial Chinese kitchen. Not that much heat, but more than enough to cause smoke alarms to go off if I cooked with this much heat indoors.
My range has cast iron diffusers which can be easily taken off the burner. But I will also say that it is a very unstable fire, it will go out if the burner is too high, or too low. But the sucker sure is loud and replicates that delicious noise of a jet engine. Don't ask me how many BTU's it's putting out, but it's as close as I want to get to a real one. Don't try this at home, unless you have all the equipment to put out a fire.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.383361 | 2015-09-19T07:45:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61841",
"authors": [
"Beverly Case",
"Claes Winkler",
"Erica Swift",
"Michael Embree",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161228"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61868 | How do you reflavor nuts?
how do you replace a flavor on nuts? i did not see the label and bought some cashews that are spicy by mistake. Can the flavor be washed off and replaced?
If you want them to taste like cashews, there should be no need to "replace flavor" - you can attempt washing and then drying in the oven - results may vary depending on how the "spicy" was applied. Probably they will remain somewhat spicy, as those flavors tend to be fat-soluble, so they will get into the nut but not come out with a wash (and I can't really see "washing in oil" as an effective or economical technique.)
Giving them to someone that likes spicy things would be another option, and more reliable. Then buy some that are not spicy for you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.383670 | 2015-09-20T00:15:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61868",
"authors": [
"Carly Scott",
"Janet Winter",
"Kathy Bowerman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146934",
"user146872"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61994 | I made white bread yesterday, and it smelled similar to sourdough...why would this happen?
I used plain white flour to make homemade bread. I followed the recipe from the 2011 cookbook titled "Blue Ribbon Recipes". I have been using this recipe since I bought the book in 2011, and have never had my bread smell like sourdough before. The smell was strong enough that it overpowered the smell of homemade huckleberry jam. I store my yeast in the refrigerator. There is no vinegar used in the recipe, and the yeast starter sat for approximately 10 minutes while I measured and added the other ingredients to the bowl. I've never had this happen before.
How long have you kept fresh yeast in the fridge? Does it have a best-before date?
It could be an issue with how long you let it rise or maybe how warm you rested it at. I was making a deep dish pizza at home once and the recipe called for resting the dough in the fridge (mixed with the yeast and other ingredients), for 4hrs minimum. Due to my getting home a little after 5pm from work and some of my family leaving for work at 6:30pm, during the time I was attempting to make this, I couldn't use the suggested times for the different steps of the recipe. To shorten that time, I made the dough the day before. I let the dough rest in the fridge from about 9pm until 5:30pm the next day. When I made the pizzas the dough was very good, but it tasted a lot like sourdough, and that was using instant yeast out of a packet. I've since made the recipe with the correct resting times and it's good dough, but there is no sour taste.
So a long resting time for your bread, or possibly having it warmer might induce the yeast to process their 'food' faster. I know it's not true sourdough as the sourness there comes from a combination of yeast and lactobacilli's, but I did get a similar taste from the instant yeast packet and it was because of the duration I let the yeast work. Some of my family actually prefers the sourdough taste of that dough, so I sometimes make it that way. It also saves me from having to do too much work on any given day.
You can test my theory out and see if temp or the leavening time affects the taste. While you didn't originally want that particular flavor, you may come to enjoy it.
When bread is fresh it may still be saturated with carbon dioxide which will give it a somewhat sour-ish smell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.383778 | 2015-09-23T22:43:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61994",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Brad Jones",
"Brianna Asmar",
"Janis Cashman",
"Tony De Marco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"susan sebastian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62924 | Making caramel: how the ingredients effect the outcome?
I was making a simple caramel with sugar, water, and lemon, and salt. How do the ratio of these ingredients affect each other? What does a longer cooking time change?
Related: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/555
Here's the function of each ingredient, as I understand them:
Sugar - Obviously, this is the thing that caramelizes. You need it. The amount of sugar determines the amount of caramel.
Water - The water helps early in the cooking process by causing the mixture to heat evenly without burning. Most of it boils off. As the water evaporates, the boiling point of the mixture increases. So, you can determine the ratio of water to sugar by measuring the temperature while it's boiling. Once enough water has boiled off to reach the temperature specified in the recipe, then you know that the ratio of water to sugar is right. Too much water and the caramel will be too soft. If you add extra water, it will take longer to reach the target temperature, but you'll still have the same amount in the end as long as you get it to the right temperature.
Lemon - A bit of acid helps the caramelization to occur faster and at a lower temperature. This can be useful if you want a soft caramel because you won't have to boil off as much water. It can also reduce the risk of burning because you don't have to get the caramel quite as hot.
Salt - This is just for flavor. In the small quantity normally found in caramel, I wouldn't expect it to make a difference to the cooking time, target temperature, or texture.
A longer cooking time allows more water to boil off, resulting in a harder (or possibly burnt) caramel. Otherwise, it doesn't affect the outcome that much, unless you're making a low temperature caramel. There are some dulce de leche recipes, for example, that require cooking for 13 hours. At higher temperatures, the reactions happen a lot faster. At 350 F, for example, the caramelization happens so quickly that there's no need to hold it at that temperature for any significant time.
Lemon juice (or other acids) also help to invert some of the sugar which makes it less likely to crystallize.
And with those dulce de leche recipes - the long cooking time is because they're all dairy proteins and sugars, which aren't found in most caramels. The end result is similar, but chemically they're a very different confection.
@SourDoh, that's good to know. I always add a bit of corn syrup to prevent crystallization. I'll try lemon juice instead one of these times and see how it goes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384000 | 2015-10-28T21:34:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62924",
"authors": [
"Darrin Duhamel",
"Jay",
"Jean Murray",
"Karen Smoult-Hawtree",
"S G Sharkie SG",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"kalin yourdanov",
"logophobe",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69247 | Letting wine reduce before braising
I've seen recipes for braising (sorry no sources available) that instruct you to deglaze with wine then let it reduce by about half. After the wine has reduced, the next steps are to add in stock, more wine and aromatics, let it come to a simmer on the stove then pop it in the oven to braise.
I'm curious why let the wine you deglaze with reduce if you are going to be adding more wine in before putting it in the oven? This makes no sense to me.
It is just to add more flavor complexity ?
I suspect Max is right -- there are plenty of recipes where you might add an ingredient in more than once ... especially ones that are greatly affected by cooking.
If two of you think that's the answer, maybe post it as one?
Just a question of flavor layers.
Reducing the wine after deglazing will create some deeper flavoring.
It will remove some of the wine's acidity and concentrate the flavor that will complement the stock and wine that will be added later on in the recipe.
When you deglaze with wine three things basically happen. You flash off most of the alcohol, recover the material in the pan, and most importantly concentrate the flavors by reducing the volume in half. If you add the wine and stock, eliminating this step, you can not get the intensity of flavor produced by the deglazing process. Generally, if you have to increase the liquid volume during the brazing process, adding additional stock can be balanced by adding an additional splash of wine to taste.
bulldogbarry
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384241 | 2016-05-25T15:45:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69247",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"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
} |
114642 | Will dry roasting a chuck come out tender?
I plan on dry roasting a beef chuck, I've only ever braised chuck before though. Is this cut suitable to a slow and low dry roast or will it come out tough? It's a 3 lbs roast, I'm thinking 300 degrees (convection) for and hour and 15 minutes.
Roasting is, by definition, "dry." Beef chuck can certainly be roasted, and your plan sounds reasonable. It can also be smoked, at an even lower temp. There are plenty of recipes online. Whichever your preference, I would measure temperature, rather than rely on time. I will also add, the texture will certainly be different from a braised chuck, if that is what you are used to.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384396 | 2021-03-07T13:43:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114642",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99449 | Can you mix white and multigrain flours?
I want to make a bread that's a mix of multigrain and white flour so that it's not overwhelmingly multigrain. Is mixing flours like this done? Does the ratio matter or is it just up to how I want it to taste?
Yes. In fact, most bread recipes that use these flours have a base of white flour to which they are added.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384471 | 2019-06-08T17:31:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99449",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75689 | Using a food mill for vegetable stock
When I make stock, I use a potato masher to try and extract some of the juice from the remaining softened vegetables after siving. Can I use a food mill to do this more effectively?
Can you explain why you think this wouldn't work?
Not that I think it won't, just making sure I have the right terminology and it does what I think.
Your stock will be much cloudier if you do this; this may affect recipes (other than basic soups) that you use the stock in.
why would it be cloudier?
It'll be cloudier as you'll end up grinding the vegetables into really small bits. More solid things like the strings from carrots, or skin from peppers might not come through, but you'll end up pushing carrots through if they were cooked soft enough. With a ricer, you might get some of this, but the mill is specifically used to puree as much as possible. It's almost as if you used a stick blender (although keeping out the more solid things, as I mentioned). Although truly solid things (bones, large whole spices) might be a problem.
My aim was to extract the juice from the vegetables not to mash them up. It sounds like a food mill isn't what I want
I don't see why not.
A food mill is regularly used to make purees. It's a popular choice for people making baby food. Here's an example with two different mesh options:
Another option might be a ricer, which is more like a giant garlic press, whereas a food mill has a crank, a ricer has a lever-action.
Ricers are also popular for baby food and mashed potatoes and often have different hole size options.
As a note, you'll want to make sure that there's not anything too hard in the stock like bone fragments. They might be fine in the ricer but they may be problematic in the food mill.
Based on comments here, it seems like the mill is more versatile. Everyone loves the ricer for potatoes but seem to prefer the mill otherwise, so your idea may be better.
User bobcatsteph3 says:
I only use my ricer for potatoes. With the food mill you can puree soups, make smooth tomato sauce, make easy, fantastic applesauce, and yes, mashed potatoes. And you can do all those things with the skin/peels on.
The food mill is harder to clean, and takes more storage space, but I really like OXO's, it's very easy to use, if I could only have one, I'd take the food mill.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384535 | 2016-11-21T02:22:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75689",
"authors": [
"AfterWorkGuinness",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"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
} |
62232 | How to use a pressure cooker for frozen chicken?
I would like to cook frozen chicken breasts in a pressure cooker for shredding and making chicken mole. I do not want to add anything except water, but I'm having a hard time finding specific guidelines on the time to cook frozen meats with no added ingredients or steps.
In my case, I have 3 pounds of frozen chicken breasts to cook. What are the general rules to follow for frozen meats and, in my case, how long and at what heat should I cook this for?
As fluids won't transfer through a frozen item, it's possible that there might be a reason that no one calls for using a pressure cooker on frozen items.
Well, all of the frozen recipes I've seen so far are rather specific and so I'm looking for a more general rule statement to follow, eg: Pressure cooker recipe: From frozen chicken to delicious teriyaki
I recently published a guide for pressure cooking frozen meat - so here's how to do your chicken breasts:
Cover your chicken with water, salt and any other aromatics that you'd like to use.
Pressure cook for 5 minutes at high pressure (the cooker will take MUCH LONGER to reach pressure, this is ok but some electric pressure cookers may time-out and need to be re-set).
Open with Natural Pressure Release.
General rules for pressure cooking frozen meat plus my tips:
http://www.hippressurecooking.com/how-to-pressure-cook-frozen-meat/
Frozen meat pressure cooking times:
http://www.hippressurecooking.com/pressure-cooking-times/#meat
With a whole skinless breast the internal temp was 30.5 degrees after 5 min pressure plus natural release on large Ninja Foodi at a high pressure setting. I had started with near boiling water. If you are starting with boiling water I’d recommend 20min pressure plus natural release, so 40min cook time.
Based on the recipe to which you linked, I'd guess about 10 minutes after the pressure cooker starts steaming. (Until the chicken thaws and starts cooking you shouldn't get much steam.)
Since you're going to shred the chicken and put in a sauce anyway, overcooking might not be a problem.
Frankly if you have an extra hour put the chicken breast in a plastic bag and fill the pressure cooker with hot water from the tap. Dunk the bag in the pot to thaw the breasts so that you can control the cooking time more closely.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384748 | 2015-10-03T00:30:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62232",
"authors": [
"Bill McCool",
"Joe",
"John",
"Pain Medical Clinic",
"Rayjean Johnson-Robinson",
"Savita Sahu",
"Sky Holmer",
"Wylie Wilson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95913",
"ylluminate"
],
"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
} |
62250 | forgot to turn on crock pot for less than 2 hours
I left a pork roast in my crock pot for a little less than 2 hours, but forgot to turn crock pot on. It still felt cool to the touch. Is it safe to eat?
When these things happen (and you're still within 2 hrs), you want to get everything heated up as quickly as possible, so it's out of the food danger zone.
See my notes at the bottom of an answer on prepping things the night before on heating things up faster.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.384961 | 2015-10-03T18:19:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62250",
"authors": [
"Charissa Turner",
"Jerrilu Smith",
"Linda J Genereux",
"Louise Stern",
"Steven Byrnes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148012"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62374 | Siphon for testing new recipes: 250ml or 500ml?
I already own two 1 litre ISI siphons but they are too big when I'm developing a new mousse or recipe in general.
I don't have a restaurant, I just do this in my free time, and I was considering buying a small siphon for testing new recipes.
Would you recommend the 250ml or the 500ml? I tend to think that the smallest one would be the best suit, but I'm worried that it's very small.
Ideas?
I wonder if you could put something solid, food-safe and insoluble (like silicone used for making molds, or a small sealed jar of water) inside your existing canister to let you work effectively with smaller quantities without the expense of getting another siphon.
It's unclear what the issue really is here. You're the only one who knows whether the kinds of things you're trying to make will fit in 250mL. If there's something specific you want to find out, please edit and flag this to be reopened.
Well, if you want to make 500ml, nothing stops you from using the 250ml one twice, right?
250ml is sufficient to judge a recipe - of course, if you do test runs with your family of 6, 250ml might be a bad choice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.385051 | 2015-10-07T21:03:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62374",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Stanley",
"Faith Salazar",
"Frances Woodle-Nation",
"Hannah Durkin",
"Luc Ravina",
"NadjaCS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62437 | Safety with vacuum packed food
I left a vacuum packed chicken casserole from Whole Food out four hours.
Is it safe? The car ride from store is included in the time. Our house is not freezing nor too hot.
Things that require refrigeration are safe for 2-4 hours at room temperature, so this is borderline. It's a less dangerous thing (it's not raw meat!) so it's less risky, but up to you! See the marked duplicate for a bit more detail.
Yes, it is. The important part, for nearly any dish, is to heat it properly.
Meat is mainly spoiled by bacteria, worms and larvae. Proper heating solves these problems. Bacteria and mold digest proteins and might generate harmful molecules; while heating does not eliminate them, they are easy to smell, especially those in meat. You won't want to eat it way before it becomes a health risk. The other health risks are unhealthy proteins, like the mad cow disease, hormones and antibiotics. They are stable to heating - but they don't propagate, so if they are in there, then they are in there the moment you purchased them.
Note that fat oxidation/rancidity are not actually health risks, even though they will ruin the taste. But 4 hours is way too short to make any fat rancid.
Are you saying there can't be any bacteria in a vacuum packed premade meal from a store? (That's not true; it's just as potentially contaminated as anything else, just with it all sealed in without much air.)
And are you also saying you can always smell if meat is dangerously spoiled? That's completely false. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/45054/1672
Also, I think you're just talking about cooking meat to safe temperatures, but just in case, even thorough heating doesn't turn unsafe food safe: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/32167/1672
@Jefromi Are you saying there can't be any bacteria in a vacuum packed premade meal from a store? No, why would I say that? I say that proper heating kills bacteria.
Okay, well there were a few ways to read your answer: one, you think that it's unequivocally safe to leave something out for four hours, two, you think that you can take something unsafe and make it safe by cooking, or three, you think it wasn't contaminated. Those things are all false, and it was hard to tell which you meant, but the third seemed most likely.
@Jefromi So you think it is impossible to take something unsafe and make it safe by cooking?
I linked to this in a previous comment: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32167/can-adequate-heating-transform-spoiled-food-into-safe-food; see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12992/why-is-it-dangerous-to-eat-meat-which-has-been-left-out-and-then-cooked. Things like raw meat are safe, but only once cooked, sure - but once something is actually unsafe, no amount of cooking will save if. And once you pass the time limit in the danger zone, things are unsafe. That's not an "I think" thing, that's government food safety recommenation.
@Jefromi Your government maybe, in a country where people sue for a coffee being hot. If you tell anyone in Europe that you have to throw meat away after two hours at 5°C, they will question your mental health, no matter what your government says.
You're talking about different standards for when it becomes unsafe, not taking something truly unsafe and salvaging it by cooking. In any case, Europe has food safety standards too and you're welcome to cite them instead. But we prefer not to give advice that'll be okay 99% of the but not all the time, because (much like with governments) a lot of people may read what you write here, and even small odds of getting sick can result in your advice actually harming someone.
@Jefromi Considering that the product might be spoiled already before you buy it, the recommendation would have to be to not eat anything at all then ever. There is never a 0% chance.
Nope, that makes absolutely no sense. None of this is about zero chance, it's about acceptably small risk. Just as there are guidelines to tell you when things you've bought have become unsafe (as in a small but unacceptable risk of making you very sick), there are regulations to ensure that the things you buy have an acceptably small risk. So unless you want to turn this into a part-time job, doing as much research as government food safety agencies do in order to make recommendations to people that have a similar level of risk, it's best to defer to their standards.
To tie that back to making suggestions like yours, sure, they're low-risk. But how low? If everyone who reads this follows them for the rest of their life, what fraction of them would at some point get serious food poisoning? What fraction would die? Suppose your advice would cause no serious problems 99% of the time. Maybe you're willing to take that chance, but what if 1000 people read your post and 10 get really sick? Is that okay with you? Would 1 in 1000 be okay? How do you know if it's 90% or 99% or 99.9%?
@Jefromi What fraction would at some point get serious food poisoning by following your advice their whole life? 16 people died 2011 due to contaminated cantaloupes. Listeria in cheese will kill more people every year than my advice for the next thirty years. Yes, I can live with my advice. I love my life and my health and I would have no problem to serve and eat a vacuumed dish after 4 hours of reasonable room temperature. Hell, a lot of parties last longer than 2 hours and I've never seen someone tear down the buffet to protect the guests.
If you're confused about any of this, feel free to ask a question. You've misrepresented my words several times here, and comments on an answer to a duplicate question are not the place to try to sort it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.385203 | 2015-10-10T22:56:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62437",
"authors": [
"Barbara Slaterback",
"Cascabel",
"Connie Manella",
"Debbie Sheen",
"John Hammond",
"Linda Bryn",
"Tammy Mcabee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62452 | What is dry cottage cheese?
My grandmother's recipe for cheese filling for kolacky calls for dry cottage cheese. What is that and where might I get some?
Where are you from? It might help in giving buying advice.
@PatrickHofman no, it's not at all feta like. Judging from the recipe name and the OP's name, we're dealing with a recipe from Eastern Europe, so the cheese will be of the tvorog family (the description "dry cottage cheese" is also the best way to name this cheese, which seems to be unknown in English speaking countries and so has no recognizable name). It's very different from feta both in texture and taste.
I am of two minds whether to close this as a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29014/how-to-make-a-hungarian-t%C3%BAr%C3%B3-rudi-at-home. It seems to be the same problem, pertaining to a cheese of the same family. I'll leave the community votes to decide whether to keep this question open too, or whether they are similar enough to be considered duplicate.
Dry cottage cheese is called Farmer's Cheese. The curds and whey are separated, and the curds are pressed. My Russian grandmother used Farmer's Cheese as a filling for blintzes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.385873 | 2015-10-11T17:48:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62452",
"authors": [
"Denise Howard",
"Dennis Perez",
"Holly Hood",
"Marian Vasile Gaming hood",
"Patrick Hofman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372",
"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
} |
62480 | Why are home canning jars made of glass and not metal?
I was hoping to can some food to take backpacking and looking for metal canning jars for home canning, but as far as I can see, they don't exist. Is there any reason why canning jars are made of glass? Metal seems like it would be lighter and sturdier.
Metal may be lighter and sturdier, but glass is nicely non-reactive and easily cleaned for re-use. It's also easier to see what it looks like inside without breaking the seal, to see if there is something that doesn't look right. It's a lot easier to do safely in home environments.
I'm not sure if the difference in the thermal properties of the metal ring vs the glass lip are important in water bath canning (e.g., the ring expanding more than the glass).
Glass is also non-reactive, which makes it more suitable for long-term storage and re-use. Granted, metal can be lined with less reactive materials (as in canned goods) but the liner could wear away with repeated use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.386108 | 2015-10-12T17:50:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62480",
"authors": [
"Angela Law",
"E W",
"Juanita Dozier",
"Justin Toone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62600 | What are the pros and cons of various woods used in wooden utensils?
Looking up wooden utensils on amazon, I've found bamboo, maple, olive wood and birch wood spoons/kitchen utensils.
Is there any clear benefit to one wood over another for cooking utensils? Is one wood clearly a superior choice? Is one wood more maintainable or sturdy? Does one wood spread heat to the handle less quickly?
I prefer Maple myself but the whole objective is to use wood species that have very tight grains and closed pores. The above that you mentioned all seem in line but as a wood worker I would think that birch would be on the bottom of my list as choices. If you look at hard woods like Oak you will notice a lot of open grain that makes the surface far to porous for this. You want it as smooth as possible so it can be cleaned well when you're done using it.
There could be other benefits that I'm not aware of so this is just an opinion from someone who works with wood a lot. When I mill birch it has a tendency to get fuzzy and it's very labor intensive to get the final piece smoothed out. I don't even bother with it any more.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.386233 | 2015-10-17T19:33:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62600",
"authors": [
"Annette Mines",
"Carrie Bright",
"Judy Wong",
"Tami Choiniere",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148831"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62817 | What makes for good olive oil?
It's been years I've been pondering this question. When I go to the store, the olive oil section has a vast array of offerings with a great range in prices.
With that in mind:
Does higher price necessarily mean better olive oil?
What distinguishes good olive oil from bad olive oil?
Related. The answer to this question will probably give you a start at least.
"Does higher price necessarily mean better olive oil?" - no, never, not for oil and not for any other product. For some products, the opposite is true - you cannot get good quality for little money - but there is no way to guarantee that an expensive product is of good quality.
The problem is that there are different types of olive oil that are used for dramatically different purposes.
A high quality 'cold pressed extra virgin' oil often has fruity notes that are destroyed when you heat it, but is great for drizzling over things at the last minute, or cold applications such as salad dressings ... but note that the US labeling laws are lax, so something labeled as 'extra virgin' in the US may not qualify as such in Europe.
For most cooking, I use a good grade olive oil ('virgin', but not 'extra virgin') for cooking with, not the extremely expensive stuff.
For frying, there's 'extra light' olive oil which has a higher smoke point but little to no flavor on its own. It's refined to such a point that you might be better off just going with any neutral flavored oil (canola/rape, soy, corn, etc.)
Price depends on a lot of things, and a lot of it's marketing and worthless -- if you can, I'd look for other signs of quality ... like if there's a packing date. Older oil is more likely to have deteriorated, and in a worst case, have gone rancid. (more likely if it's in a clear glass bottle ... if you're buying large amounts of oil, keep it out of sunlight, or even better, buy it in a can) Note that packing dates can also be cheated -- they might press the oil, then hold it for months before it's actually bottled for sale.
Also beware of 'blended oils'. This is when they cut olive oil with something less expensive, but still try to pass it off as 'olive oil'.
'Imported from Italy' is another suspect label, as it might be foreign olives that were sent to Italy before being imported. (but there's nothing wrong with non-Italian olives ... the Greeks and Spanish make some great olive oils, and we're starting to see more American olive oils).
...
Also note that olive oil can be classified like wines -- some companies might press a single variety of olive (eg, Kalamata, Castelvetrano), which can have dramatically different flavors. They might be fruity, grassy, buttery, or even peppery. Regions can also have an impact, as some areas press olives while green, and others wait until they're black.
I won't get into these, as that's more a matter of personal taste.
A lot of the Italian oils have been found to be adultered and should be stayed away from. If you can, source your oils from California for now. I wish I could remember the brand I use, but it's been listed as a favorable oil in many publications. I just grab it because I know the bottle.
"A study from the University of California, Davis had found that 44% of consumers in the U.S. liked defects like rancidity, fustiness, mustiness and winey flavor in their olive oil. The authors indicate this may be due to the large amount of defective olive oil labeled as extra virgin available to consumers. " http://www.olivetomato.com/how-to-recognize-good-and-bad-olive-oil/ .... now these kinds of statements have me divided on the issue. Labelling taste nuances that are not widely seen as a defect as one, strikes me as plain arrogance...
...but adulterations, or contaminations/defects (rancidity, metal or mold) that might make the product objectively unhealthy (and are not advertised as a product feature like mold in blue cheese), should obviously not be accepted...
Of course you can always pay too much for olive oil (as for anything), but if you pay too little, you can conclude you cannot possibly be getting a true, well made extra virgin olive oil. According to one finicky producer of excellent EVOO, De Carlo, a price of 8 euros per liter would barely cover his costs. So take it as a warning if you pay less.
The cost derives from the need for "healthy, expertly picked olives, milled within 24 hours of their harvest to preserve flavors and avoid spillage."
The info here comes from a pleasant book, "Extra Virgin" written in 2012 by Tom Mueller.
I don't pretend to be able to identify all these deficiencies myself, but the official European guidelines say that even a hint of any one of these defects, when tasted by professionals in a blind test, makes an olive oil fail to be extra virgin:
"rancid," 'fusty," winey/vinegary," "muddy sediment," "metallic," "esparto," "grubby."
So an EVOO is one that lacks those defects.
The first step is making sure that you are actually getting olive oil. There have been huge problems with olive oil that turned out to be just plain counterfeit (as in blended with other oils, mislabelled, adulterated in other ways) in recent years; how prevalent that problem is in your local market is very dependent on locality, on your grocer's or favorite brand's buying policy, and other factors...
Once you have actual olive oil, it is a matter of taste unless you want certain (fresher, purer) grades for their health benefits.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.386364 | 2015-10-25T22:20:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62817",
"authors": [
"Beryl Flygelholm",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Gwendolyn Erving",
"Kathryn Holderness",
"Sara Madunatum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62847 | Microwave oven equipment
I just purchased a new Berkley and Jensen microwave. I would like to know what the metal rack used for? There is no explanation in the owners Manuel.
Some microwaves have racks so you can cook two dishes at once. In fact, you can buy generic racks for this very purpose. However, I also read that some hybrid microwave/convection ovens include metal racks that must be removed if you're using it in microwave mode. You could check with the manufacturer if you want to know for sure. They may recommend removing the rack if you're only cooking one dish at a time.
Contrary to popular belief, metal is not as much no no in a microwave IF AND ONLY IF something else is in the microwave as well.
That metal rack is a grill, it will get hot enough to put grill marks on your food.
Do NOT use it unless you have food in your microwave. Leave it out UNLESS you are using it. And make sure your food hasn't dried out when you are using it.
I have never used mine, I don't cook with a microwave, I merely use it to reheat occasional small bits or to soften butter in an emergency, and the kids use it to heat up leftovers sometimes but I don't cook with a microwave.
I am not sure about your specific make and model of microwave, but I have seen metal racks used in combination microwave/ovens with broiling function to speed up the broiling process as the food will be closer to the heating elements.
This is especially useful on the combined microwave/broil function as these ovens will constantly switch between microwave and broil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.386774 | 2015-10-26T18:01:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62847",
"authors": [
"Amy Alvarez",
"Austin Hayes",
"C A",
"J M",
"Michael Grotts",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149678"
],
"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
} |
79212 | Does yeast use the salt in the ferment?
During the rising process, does the yeast consume and break down any of the salt in the dough, or is the amount you put in at the start the amount you get in your final loafs? (just spotted some recipes I've been usijg have up to 10g of salt per loaf going in!! :s )
Yeast does not eat or use salt. Salt inhibits or retards the growth of yeast and too much salt can severely impact its ability to leaven or even kill it. ( all though modern commercial yeast is more resilient than naturally cultivated yeasts like in sourdough's )
Salt has an effect on gluten, it does not aid in gluten formation but it does ad strength to the gluten after it is developed thereby allow the dough to hold more of the carbon dioxide produced by the yeast.
Yeast feeds on carbohydrates and sugars to produce carbon dioxide.
We use salt to enhance flavor.
wikipedia page on yeast
king Arthur page on salt
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.386929 | 2017-03-17T05:39:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79212",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104069 | Smen - Moroccan fermented butter.. best clarified or not?
I am making a 20kg batch for my niece's birth (I like the old traditions of the world!), and was wondering if anyone could direct me.
There seems to be recipes calling for fresh butter (https://www.thespruceeats.com/smen-moroccan-preserved-butter-with-thyme-2394939), and recipes calling for clarified butter (https://www.thespruceeats.com/smen-recipe-plain-salted-preserved-butter-2394938)
I need one to store for decades, so am wondering about the clarified butter one without the herb 'starter culture'.. and as an aside (for interest), are the differences just regional?
I really don't know much about smen at all, but a cursory search of online sources seems to indicate that the majority of procedures and references call for clarifying the butter in some way (at least in the English language sources). But I have no idea what might be most traditional.
Clarified butter has had most of the water removed and so has a much longer shelf life than fresh butter. I assume this is why it is often found in the cuisines of warmer climates.
Water is required for fermentation so if the butter was truly clarified it would not ferment. That's kind of the point of clarified butter.
The second recipe only partially clarified the butter. The milk solids are strained but the water isn't separated out.
I suspect this is done for flavor and appearance. The browned solids would add complexity to the flavor even after they were strained out. The color would be more vibrant when it is used without the browned solids.
I can't speak to the authenticity of either method but I suspect the clarified butter would be more authentic because it would be more common in Morocco. Kind of like how all Indian recipes call for ghee even when butter works fine. It's what they had on hand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387030 | 2019-12-12T14:27:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104069",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108659 | An extensive sausage making site
I have been looking for a website that offers recipes for sausage making at home, at an encyclopaedic level if it exists.. thespicysausage.com has some popular ones, but is there anything out there that is more diverse? I mean Chinese, Thai, Indian, Italian, etc etc? It seems that typing 'sausage recipe' into the web engines only offers recipes to make with already made sausages! :s
There is no all-in-one sausage making site that I know of. However, many recipes can be found just by searching "home made sausage." You can further specify by searching individual types of sausage. For example I recently searched for, and made, "home made Argentinian chorizo".
The website must me made then! :D
@IlyaGrushevskiy let me know when you create it.
The charcuterie Bible is probably your best bet. A great amount of food related wisdom, not just sausage-related.
Charcuterie: The craft of salting, smoking and curing by Michael Ruhlman and Brian Polcyn.
A few years ago i stumbled upon the repository of recipes from Len Poli of Sonoma Mountain Sausages.
Although it doesn't have a recipe for every sausage ever conceived, it is quite an extensive collection that also includes recipes for cured meats (hams etc).
heres the link:
http://lpoli.50webs.com/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387181 | 2020-05-27T19:07:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108659",
"authors": [
"Ilya Grushevskiy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40344",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107421 | Can fermented products (yoghurt, creme fraiche etc) be added to a ravioli filling?
If not, why not? (From a science point of view if possible :))
There is no reason not to do it in the sense of the food police arresting you or your oven exploding. But still, many people prefer not to do it (and some of them may feel that this gives them the moral obligation to become said food police :) )
The scientific reasoning behind it is that when the dairy proteins, when heated in the presence of the acid produced by the fermentation, curdle. The clumping is reduced if they are mixed with something else - e.g. you are using a dairy product that's high in fat, like creme fraiche, or your filling is not made mostly out of fermented dairy. But if you just dump yogurt into your ravioli, it will curdle during the cooking, basically turning into a kind of tvorog. The filling will be grainy and swim with whey.
If you are bothered by that change, don't do it. If you are not, you might still find your ravioli easier to handle if you fill them with tvorog outright instead of using a filling predominantly made of fermented dairy. There will be small differences in the result however, and if you find out that you like it, then there is no reason not to do it.
If you have a filling mostly made of something else, and want to add small amounts of fermented dairy, you probably won't notice any unusual effects happening anyway.
Sure...why not? There is not a scientific reason to not include them. They may not be traditional fillings, but there is no reason they could not work. Kimchi ravioli could be interesting, for example.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387307 | 2020-04-09T17:48:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107421",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126532 | Pho stock turns dark
When making a pho stock, the onion, ginger, garlic are charred over a flame.. when I do this, whether using water or stock (unroasted bones), my pho stock turns dark.
My memory of pho in Vietnam is of a clear white stock, I was wondering how this is achieved!
The recipe I saw said to rinse off all the charred skin after charring the aromatic ingredients. Much of the "charred" flavor is inside the items, and this way the charcoal won't turn your stock dark.
Many other recipes, however, implied that a darker-colored stock is desirable, and none seemed to attempt at a lighter-colored stock. It is possible that the light-colored stock you remember was a different dish entirely.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387439 | 2024-01-31T19:09:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126532",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121866 | Seer torshi (pickled garlic) with metal lids dissolved in the vinegar
So I pickled a lot of garlic 8 years ago, but being a novice, did not know the metallic lids would dissolve due to the vinegar.
The garlic is whole, still in its husks, and I was wondering if it were safe to eat?
Proper canning lids are coated and don't normally rust through if undamaged and not wetted on the outside. Acid contents are completely normal and expected in canning.
8 years old - sitting open for unknown time since lids rusted through - toss it.
The lids aren't open, just some fraction of them dissolved in the vinegar. The vinegar is 7%+ (I remember going a little mad and getting Jerez vinegar). The garlic is kept submerged in it, is not green or bad smelling, so should be ok other than my question about the metal issue! (Seer torshi is pickled for decades also, so the age is not an issue, just the metal..), thanks for the reply also!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387519 | 2022-10-02T10:53:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121866",
"authors": [
"Ilya Grushevskiy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40344"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62898 | Forgot to add spices to curry
I made a jalfrezi today for tomorrow and I forgot to add spices, (cumin, tumeric, paprika).
Is there a way I can add them now getting the most from them?
You will need to cook the spices before adding them, but you can add them in now and it will be fine. You can either dry-roast the spices in the pan or cook them in a little oil like making a tadka.
Probably if the cumin is whole, dry roast it until it starts to turn golden then add the turmeric and paprika and cook it for just a few seconds more. If everything is powder, I'd heat a bit of oil and add all the spices at once and cook for a few seconds.
If there is coriander, too, though, I feel that needs a bit more cooking.
The flavors will blend overnight in the fridge, and further when you heat it before serving, so as long as the spices are cooked, it is fine to just mix them in.
You cook the spices because they would have been cooked in the normal cooking process and their flavor changes in cooking. If you add then without cooking they will taste raw.
@Lilienthal, one reason is that cooking spices in oil can help release their flavors and distribute them through the dish. For example, 3-5 sprinkles of cayenne pepper cooked briefly in oil is enough to spice up three good servings of bhindi masala. Those same three sprinkles would probably only be good for one serving uncooked, and would give it a harsher flavor.
I agree with using a tadka; try as much as possible to replicate the cooking conditions of the recipe for the spices - e.g. if the spices are added in several different batches, with the first batch cooked in oil, do that as much as you can. The spices alter in flavour depending on whether they are cooked in oil or water (different flavour compounds are extracted) and for how long. An essential part of most Indian recipes is "bhuna"; dry frying the spices in oil, and is crucial. Letting it sit overnight after blending will also help. It will never quite be the same, but it may be close.
Use one of these small pans to add spices later on. You can use it directly over the flame. Pour some oil in it and bring it to heat, add cumins and other spices and cook it for some time. Then add the cooked spices in your jalfrezi.. :)
I'm wondering what you did cook. Spices are such an integral (and usually fundamental) part of Indian cooking that omitting them is going to leave you with a completely different dish.
So take out those spices and you're left with:
Meat
Onion
Tomatoes
Chilli
Garlic
So yes, you could fry up some spice in some more oil and mix that through your existing batch. There are food-safety issues here so if your meat-and-tomato dish is already cooled, I'd probably save this step for when I was reheating it for serving.
Don't add a hot oily spice mix to a cooled meat dish and then cool the whole lot again.
But will it be good? Again, with a Jalfrezi, you'd start by frying off the spices on the meat. I assume your meat wasn't pre-prepared (eg tikka'd) so adding the spice now is going to see very limited flavour penetration.
What you do have is a fairly solid base for a lot of Italian dishes. Stir in a bunch of fresh herbs (oregano, basil, parsley, thyme, etc) as you're reheating and it'll likely take on enough flavour for an Italian style dish.
Thanks for the info. There is no meat, and the sweet potato and chickpeas take some of the Italianness from it
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387609 | 2015-10-28T04:15:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62898",
"authors": [
"Alfredo F. Martel",
"Barbara Rudolph",
"Brenda Heber",
"Chris Macksey",
"Karen Russell",
"Larry Harris",
"NadjaCS",
"Rosita Faustino",
"Shane",
"Tim Thompson",
"dfeuer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40355"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63021 | How to cook Beansprouts so that they remain crispy
I have tried different methods of cooking Beansprouts but I just never seem to get a consistent crunchy tasty end product. Can somebody please share a recipe or method because I absolutely love Beansprouts so much. (When they have been cooked by someone else)
Can you please explain more thoroughly the type of dish you're trying to create? I've never heard of a dish that's only bean sprouts other than something like one of the side dishes at Korean restaurants, and those certainly aren't crispy.
I only know one way -- don't cook them.
I add them at the last second before serving. If I want them to warm through slightly, I'll mix them into whatever else has been cooked before plating -- otherwise, I'll just add them on top as more of a garnish.
I did try eating them raw but not really to my taste. Thank you anyway, I appreciate all suggestions.
Stir fry them fast... Make sure they are dry before you begin, add the smallest amount of neutral oil; and a little sesame oil for flavor and smell... When the oils and pan are super hot, throw in the bean shoots... Keep them moving for no more than one minute... Serve immediately...
Korean dishes call for blanched bean shoots... Again work fast... Make sure that the beans are added and then removed for the fast boiling water extra fast. Shock them in running cold or iced water as soon as you are done...
In either case the objective is to maintain some level of crispness, but to remove the raw "green" flavor of uncooked bean shoots.
Wow thank you. I tried both methods with equal enjoyment. Probably slight preference for the Korean method but very happy with the results and now able to enjoy my own cooking a great deal more.
Koreans seem to prefer bean shoots made from soy beans... The root is somewhat tougher and stronger, and the bean is bigger and much stronger in flavor. Its crunchier than normal beans... Another shoot to try seems to be chick pea shoots... They are even nicer...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.387925 | 2015-11-01T03:59:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63021",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Baymont Inn",
"Catija",
"Cliff",
"Denise Niecey Atkins",
"Jennifer Walker",
"William Garces",
"anne secord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40423"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122130 | Long cook with a pause - what happens to beef?
I'm making one of my many types of long-cook meal, this time Hungarian Goulash, using beef skirt.
All is at a simmer, which I would keep up for four hours. However, only three hours into this, I must go out for two hours. I don't want to leave it unsupervised for a total of five or more hours, in case the meat turns to that unappetising 'wood-chip' texture - there's a break-point between 'done' & 'over-cooked' at about the 4-hour point and I want to catch it at the optimum, not past it.
What happens if I switch it off now & pick up again when I get back?
Assume for this that the temperature won't drop into the danger zone in the intervening period.
Will the cooking pick up where it left off, once it's back to temperature, or will it change state somehow after cooling?
As an extreme example, I'm thinking of potatoes if you heat them just until they clarify, then switch off & allow to cool, they will then never cook to fall-apart soft. [Neat trick for patatas bravas, but not suitable for everything.]
Don't underestimate the carry-over cooking that will happen once you turn the heat off.
I'm trying to factor all this in too, as well as the point at which I drop my potatoes & carrots to get the last 40 mins. I just don't have a mental history to think back through for a reasonable comparison; I do this type of long-cook when I know I'm going to be here to supervise, otherwise it does the full stretch in a slow cooker instead. In fact, this is really a question for 'next time' because I'm just going to have to go with guesswork today ;)
Any way to stick a thermocouple in your stew today during the "trial" phase? You could measure the residual heat once you turn off the gas and perhaps roughly calculate the answer to your question.
@moscafj - I don't posses any kind of food thermometer, but I just about got away with it - more info under the answer. :)
I think particularly for stews, where the meat is submerged in a braising liquid, the only thing to be concerned about is the danger-zone temprature you identified. For my own sanity, I'm gonna assume you're eating it all once finished rather than cooling it off and reheating it (and therefore passing it through that danger zone one more time than is necessary).
Assuming it's magically cooled down to room temp, there's very little that's going to change in the meat that hasn't already happened in the first couple of hours of braising; especially if you're returning to it relatively soon.
If it's a single hunk of meat rather than pieces, you might want to consider flipping it to give the un-submerged side some chance to soak up juices, as it may have dried out slightly; but I wouldn't call that a change in state, exactly.
As it turned out, by the time I got back it hadn't cooled massively - I don't have a thermometer but it was still too hot to put a finger in (ikr;) I dropped my potatoes & carrots, brought it all back to the boil & gave it a final 45min simmer. The meat was slightly over, but not enough to upset anyone. It was in cubes & being goulash had a lot of gravy so it was all submerged nicely. My Hungarian-parentage partner gave it the thumbs up & went to tell her mother my recipe… which made me feel rather happy/relieved about the whole episode;))
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.388215 | 2022-10-27T13:07:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122130",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126031 | How do I stop potatoes falling apart in a long-cook?
Every time I make a stew or curry, either on the hob or in a slow cooker, the time needed for the potatoes is much shorter than the overall time for the stew.
Adding potatoes part-way through is not a satisfying solution, so I need a method by which I can leave the slow cooker all day without hovering over it to decide when to add potatoes.
In summer I can use 'new' crop, waxy potatoes; though these have a slightly different flavour, that would be acceptable.
Refs:
How to ensure that potatoes disintegrate in stews or casseroles
When does parboiling "begin"?
Why do potatoes in soup/stew taste stale the next day?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/53590/67
There's a 'cheat' I learned many years ago - by accident.
If you parboil potatoes, the starches change in such a way as to make the outside fluffy, yet the inside not collapse - for if you're making roast potatoes, or twice-cooked chips [fries].
With some experimentation on parboiling, I arrived at a method by which you don't let them even parboil, you pull the heat early, then let them cool naturally, still in the same water & pan.
I use a glass-lidded heavy saucepan for this, so I can watch for the 'turn'.
Start with regular 'winter crop' [starchy] potatoes; peeled & cut into your final sizes.
In a heavy saucepan, starting with cold water, bring the pot up to the boil… but don't let it quite reach a full boil.
At one point you will see the potatoes go 'glassy', slightly translucent. As soon as this seems to be through the entire pot, switch it off & allow to cool naturally.
This precise point may need some experimentation - too soon & you get potato-shaped bullets which will never soften, too late & you needn't have bothered, they will continue to cook like 'regular potatoes' & turn to mush in your stew. If you are fearful you stopped late, take the lid off, if you feel you stopped early, leave it on. The difference in heat retention can just make the difference.
One thing - don't force-cool them by putting the pan or the potatoes in cold water… you will get black-edged potatoes.
There is a chemical transformation that happens here that will then mean the potatoes will never go fully soft. You can then re-cook them for hour on hour in a slow cooker, low on a hob, or in the oven & they will never turn to mush.
This all has a firm scientific basis - not one bit of which do I understand. I prefer to think of it as 'voodoo magic' - do it this way and it works;)
I am gobsmacked and incredulous and now I need an excuse to long-cook some potatoes.
I was doing some in a sag alloo for dinner & it just occurred to me people might not be aware… hence Q and A. ;) They stood nearly 2 hours at a stove-top low simmer to be just right for dinner. Fluffy on the outside, yet firm enough not to collapse.
It’s likely starch retrogradation. (The same thing that makes cooked rice go hard and bread go stale). You can also add acid to your cooking liquid to keep the potatoes from softening too much
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.388491 | 2023-12-08T18:23:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126031",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63372 | Can I layer Lemon curd and Lemon Mousse?
I have a friend who really wants me to make then a cheesecake that has a layer of lemon curd that is then covered in a layer of lemon mousse. I think this sounds great but will the lemon curd curdle my mousse?
What's in the mousse? Basically whipped cream based? And becoming a lemon mousse through what means? (zest, juice, extract)
why would the curd curdle the mousse? How will they mix? I thought you are layering them.
that is my thought, too. I wonder if the lemon mousse might curdle on its own, tho, depending how it is made.
There are several recipies on the internet for this though most have the lemon curd on top of the cheesecake. Mary Berry has a version where she includes the curd directly into the marscapone mixture, so it doesn't seem likely it will curdle.
Putting it onto the biscuit, then adding the cheesecake mixture might cause other problems, either the curd could be pushed out of the sides or moisten the base too much.
One way to control the moisture and firmness and content was an old trick of mine of creating a thick lemon curd custard, but this of course would adjust the original intent of creating a curd and cheese cheese cake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.388753 | 2015-11-11T16:59:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63372",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Alisha Vincent",
"Michelle Ramsey",
"NadjaCS",
"Stephen Costello",
"Tim Phillips",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"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
} |
63409 | Mold forms on sweet miso -- can I still use the miso?
We have a jar of sweet miso that has been in our fridge for several months. I know that miso keeps practically forever, and that is naturally fermented. But I was surprised to find when I opened it that a layer of mold had formed at the top.
If I scrape off the top layer and discard it, is the rest of the miso safe to use? Or do I need to toss the whole jar?
The mold is the indication that the content is compromised with substances that the mold can grow on or with mold that does not mind the environment. This will happen for example when you use a spoon that is not clean. Unfortunately, there is no way to know if this substance is only on the top of the miso. So, whatever it was that the mold grew on, could be in lower layers, too, where non-visible mold with non-detectable toxins could have developed.
So, while a lot of food stuff lasts nearly forever, this is only true while it is uncompromised and proper hygiene is followed.
So, my recommendation would be to toss the whole jar and learn from the experience and not treat fermented food as invincible and reconsider package sizes.
are you sure it is mold. i was asking because i saw a white layer almost from soapy layer on my unopened miso. Through the plastic. It was not smelly I checked online and it says in exception warm condition it developes this layer of same bacteria that is used to ferment miso. If it has grown like proper mold like how you see on bread then you not only need to throw it out. You need to disinect your refrigeration it could be having mold spores in it. You need to clean it with bleach and then spray it down with vinegar and alcohol solution and then with 6% hydrogen peroxide solution.
Refrigerator can get contaminated with mold through organic vegatables. I remember bread started catching mold in my fridge after I did this it stopped. I found black mold spots in my vegetable basket and the back side of it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.388901 | 2015-11-12T23:03:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63409",
"authors": [
"Albert Martinez",
"Lynn Fisler",
"The Pizza Hunters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151007",
"ken dow"
],
"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
} |
81101 | Food accidentally left unrefrigerated for up to 10 days -- what needs to be thrown away?
We have a small, rarely-used auxiliary fridge (dorm-room size) in a storage room. Last week as part of preparing for Passover we took nearly everything from our kitchen fridge that we knew we wouldn't use up before the holiday, and put it in our auxiliary fridge. Now that the holiday is over I went to retrieve the contents and discovered to my horror that at some point during the week it had failed: the compressor wasn't running, the door was slightly ajar, and there were mouse poops all over the lids of our jars.
Some of the contents obviously need to be thrown away: the package of baba gannouj, the open jar of salsa, any packaging with mouse holes in it. Some things are almost certainly fine: the jar of dried zante currants, for example. But some items are less clear to me. Which of the following items are safe to use, after a period of (up to) 10 days without refrigeration?
Miso (hatcha, brown rice, and barley)
Almond meal
Almond butter
Sunflower seed butter
Baker's yeast
Oat flour
Brown mustard
Coconut flour
Arrowroot flour
Borage oil
Evening primrose oil
Hempseed oil
Mirin
All of the above are items that we normally keep refrigerated, and I know that they are all items that are best kept refrigerated. But I am having trouble determining which among them must be kept refrigerated.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
Most things are marked "refrigerate after opening". Start there.
@Catija I'm not wild about that proposed duplicate. I'm all for having a canonical about "how do I figure out if X is perishable?" but that one is about what to do once you know whether it is perishable. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21068/1672 is much closer to being a duplicate, in that it at least gives examples of some things in each category, but I don't know that it covers all of this.
@Jefromi : agreed. There are a number of things that are kept refrigerated to slow degradation (eg, rancidity in oil and flours) that if left out at room temperature for a few days won't automatically ruin it. If these things weren't cross-contaminated (eg, someone didn't stick a dirty knife into the mustard), then the only thing on that list that I'm not sure about is the miso (as I'm less familiar with it). The rest I'd check for problems and try to use them up sooner.
Mouse poops? That would pretty much put it into the "all" category, for me, but that's probably not technically the correct answer. Keep in mind that mice droppings are particularly nasty, in terms of carrying disease. Handling items, at all, let alone food items (even the external packaging) that have come into contact with mice droppings needs to be done with extreme care.
http://www.rentokil.com/rodents/rodent-borne-diseases/
Is this hon-mirin or imitation mirin? Fresh yeast? ... In any case, wash the packages thoroughly - if they are not watertight enough for washing, toss them. And rather not use any of the contents raw!
I'm with @PoloHoleSet, the mouse poops alone are enough to simply bag it all and bin it. There are some things that are simply not worth the risk.
Fridge left ajar and finding mice droppings surely are pretty good reasons to not (over)think too much before dumping all the opened items, at a minimum everything that is not tightly and securely sealed inside a container.. Tossing food is never good, but everything you had said points to doing so out of necessity to avoid any chance of someone getting sick. I would be inclined to dump everything. The inside of the fridge could do with a thorough wash as well before restocking.
Other than that, it would depend on your ambient temperature and what the maximum sustained temperature was inside the unpowered fridge. Normally, if the fridge were not left ajar for visiting pests, most of your contents wold not degrade much if at all for a couple of weeks at 15-25C. Inside a closed fridge, once powered off, the air trapped inside should have a fairly low relative humidity and there would not have a lot of diffusion/exchange with outside ambient air.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.389093 | 2017-04-20T15:59:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81101",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63574 | Elements of a chilli sauce
first post here on Seasoned Advice and I'm just after a wee bit of insight in to the elements of a chilli sauce.
I've been looking in to making chilli sauces at home, but am yet to give it a go - I'm a huge fan of chilli sauces and would really love to nail the flavours I like in a sauce of my own.
I've checked out countless recipes in search of the key elements of a chilli sauce and then stumbled upon this article that stated the 4 key ingredients were fresh chillies, acid, aromatics (carrots, onions, etc.), and salt.
My Questions
1) If these are the core ingredients, what role do they play in creating the sauce? (Chillies are obvious, but the acid and salt I'm curious about)
2) Are there any other core ingredients that go towards making a good sauce?
That article covers the basics pretty well.
I would recommend that you look up some copy cat recipes of your favorite sauces so you get an idea of what goes into making them taste that way. Then you can experiment until you create your own signature hot sauce. You might like one that includes ingredients that you've grown in your own garden for something extra special.
Chillis (peppers) make up the principle hot component.
Vinegar or other acidic wakens up the pepper and increases its hotness on your tongue and lips.
Salt is used to balance the seasoned flavor of the suave. A hot sauce can taste very hot but flat without proper seasoning.
Your other ingredients help create the flavor profile of the sauce, onions sweeten the sauce counter intuitively, parsley can add some green freshness as does cilantro though some people do not like cilantro at all. Garlic is a common component as well whether it's fresh or powdered. Ginger is another brightening agent, that can add both flavor an apparent potency of the sauce.
Sugar by the way whether that cane sugar, or more flavorful honey is also common in hot sauces. Hot and sweet is a fabulous combination that can even entice people to eat just a little bit hotter than they would have otherwise.
If you want the hotness to linger (stay around longer than usual) then add some oil or fat component to the suace. But beware, your friends and family may not forgive you when that spoon of sour cream doesn't help as much as it should.
What you have to decide is, are you looking just to make a sauce that is hot as hell, or do you want to make a sauce that everyone will remember tastes so darn good and that you made it?
There are also some other ways to create desired spicy effects. In Thai cooking, curry pastes are made prior to making the dishes, and those pastes are then blended with other things to make sweet and hot, or peanuty and hot, or whatever. So check out curry past recipes. There are 4 basic ones (red, green, yellow and massuman). Do some searching on curry paste recipes to see some of the more unusual ingredients that may go into a hot concoction.
Acid and Salt are preservatives. A bag of fresh chillies will rot within a month even in the fridge, a proper chilli sauce won't.
Also acid and salt are part of the common taste profile of most savoury dishes anyway, and if the sauce is used as an actual sauce e.g. on protein, these are welcome seasonings too.
Some famous types are rather close to the basic recipe: Sambal Oelek, Sriraja Panich etc.
Sugar can be used as a preservative too
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.389433 | 2015-11-18T03:02:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63574",
"authors": [
"Chareu",
"Clifford Barnes",
"Jonathan Buck",
"Scott Martin",
"TFD",
"Yael Frank",
"christopher cosnowski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151359",
"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
} |
100984 | Is there a difference between brown and white champignons?
My supermarket sells two varieties of champignons: Brown and white, with the brown ones being slightly more expensive.
Is there any notable difference between brown and white champignons in how they taste or the way you prepare or store them? Or is it rather like with brown and white chicken eggs where the differences are literally superficial?
Check this site: What’s the difference between cremini and white mushrooms?
Brown(Baby Bella or Cremini) mushrooms have earthier flavor than the whites, you could use them based on your dishes' style or presentation.
And the storing should be the same. Put them in some brown bag with normal temperature and do not freeze them. Slightly wipe the dust or dirt just before cooking, no need to wash by water.
EG brown ones are more expensive because they are older versions of the same mushroom. Requiring a longer growing time = more expensive to cultivate.
Steve: they're not older, they're just a different coloration (and flavor) of the same species. Portabellos are older, those are the full-size, mature versions of the same mushroom. The brown ones are sometimes more expensive (but not always) because "cremini" sounds more gourmet than "button mushroom".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.389734 | 2019-08-27T10:34:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100984",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120918 | Can I reuse marinade used to marinate tofu?
I already found lots of questions on this site with answers advising not to reuse marinade used to marinate meat. Which I understand, because meat poisoning is no laughing matter.
But what about marinade that wasn't used for meat but for tofu?
What I did:
I made a marinade from these ingredients:
Olive Oil
Vinegar
Curry powder
Instant broth
Corn starch
Water
I let a batch of diced tofu marinate in it in the fridge for about 20 hours in a closed container.
I drained the marinade and filled it in a jar.
Would there be a risk to store this marinade in the fridge for a couple days and then reuse it for another batch of tofu?
You might wanna consider that the marinade will have lost some flavor in the process.
If you have that much left over, you are making too much marinade.
"Meat poisoning" is not a term I am familiar with. It is not the meat that is the issue, rather the potential for pathogens that might be present (on the meat or in the marinade) to grow to dangerous levels, which usually occurs when food is left for prolonged periods in the danger zone
The problem with reusing marinades that were used for meat, fish, or poultry is that potential pathogens (like salmonella or e-coli) on the raw protein could make their way into the marinade, and propagate over time.
Assuming you removed the tofu from a sealed package with clean hands or a utensil, it is unlikely that your tofu would be a source of pathogens. Your marinade ingredients are also unlikely to contain pathogens. So, as long as the whole thing (tofu and marinade) was maintained at refrigerator temperature, and you were sanitary when mixing and removing tofu (no fingers), it is unlikely that you've introduced potential pathogens into the system. Therefore, it would be safe to remove the tofu, jar the remaining marinade, and store in the fridge for a short time to re-use within a week.
Broth mix is presumably salty.
1/2tsp salt per cup liquid is antibacterial.
Yeasty beasties on the other hand...
You can reuse awhile before noticing a white yeast scum similarly on brined capers or olives (harmless enough)
One other thing: tofu gives off a lot of water so check if marinade is watered down.
Microwaving and draining tofu before the marinade will really increase its sponging up.
Curry powder in marinade benefits from long soak if it's not been heated with the oil.
It's generally not a good idea to make presumptions when discussing food safety. The OP's recipe makes no mention of measurements. It would be impossible to determine the salt and/or acid concentration from the description.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.389875 | 2022-06-26T14:29:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120918",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63718 | Can I get a good crust on a thin steak?
I'm trying to get a crunchy crust on a thin steak - is this possible? Online recipes on pan-searing steaks and basting require a 3/4" inch steak at minimum, but this is pretty hard to get at the supermarket for me. They're generally just under 3/4" and more than 1/2".
I find that the outer edges of the surface of the steak in contact with the pan char far more quickly than the inner area. It doesn't seem to be an issue with the steak curving and doming slightly, since this happens on both sides of the steak.
Any idea why this happens, and how to fix this?
What sort of pan are you using? Do you preheat the pan? Do you add anything else to the pan (oil, butter, other fat, etc.)? How do you prepare the steak before cooking (any seasoning, oil, etc.)?
By the way - the reason why the edges get done faster is likely because steam can more easily escape there, compared to the center. The raw (moist) surface layer in the middle of the steak also will generate steam, which can't escape as quickly, and that will tend to keep the surface temperature lower in the center, until you evaporate the moisture in the surface layers of the steak. We may be able to give specific pointers if you provide some details (see my last comment).
I've tried a non-stick and stainless steel pan on the induction hob - the steaks are just seasoned with salt and pepper. Preheated till the oil is starting to smoke, I used enough oil to cover the surface of the pan and then finished with butter towards the end.
When do you put the salt on? Salt will cause moisture to come out of the steak for about 30-40 minutes after seasoning. Assuming I'm correct about the moisture issue, you may try salting at least 45 minutes before cooking, or salting right before putting the steak on the pan. Another thought is to skip the oil in the pan, heat the stainless pan even hotter than you have been doing, and put a little oil directly on the steak instead before putting in the pan. If the pan is hotter, it may cook the center faster and brown more evenly. Add a little more oil/butter later as needed.
Hmm, might have been a moisture issue then. Thanks for the pointers, will try again tomorrow. Cheers!
You should always put salt on steak after cooking. Never before.
@Doug - you may be interested in information about salting in advance given here and here. Obviously it's a preference thing.
Given the thinness of the steak, you achieve a good crust without overcooking the inside by applying high heat for a few minutes on each side of a thin steak. I would treat it like this skirt steak recipe from seriouseats.com :
Since it's a very long, flat steak, there's a lot of surface area to develop an outstanding crust, but this shouldn't be done at the expense of overcooking the inside, which is easy to do given the thinness. The solution is a blazing hot fire to sear the steak quickly before it cooks all the way through.
The grill is the best place to build up this type of heat, where a chimney full of lit coals piled close together can get you up to 700°F of direct heat.
Fix any doming issues and make sure you have an even, uniform crust by using your spatula to press the cut of meat down evenly or use a grill weight like this one (I'm not affiliated with the listing, just an example).1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.390105 | 2015-11-21T20:49:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63718",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Doug",
"James Craig",
"Katie Hannah",
"Mani Varghese K I",
"Seany H",
"William Wong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40966"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67023 | Why can't I get a seasoning layer on my carbon steel pan using an induction hob?
I recently purchased a carbon steel pan (DeBuyer Mineral B Element), and have attempted to perform pre-seasoning on it. I checked out a bunch of videos on the process, and ended up doing the following steps:
Warm up pan
Coat pan in a thin layer of canola oil
Heat pan until oil begins to smoke
Take pan off heat when oil stops smoking
Cool to room temperature
I repeated the process around 6 times, and the flat surface of the pan still felt pretty smooth. Sides of the pan were slightly sticky though. I proceeded to cook bacon, which immediately stuck to the pan (I added about a tablespoon of oil before cooking too).
Any idea what I'm doing wrong, and why no seasoning layer is forming on the carbon steel frying pan? It's getting discolored but not turning black. Sides are turning brown, albeit slightly gummy.
Induction hobs (cooktops/ranges) use magnetic fields to heat the pan directly, only metal that is directly in contact with the hob gets heated by the hob, the rest gets heated through conduction. On a large gas hob burner the flame goes up the sides, heating them. On my induction hob (not my choice, there when I moved in) I find that the heating area does not range as far as the lines on the hob indicate that they should, so you may not be getting direct heating on the entire bottom of the pan.
My recommendation would be to season it in the oven rather than the cooktop presuming the handle and other parts are oven safe. That way the whole pan gets heat evenly. The answer to this question will be of interest to you as it's about induction and metals.
"... I find that the heating area does not range as far as the lines on the hob indicate that they should...": Facing exactly the same problem, and also already installed when moving in. I've only had gas stoves before, but I have to say cooking on an induction stove is nice and flexible, but the heating area is definitely one of the drawbacks, although it probably depends on the quality (this a relatively cheap IKEA-kitchen one).
I have a more up-market one in my kitchen but I still loathe it. It's like trying to cook on a giant ipad! Pots and pans slide around because the surface is so smooth, and moving a pan even slightly off center makes it lose a lot of heat. It also doesn't have the power to heat all 4 burners at once. It takes 30 seconds to turn a burner off from full.
Hmmm, I don't have the time delay from 0 to full whack, if I say go, it goes. The annoyment of pans acting like a puck, combined with the less than advertised heating range and resulting heat loss however, I can fully sympathize with. Very, VERY annoying.
I have no problem turning it on full whack, it's turning it off that's the issue. If it's on full there's no quick way to turn the burner off short of shutting the whole thing off.
Luckily, I don't have that problem. That's probably why I didn't find it weird, strange, or unworkable changing from gas to induction: On the stove I have, changes take effect immediately, every change in it's 0-9 scale produces a noticeable difference, whether it's going step by step, or going from 0 - 9 - 0. Maybe I should give my stove more credit ;)
Should I (or when I) replace the kitchen, I will most likely switch back to gas though.
I will be replacing mine when I redo my kitchen. I may design in a single or double ring induction for the quick boil capability, but my main hob will be gas.
@GdD is that a user interface problem? Some halogen hobs have painfully slow /badly designed controls.
For a short answer, I think that seasoning a pan and having a well seasoned pan are slightly different things. Seasoning a pan is just starting the process of having a well seasoned pan. Think of a well seasoned pan as having multiple layers of seasoning. The more you cook on it the more layers are built up. So it will take some time to build up that nearly non-stick surface you are looking for. Be patient!
Besides you want just a bit of stick in your pan, this is what makes cooking in a carbon/cast iron pan so wonderful and makes for tastier food in my opinion. It's the build up of fond or those lovely pan scrapings of caramelised bits and pieces. Besides, these pans can take a lot more heat than any non-stick pan ever will. And heat is what makes those bits and pieces get caramelised.
I have recently gotten rid of all my non-stick cookware. I have carbon or cast iron pots and pans, and just a few commercial aluminium cookware. And all the new stuff is all induction ready, with the exception of the aluminium stuff. I find that building up a seasoning on induction leads to more even build up, in theory there are no hot spots on an induction cooker.
Here are my steps in seasoning a carbon/cast iron pan.
Very thoroughly wash the pan in hot soapy water. This will get rid of that layer of rust prevention coating from the factory. Some manufacturers say to even use some cleanser and really scrub the pan clean. We want the seasoning to stick to the pan's bare metal not the factory's anti-rust sealant.
Now thoroughly dry the pan off. You don't want any water on the pan, depending on your water, you can leave mineral deposits on the pans surface.
Turn on your exhaust fan/blower, close the doors to the rest of the house and open the windows in your kitchen. Better yet, do this part outside if you can. It will get smokey and smell badly.
Heat up your pan on low-medium heat. We want to slowly burn off any residual coating. This can take a while, and on an induction you most likely cannot get the sides of the pan. I recommend that this be done with a gas burner, just so you can get the entire pan seasoned, sides and all. You don't want too high a heat, as this can cause some thermal shock and warp your pan before you even use it. And if you use induction, you know how annoying it is to have a warped pan.
Let the pan cool off to where you can handle it again. This can take up to 15-20 minutes depending on the weight/mass of your pan. A heavier/thicker pan will have more mass and more heat retention. A lighter/thinner pan will have less and should cool off quicker. Do NOT submerge it in water to cool off, this will again cause thermal shock and can lead to a warped pan.
Repeat steps: 1,2 and 4. When the pan is heated up this time, there should be less or no smoke at all. It should be a bare metal pan, no rust protection coating. Now that the pan is warmed up, we can safely turn up the heat to a much higher setting. We are looking for the pan's metal to actually change color. The pan might be a shiny metallic color at first, but we want it to discolour, to a brown or even blue or black color. This is the start of the seasoning layer. Move the pan to get the heat up the sides of the pan and even heat up the handle area as well.
After the whole cooking surface of the pan has changed color, we cool it down again. Not to the point where you can hold it, but perhaps just for 5 minutes or so. This is where you want to oil season the pan. You want to use an oil that has a high smoking point. Canola, Crisco or best would be a grape seed oil. Do NOT use a low smoking point oil or fat, this will just burn and will not lead to a good coat. Do NOT use: olive oil, butter or lard.
When the pan is cool, use a paper towel with just a drop or two of your oil, rub down the inside of the pan. The thinner the coat the faster and more even the seasoning. Too thick a coat and the oil will pool up burn and get sticky. Thinner is better. Warm up the pre-oiled pan on the medium low heat, this will start to smoke and change the pans color again.
Repeat as many times as you want. The thinner the layers of seasoning the better they stick to the pan. Too thick, and the layer will be sticky and will come off easier. I think the key is to really burn the pan without oil to open up the pores so to speak. This makes for that nice dark patina in the pan itself.
I hope this helps. I know you wanted to do this on an induction burner but they don't do a good job of seasoning the sides of the pan. You really need to do this on a gas range or portable gas burner. After the pan is seasoned, just be patient and just use it.
Tips on cleaning the pan:
After cooking, you want the pan to cool down before you wash it. There are some people that say never let soap touch the pan again. I would say as a hard and fast rule, probably ok. But if you really feel the need for soap, by all means do it. Wash throughly and dry thoroughly, you don't want to store a damp pan, this will lead to rust. Heat the cleaned pan on the burner and then wipe down with the oiled paper towel. Let cool and then store. Protective oil coating is good. If you plan on not using your pots/pans for a while, season them and wrap each pan in an oiled paper bag.
Tips on cooking with a carbon/cast iron pan:
1. Preheat the pan first. Low fire at first, to where it's just barely smoking. 30-45 seconds.
2. Adjust heat for recipe. Add oil to the pan, swirl it around to coat the entire surface of the pan.
3. Discard oil into a heat proof container, ceramic/metal bowl/cup.
4. Add new oil and wait just a second or four till the oil shimmers and moves freely around the pan.
5. Now you are ready to cook. If you need more oil use that initial oil again.
I find that this method works very well. We want the pan and the oil to be hot, if the oil or the pan is too cold, then foods will just stick. This is the procedure when cooking in a wok. fyi. Hope this helps.
We decided to just use the pan kind of. Induction top to 10. Cubed potatoes, skin on, 1/4 cubes.
Lots of salt for the first batch maybe 1/3 as much as potatoes. Warm up 1/8 inch of peanut oil on the bottom of the pan and keep swirling around the edges till it just starts smoking.
Put in the potatoes and salt. Cook until potatoes are dark brown, moving the potatoes all the time, all over the pan even up to the edges. Toss in the sink unless you really like salt.
Batch 2: Less salt, about 1/2 as much as the first time.
Batch 3: Normal cooking of these "breakfast potatoes." Normal salt put in during cooking not after. Be sure to always start with a smoking oil pan and keep the food moving over all surfaces of the pan--right up to the edge. Cook High heat but keep the food moving.
The pan should now be slick, smooth and light brown color. Over time it will darken even more and maintain the slickness unless you cook something like spaghetti sauce or acidic like soup, or leave it wet.
It is hard to say when to reseason. Depends on you. If you use fat more you season less if you clean the pan with a paper towel or cotton rag after use. Don't use microfiber to clean,
It's my experience that carbon steel doesn't build up a nice, thick coating of seasoning like cast iron does. With carbon steel, it's more of a color change than a thick coating.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.390420 | 2016-03-02T12:56:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67023",
"authors": [
"Alison Stokes",
"Brandi Bertrand",
"Chris H",
"Dante Salazar",
"GdD",
"Melinda Carroll",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"kathy barker"
],
"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
} |
63845 | How long can I store Cooked Turkey in Refrig before Freezing?
How long can I store Cooked Turkey in Refrig before Freezing? I bought an Organic Turkey early for Thanksgiving and cooked it. It's been in my Refrig for a week and I'd like to trim and freeze parts and also make a soup. Is my timing on this acceptable?
I'm going to say no.
We chill food in the freezer or refrigerator to slow bacterial growth. In general, the refrigerator will slow the growth enough that cooked meat can be kept safely for 3-5 days, and the freezer enough that cooked meat can be stored for 2-3 months. If you've already kept the meat in the fridge for a week, it is already unsafe to eat. Freezing it now will not reverse that.
In general, if you want to freeze food you should do so ASAP after cooking to maximize the amount of time it will keep in the freezer. After it's already unsafe is too late.
I would also add that even if the food managed to stay "safe" and won't make you ill, leftover meat that has been in the refrigerator for a week will have started to grow other spoilage bacteria that will likely produce "off" flavors in anything you cook with it. So even if you're lucky and it doesn't make you sick, the dishes you make out of it could likely taste bad. I'd throw it out.
if it's not bad, it's still good...unless you have it tightly wrapped, turkey meat will dry out before any deterioration will take hold...i've used turkey that's been on the bone in the fridge lightly covered for up to 2 months (you may have to heat it with a few drops of water) on the other hand, if you wrap it in plastic & seal out the air, the moisture will cause it to go bad in less than two weeks..
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.391429 | 2015-11-25T19:19:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63845",
"authors": [
"Adam Makeham",
"Athanasius",
"Dirk Smit",
"Jan Talent",
"Xxxx Yyyy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152068"
],
"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
} |
63886 | Cookies rise nicely in the oven, but then collapse
Just as every year, I have been baking spicy Christmas cookies with my Granny. And like always, they have expanded nicely in the oven, but collapsed afterwards. But this year I know to go to Seasoned Advice and ask how to prevent that for years to come!
The recipe calls for 625 g sugar, 250 g butter and 50 g various dry spices (cinnamon, coriander, succade, cloves) to be kneaded together, and then to be mixed with 875 g flour and 250 ml milk with 15 g baker's ammonia (Ammonium carbonate). The dough is laid to rest for a long time (4 days or so), rolled about 3mm thin, cut, and baked at 160⁰C for 10–12 minutes.
The cookies expand in the oven, growing a bit thicker in the middle than on the outside, but then collapse again during the remainder of the baking time.
The resulting cookies are quite soft when coming out of the oven, but grow very hard during cooling.
What would we need to change so that the cookies keep their expanded shape?
First of all: What does cause the collapse?
The ammonium carbonate creates carbon dioxide under heat, which creates the gas bubbles that expand the dough. The gas bubbles are kept in place by a network of glutenin molecules, which make the dough elastic.
When your dough collapses after some time, it basically means that your glutenin network broke, much like a rubber band that was stretched too far. The carbon dioxide escapes and you have the not quite satisfying end result.
As you reach a level of carbon dioxide you are content with during baking, the best solution seems to be to just use less ammonium carbonate.
Taking into account that ammonium carb. is used to "lighten", not to excessively "lift" your cookies, using less (or at least to meassure very carefully) is the way to go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.391619 | 2015-11-26T19:06:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63886",
"authors": [
"Collie Moore",
"George Sweeney",
"Kathrein Curtin",
"Katinka van Dongen",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74587 | Recipes to calm down my kimchi
Last year, I made some kimchi that tournes out a tad bit too spicy and sour. My partner refuses to eat it and I cry when I try. But there is nothing wrong with it otherwise. Om reluctant to throw it out since I have another full glass jar of it, but I'm not sure what recipes I can make with it which would calm the taste. The only thing I've made with it that really succeeded was kimchi pancakes. The flour seemed to mellow out the taste. Any other suggestions?
No recipes needed, just ideas for meals. Is that OK?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.391827 | 2016-10-08T11:23:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74587",
"authors": [
"arvidj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41255"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64374 | How long can you store used cooking oil
How long can you store used cooking oil then re-use it? I deep fried a turkey one year ago and have had it refrigerated since.
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3014. That other question answers "how many times can I reuse frying oil". The duplicate target asks "for what period of time can I store once-used frying oil".
I closed as a duplicate of a newer question, because this one has not gathered any good answers, maybe the newer one will fare better.
Does the oil smell anywhere near rancid ? You sure you had it in the fridge, not the freezer ?
Pure fat in the fridge keep a long, long, time... but I suspect some turkey juice got into it... would be fat-coated and not exposed to oxidation though...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.391908 | 2015-12-14T01:36:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64374",
"authors": [
"Rose Fox",
"Tammy Helm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kathy helmke",
"m i",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71514 | Why stir sourdough only with wooden spoons?
When reading about sourdough (in german texts at least), they almost always say to stir it with a wooden spoon.
Why do they do that? Does metal or plastic somehow interfere with the sourdough?
If you want to answer, post an answer. If you want to guess... no need, there's already an answer.
This is not true anymore, and modern recipes omit that part.
Back then, when silverware was made either from silver or pre-stainless-steel-alloys the acid in sourdough (and other foods*) would interact with the metal and corrode/color the metal and/or spoil the food.
So put your sourdough in your (stainless steel) mixing bowl and knead it in your kitchen machine as you like.
*examples (thanks to @Stephie): eggs (there were special egg-spoons made from horn or tortoise shell and later bakelite or plastic to
prevent the sulphur in the eggs interacting with the metal),
marmelade/jam (special spoons, jam would get runny if it got in
contact with the wrong spoon), potatoes (there is a rule to not cut
them with a knife).
Correct. Just like there were special egg spoons made out of horn or tortoise shell (and later bakelite or plastic). The social rule that potatoes should not be cut with a knife falls in the same category.
This is fine for sourdough. However, porridge should only ever be stirred with a wooden spurtle.
Silver is antimicrobial as well, it could harm the yeast.
for having eaten a boiled egg with a silver spoon, I can tell you it taste really bad.
There has been some scientific research done to determine whether the materials used in cutlery and crockery affects flavours and they do. Similar research also found that heavier utensils made food taste better.
@Stephie: though in case of eggs, it's not the acidity that's the problem (egg yolks are barely acid, and the whites in fact slightly alkalic) but the sulphur components. Silver tends to react strongly with anything with sulphur in it; this isn't a problem for most other metals though.
@Stephie: "The social rule that potatoes should not be cut with a knife" - I've not come across that - could you give any more details?
@yjo It's a now outdated (modern cutlery, stainless steel!) rule that can still be found in really old, really formal (German) etiquette books. Many people today have never heard of it. If I find a non-German source, I'll add a link. For now, here is a German article. And yes, it's also based on chemical reaction between starch and silver or simple alloys.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.392014 | 2016-07-19T06:55:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71514",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe Lee-Moyet",
"Motomotes",
"Stephie",
"davidbak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"leftaroundabout",
"njzk2",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64641 | Why would coffee cause stomach cramps? Are there alternatives to Caffeine?
As a student, I am (I was) caffeine-dependant. But whenever I drink coffee I get stomach cramps.
Is there a biological/biochemical explanation for this?
Why would caffeinated coffee have this effect for some, like me, but not others?
Is there a safe alternative to caffeine that could produce similar effects?
Should it cause similar cramps or similar stimulation?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about cooking. It is better suited for the Health or Coffee sites.
Are you talking about coffe you brew at home ot the one you usually take at a bar or a vending machine? Normal coffee is already a bit more bitter than decaiffeinated coffee. If the producer uses low quality types it could be even more bitter. To cover it up the seller may add caramelised sugar. In people who are already experiencing digestion complaints the sugar may make things worse.
You probably need to distinguish between coffee and caffeine.
Caffeine is a chemical compound that is a central nervous system stimulant. It is basically just bitter.
But coffee contains a load of other compounds that create the coffee taste.
Those that affect the human stomach most are tannins, acids and bitters that stimulate the secretion of stomach acids which - in case of a sensitive or already damaged stomach lining - can cause discomfort and pain. The content of those in the beans is greatly influenced by the roasting process (hot and fast typically worse than low and slow, darker roasts more than light ones), type of beans and the brewing process. 1
The easiest answer for a caffeine fix would actually be caffeine - without the accompanying coffee. You should get the powder at your local pharmacy.
But where's the fun in that? So drink lighter roasts or go for a shorter extraction time - Espresso vs. Cowboy coffee are two extreme examples.
1 (Source: Deutscher Kaffeeverband)
Is caffeine itself not an irritant to the digestive system too?
@RYFN colon, yes (influencing peristalitc movements), stomach less so, according to Wikipedia and the source above.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.392568 | 2015-12-21T16:06:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64641",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Connie Blackburn",
"FluidCode",
"Katie Beaver",
"Lars Viklund",
"Lisa Daniels",
"RYFN",
"Sharon Donaldson",
"Stephie",
"casperTFG939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106"
],
"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
} |
64740 | Hollandaise or Bernaise?
It's my understanding that once you add any herbs to Hollandaise that it is no longer Hollandaise but Bearnaise?
Is this a correct assumption?
Bearnaise is based on hollandaise (hollandaise being one of the 5 French mother sauces). Yes, it is an egg yolk-butter emulsion with the addition of herbs. Personally, I would say that it is a version of a hollandaise.
I was at a restaurant where they had eggs benedict and said their sauce was hollandaise. When it came there was a ton of Rosemary and Thyme in the hollandaise, so much so that it made it unpalatable to me. The sauce resembled nothing like Hollandaise but more of a Bernaise that would be good on steak or poultry.
Strangely, Joe Bastianich once said that the French never eat béarnaise with steak, which is strange because I've always thought they are a classic pairing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.392810 | 2015-12-23T20:36:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64740",
"authors": [
"Danny Rodriguez",
"Funeral Homes East New York",
"Kate Kate",
"Maite Brunet",
"Wysteria Myst",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65130 | Cold Chinese BBQ Pork?
One of my favorite dishes in Seattle area Chinese restaurants is a dish they call BBQ Pork on their appetizer menu. In all the places in San Francisco I have been this same item is on the menu but it's served warm with just more BBQ sauce instead of cold with Chinese Mustard, Sesame Seeds and Ketchup.
Can someone please explain the difference between these two dishes or do I just need to ask for it cold?
Chilling things down can mute flavors, so you often need to plan for if something's going to be served hot or cold. Just chilling down the ribs might not get you what you're looking for.
Is it really "cold" or simply "room temp"? I find it's rarely fridge cold but often not truly hot.
There are two different popular kinds of roasted pork found in many Chinese restaurants, especially those with Cantonese / southern Chinese bias:
Char siu / Char siew / Sha shao / 叉燒 (literally pit/fork roast), pork fillet or ribs marinated in a mixture of hoisin sauce, soy sauce, Shaoxing rice wine, honey or maltose etc. and often red food colouring. Char Siu pork is a versatile base product. It's used in other dishes, e.g. finely diced in fried rice, as filling in Char Siu Bao 叉燒包 (white steamed rolls), stir-fries, and also served plain, warm or cold, cut into thin slices alongside some vegetables on rice. It can also be served sliced on a large bowl of noodle soup. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_siu
When served plain, ketchup would be a rather Western dip sauce. Chinese ones include hoisin sauce, plum sauce, or a mix of soy sauce, a little sesame oil and a bit chili paste.
Siu yuk / Shao rou / 燒肉 (literally 'roasted meat') usually roasted pork belly. Probably rarer these days, this is fat pork belly with the skin roasted crispy. Usually cut into cubicles, can be served cold. This roast is somewhat close to what Malaysians/Indonesians call Babi pangang. If I remember correctly, I've had it served with a simple dip sauce made of light vinegar, chopped garlic and a very little chopped red chili.
Here in the Philippines, there are two different variations of BBQ Pork, one that is intentionally served as an appetizer (part of the cold cuts menu), and the other which is different and is served hot on top of rice as rice toppings. So to answer your question, I think you can request for it to be served the way you want but the intended flavor might not be the same.
They likely are the same, except the one served cold is an appetizer and the one served hot is a dish.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.392937 | 2016-01-07T01:41:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65130",
"authors": [
"Bayne Hollows",
"Catija",
"Doug",
"Joe",
"Margaret Meg Linebarger",
"Paul Osman",
"Sam Kerns",
"Travis Langston",
"Tunda Boyd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"janie villarreal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81523 | Sorbet tastes less sweet when frozen?
I made some strawberry sorbet. I cut up the strawberries and macerated in lime juice and raw sugar, then cooked them to make them soft so I could use my hand blender to make the puree. I used enough sugar to make it sweet in the non frozen state but after freezing the mixture its not as sweet.
Why does freezing change the perceived sweetness of sorbet? It's obvious next time I will make it sweeter I'm just wondering if there is a rule of thumb when making sorbet so that it turns out sweet.
I can't answer your last question but cold has always been well known to blunt your perception of flavor. There's a reason people say that the hallmark of a good beer is whether you can drink it warm... and why you're supposed to let cheese come to room temperature to truly enjoy its flavors...
Cold temperatures make you perceive flavors less in general. You can notice this quite directly when well-frozen eating sorbet or ice cream: you'll taste the flavor much more strongly initially than later on. And it's not just you getting used to the flavor. If you switch to something else, you'll still have a dulled perception of its flavor. I believe this is all primarily because your tongue and palate are numbed a bit. Your sense of touch doesn't work as well if your hands are freezing either! The lower temperature also reduces volatility, so aromatic things won't be as readily available to perceive.
As for sweetness, there's not exactly a rule of thumb per se for sorbet. I guess it's common to be somewhere in the ballpark of 1/2 to 2/3 a cup of sugar for 2-3 cups of fruit, but that's often more about adding enough sugar to keep it soft than anything else. In many cases, you end up adding lemon juice or something else to cut the sweetness back down, or perhaps using less sugar but adding alcohol to soften it.
In any case, you can certainly develop a sense of how sweet your sorbet will be before freezing, but it's hard to really convey in words. It's just a lot sweeter than you want it to taste in the end. Tasting a known good recipe might help train you more quickly, or perhaps tasting melted sorbet - but in that case, if you've just eaten a bunch of it, your perception is probably a bit skewed.
Often, a pinch of salt would give the illusion of more sweetness, particularly when there is a bit of sourness present. Sweetness is a very subjective sensation which can be hard to quantify objectively. Sugar plays a big role in the texture of the sorbet, arguably more so than the taste. My benchmark is around 25% w/w including sugars in all ingredients. Anything less (for taste) I will use gums or gels to get the texture.
@Jefromi - Thanks for the tips. I'm going to try this again, berries are dirt cheap right now and sorbet is such a nice refreshing dessert for summer. I'm going to buy some Hagen Daaz strawberry sorbet and melt a little to get a feel for the sweetness level when its not frozen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.393182 | 2017-05-09T15:33:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81523",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
80849 | Whipped egg whites in Gnocchi?
I have been wondering what would happen if I tried to make Gnocchi with whipped egg whites instead of egg. I was imagining it might make them light and fluffier. Has anyone ever tried it?
I finally tried adding whipped egg whites to Gnocchi. The result? It was a triumph but needed careful handling.
I whipped an egg white to soft peaks then put my potato through a ricer. Then incorporated the egg white to the potato and it worked great. Then I added just enough flour to make a Gnocchi roll. I cut it into single pieces with a dough cutter and then refrigerated until time to cook.
When cooking, the first time I cooked too long and they fell apart. Then I tried it again and as soon as they floated I took them out and drained them, they were so light and fluffy I couldn't believe it.
You should try this if you like Gnocchi, it's really good but keep an eye when you boil them.
I love experimental answers like this :) Thanks for including a good description of the process, and possible failures!
It's not traditional, but adding egg white is not unheard of, though in this example, it is not whipped. There are recipes for gnocchi with whole egg, egg yolk only, and no egg as well. It might contribute to fluffiness, but it also might throw off the consistency of the dough. As you do some research on gnocchi, you will note several other variables that impact the consistency of the final product...type of potato and how it is treated, amount of flour, kneading/mixing time...egg or no egg. It's certainly worth an experiment, and it is not unheard of for posters to do the legwork to answer their own question. Try it out. Let us know the result.
I was planning on trying it out but asked the question to see if anyone else had ever tried it, thanks for your response!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.393530 | 2017-04-12T15:34:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80849",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81341 | Why was my Quiche dry?
I was experimenting with Quiche in the kitchen this weekend. I didn't follow any specific recipe as I had watched serval on YouTube and felt it couldn't be too difficult. I was also making an individual size so a regular recipe would only have been a guide anyway.
The mixture was 2 eggs, 3 tablespoons heavy cream, shiitake mushrooms, shallots and Pancetta. I cooked just until the middle stopped wobbling like when I make crème brulee. When I cut into it, it seemed really dry and certainly not custardy. I used a butter and shortening crust.
Any suggestions on how to make the quiche have a more custard like texture?
Temperature and duration of cooking? Size of the quiche?
Honestly, it looks like it's just too high a percentage of egg... and maybe not enough cheese. I don't know that it can't work with that much egg but most of the recipes I've found just now use much more dairy to egg and have other ingredients to make them creamy.
For comparison purposes, you're using less than a quarter cup of liquid to two eggs or 1.5 tbsp/egg.
For example, this one on Food & Wine, uses 3 eggs and 1 cup half and half. It also has a cup of cheese and lots of other ingredients. The egg is clearly just a binder to hold things together. So, that's over 5 tbsp half and half per egg.
This one on allrecipes has 4 eggs and 1-1/2 cups of milk... and lots of cheese. That's 6 tbsp milk per egg.
This one from food.com is closer to yours in ratio, with 5 eggs and only 3/4 cup milk but that's still over a quarter cup more liquid (12 tbsp instead of 7.5 tbsp per five eggs)... and it has you add two cups of other stuff, first suggestion being cheese.
I've found other recipes that use 6 eggs to 3/4 cup cream, too... which, again, is closer but still about 1/4 cup short.
I recommend adding more wet to your mixture to cut the egg.
Also, if you were baking at the traditional 350 F (175 C), you might lower your temperature a bit. Smaller things often do better with a slightly lower oven. This gives you more room for error. I bake mini-cupcakes at 325 F instead of 350 F for this very reason.
So, try raising your cream to 4-5 tbsp (or maybe try a more watery dairy like half and half), add some cheese (cheese is creamy, remember?), lower the temp to 325 F (160 C) and try again.
Sorry, that's a lot of different things to try... but since I don't know your oven temperature, that part is more of a guess.
Thanks for all these pointers, it gives me a good direction to go. My oven is kind of tricky as it's one of those bake/convection bake/convection and always seems to run a little hot so I tend to reduce the temp 30 degrees to compensate. Looking at my crust now it looks kind of thick so that could have been a contributing factor.
I cooked just until the middle stopped wobbling like when I make crème brulee.
I agree with Catija's assessment that you probably need a higher dairy:egg ratio. Most of the quiche recipes in Julia Child's The Way to Cook call for three large eggs plus enough milk or cream to make 1 1/2 cups of custard, and I've found that to be pretty reliable.
However, I also think that you overcooked your quiche. If you cook a quiche (or a custard, or a cheesecake) until it stops wobbling in the center, it's bound to be overcooked by the time it's cool enough to eat. It's a harder to tell with small individual portions since they cool faster, but I'd still take them out while they've got a bit of jiggle left.
If you still have trouble getting the texture you want after increasing the dairy, try blending some cornstarch into the custard mixture. I'd start with 1 teaspoon and increase it a little bit if you like where that's going.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.393706 | 2017-05-01T20:59:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81341",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81266 | How to make a berry gel?
I have some agar agar powder to make a mixed berry gel using some berry coulee that I made. Lets say I want to make one cup of coulee to turn it to a gel, how much agar agar powder should I use. Keep in mind I don't want to turn it into a gelatin, just a gel so that it will still be liquid but very thick.
http://www.amazingfoodmadeeasy.com/info/modernist-ingredients/more/agar-agar#make_agar_fluid_gel ... but I can't remember if agar is one of the gelling agents that's affected by acid
That is an awesome page filled with exactly what I was looking for an more. I heard about Agar Agar on YouTube in a Heston Blumenthal episode. He shows exactly how he makes his fluid gels he uses in his restaurant.
Is there a reason not to use... pectin?
@rackandboneman - The gel I'm trying to make is one I saw in a video where they used Agar Agar specifically, hence the question. I'm not making jelly but a fluid gel which has a different consistency.
@rackandboneman pectin requires fairly high temperatures in order to activate, which in my opinion ruins the flavor of most fruits. I'm assuming agar agar is being used to counter this. However my personal choice would be xanthan gum for sure.
So I finally was able to test out making the berry gel using some berry coulis. I used one half cup coulis in a small saucepan and added 1/8 teaspoon Agar Agar powder brought it just up to the boil then put it in a plastic container and put that in an ice bath.
I checked in it a half hour later and it had jelled. I then blitzed it with my hand blender and magic. It's the exact consistency I wanted, thick and fluid but won't lose its shape on the plate. I took this picture ten minutes after I put the gel on.
** Update - Here is what I wanted to do with the berry gel ;-)
Terrific! Agar fluid gels hold up nicely. For another trick, add that fluid gel to an isi whipper. Charge with NO2, and you will have a very stable foam.
That sounds like a great idea! I'm going to try that.
Honestly all high quality restaurants have always used xanthan gum for creating gels. It requires no heat to activate, stable with acids and produces a crystal clear end product.
Best of all you simply have to stir in a teaspoon at a time till you have the consistency you desire.
Cool, I guess I will be buying and trying some Xanthan Gum then. I'll report back with my progress. I want to be able to do some cool plating that I've seen on Instagram and local restaurants.
Not sure what country you're from but my faveroite place for this kind of stuff and for ideas is http://www.msk-ingredients.com their catalogue on the home page is a good starting point.
I live in the US but this site is freaking awesome! Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I've already got some ideas from the few minutes I perused the site!
@haakon319 I'm not sure you want to use xanthan, especially "a teaspoon at a time". The problem is that even slightly too much xanthan results in a snotty, slimy texture. It is not used to gel, rather to create viscosity...and in very small amounts. There are a host of hydrocolloids that you might employ to make a gel. The question is, what is the end product you are looking for? What do you want to do with the gelled berry coulis? Letting use know your goal would result in a more precise answer.
@moscafj - the consistency I want is exactly like this beet gel in this video https://youtu.be/Y-B9Iqz7vc0
@haakon319 you can see from the recipe (https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/beet-fluid-gel) that the amount of xanthan is very small. If it were me, I would blend and strain the berries. Set with agar. Then blend to create a fluid gel.
@moscafj is right, I hadn't realised the viscosity you were wanting to achieve, I was talking more along the lines of thick puree not gravity withstanding.
@Doug - I appreciate your recommendation, its all experimentation for me at this point and I'm willing to try anything to achieve the results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.393987 | 2017-04-27T16:40:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81266",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Joe",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81395 | Roasted Hazelnut soil?
I had a really creative dish at a local restaurant that was radishes that where dipped in butter and then rolled in hazelnuts that looked like dirt. Obviously it wasn't dirt but hazelnuts that had been ground up and then cooked some way to make it look like dirt.
Any ideas on how to replicate this?
Here is a pic
Very Heston Blumenthal, he's done something very similar on a couple of his shows, it may be worth having look to see what's on video on the web.
Dry roast the nuts in a pan or skillet until golden, keep them moving at all times. Let them cool completely on a paper towel. Grind them to the right particle size you need. Spread them thinly and evenly on an oven tray and bake at somewhere around 140-160C. You will likely end up with some parts a little burnt. Or do whole nuts in a coffee roaster.
I'll give this a try, this is along the lines of what I thought the process would be. I saw a video where Heston Blumental makes tiramisu in flower pots and created some soil using different ingredients (graham crackers and chocolate)
The baking part probably should be at as close to around 140-145C as possible, enough for Maillard browning but not to let it run away. The reaction I believe is exothermic, gives out heat and tends to accelerate as it happens.
I've tried with pumpernickel bread and had good result.
I toasted the bread to give it a more black color (and flavor), and also added some finely chopped black olive and some crushed sunflower seeds.
You'd get the same result (different taste) by using roasted nuts.
Thanks @Max - This could be a good option if I didn't have a big bag of local Hazelnuts that I'm trying to incorporate into my menu ;-)
I ended up putting about a 1/3 cup of unsalted whole roasted Hazelnuts in a food processor and ground them up fine. Then I toasted them in a small frying pan stirring constantly until golden. Then I put them in a 9x9 baking pan in the oven for about 15 minutes at 300 degrees.
The result:
This is great! Much easier and better than what I proposed.
Crush the nuts first (for more surface area) and then dry toast them on a barely oiled cookie sheet. {jelly roll pan, actually}
I use a toaster oven for small batches (stirring them once or twice), since a handful of roasted/toasted nuts is often all I need. WATCH them carefully while toasting; burning yummy ingredients is a major sad! :-(
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.394307 | 2017-05-03T17:46:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81395",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81426 | Is blowing on a frying pan unsanitary?
Does this look sanitary to you? I think if I wanted to put out a flame I'd use a pan lid.
Incomplete common sense answer (no idea about local regulations. If this should have been a comment, somebody tell me! :) People breathe in kitchens while there are open pots, and blowing is a form of breathing. Food is not ever considered completely sterile unless pressure cooked/canned, cold sterilized (chemically or by pickling in extremely harsh pickling solutions), or irradiated. Also, unless things are served straight after that, they will be rather thoroughly cooked in the depicted scenario - if there are germs in that breath, they are cooked to death; spores will not matter much with food immediately served; if there was poison the cook would be dead or ill too. Virii could be a problem too,
It makes sense to me that in this scenario any germs transferred would be burned off. I guess to me it just looks wrong, I mean if you have seen videos of people sneezing or breathing and the light is right you can see all the droplets.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.394523 | 2017-05-04T19:41:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81426",
"authors": [
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891"
],
"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
} |
73754 | How to differentiate a ceramic pan from a teflon one?
I was in the store looking to buy a new pan, i found in the local store they sell them but i can't tell if this is a real ceramic or just white teflon (i don't know if that exist) both pans had similar surface/texture to the touch, so that made me doubt of that.
How i can tell the difference between ceramic and teflon?
Have never seen white teflon coating on cookware (even if white teflon exists in other applications); if you want to minimize exposure to teflon fumes in case of overheating accidents (eg if you have pet birds in the house), be aware that some ceramic lined pans have a teflon protected outside.
Some black/grey/patterned "ceramic" coatings, however, seem to be hybrid (teflon reinforced with ceramic dust).
If in doubt, check whether there is a manufacturer and product name for the coating mentioned on the packaging - this is common with good quality coated cookware, you can then look up the specs for it on the internet. If such research yields unclear results, that does not speak for the quality of the coating.
Be aware that the average ceramic coating you'll find on cookware is far from equal to teflon in nonstick properties, seems to be more sensitive to thermal shock or other damage - while it will not come off, it will quickly lose the nonstick properties. Also, white ceramic coatings can stain.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.394640 | 2016-09-06T14:55:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73754",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64802 | Why is juice from concentrate cheaper?
Distilling the concentrate from juice and then adding water again seems an energy intensive process. If the supply chain is long this might make sense, but even in Florida orange juice from concentrate is cheaper - and apple juice is routinely made from concentrate, even in the regions where apples grow abundantly.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about price determination, not cooking
I agree that this is off-topic, but for what it's worth, I think your question is actually "why is fresh juice expensive even in regions where that fruit is grown?" The concentrate is going to be the same price everywhere.
Because concentrates can be stored easily without bacterial growth and degradation. Fresh juices are very diluted and any trace of yeast or any other form of life can easily grow and degrade the product. So if you think to multi year storage the cheaper way is to concentrate the product and dilute it on request.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.394766 | 2015-12-26T09:52:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64802",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Luanne Taylor",
"Murdo Macleod",
"Zed B",
"Zofia Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"margaret tunstill",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64809 | Fudge Recipes - Shelf Life
I am looking for information on how to extend the shelf life of the fudge that I make for my business. Currently it is only lasting about 2 weeks, even when we have it sealed, we take it out and when we take it out it only lasts a couple days. I currently use a variety of methods as we are trying to find the best one.
Hello and welcome! Recipe requests are off topic. In order for us to be able to help, you will need to edit your question to include recipes and/or methods that you are using. Otherwise, we have no way of suggesting what you may be able to do differently to improve your results as we don't know what you are currently doing.
Fudge really only has a shelf life of a week or two. First it will start to crystallize on the outside (which is actually very yummy in my opinion), but then it will start to grow mold. Good hygiene will lengthen the time before mold starts to grow, but ultimately fudge is not a preserved food and isn't meant to keep. The individual ingredients will keep better by themselves, and you can make the fudge nearly on demand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.394884 | 2015-12-26T13:18:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64809",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Claire Stanley",
"Janet BERGTHUN",
"Uriel Cortes",
"handsonfortroopshotmailcouk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64926 | Key Lime Pie Filling - Thins out after pumping
Key Lime pie filling thickens once the lime juice is added to the sweetened condensed milk and allowed to sit. Why does the filling thin out when it is pumped and require static hold time to thicken back up?
What do you mean by "pumped"?
I'm assuming that pumped is referring to pouring the filling into the pie after initially mixing it together - it takes some time to set in the fridge afterward?
I've been making KLP commercially for well over 20-years and long before that growing up in Miami. Gone for me (on a commercial ever) are the days of using fresh egg yolks, but on occasion we might make one when visiting friends, from scratch. It is very important when incorporating the lime juice into the SCM-yolk mixture that it be done gently, never use a blender of mechanical mixer. You will see the chemical interaction between the yolks and juice start to take effect, "clumping" (for lack of a better word right now) will occur as the mixture begins to thicken. Also, the colder the ingredients, the better. If the mix is overworked, you go beyond that magic moment and it is very difficult to have the filling "set."
Another aspect is the juice. I would never recommend using a bottled juice over fresh, even if you're using fresh regular (Persian) limes. The most popular bottled juice used isn't even real key lime juice, but truthfully packaged as "Key West Lime Juice," concentrated lime juice packaged in Key West (not even any more.) The from-concentrate and reconstituted juice just doesn't hold up as well as (any) fresh juice.
On a commercial level, we now add (beef) gelatin to our mix, about 1/4 tablespoon per 10-inch pie. This is for insurance, as most of our customers are restaurants who need to cut and plate and cannot afford the sloppy-factor. The gelatin is blossomed in the juice then (under warm heat) after mixing with the juice it is allowed to cool. At that point the juice is incorporated into the SCM-yolk mix. This trace amount seems to be just enough to have the filling set right without adding any gumminess.
This answer is of course for the "fill and chill" method for making a KLP, as baking the pie once the filling is added causes the egg to cook and therefore sets the pie filling. Good luck! I hope this helped. Happy New Year!
What is SCM? What is the "fill and chill" method? Can you explain what the OP means by "pumping"? It's like you two are using English words to speak an entirely different language. :)
Inferring that SCM is Sweetened Condensed Milk and "fill and chill" method is a pre-baked crust that is cooled, filled with the custard, and then put into a refridgerator to help the custard to set. I can't figure out what pumping is, however.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.395007 | 2015-12-30T16:44:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64926",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Gail Strausser",
"Julie Pulsifer",
"Keith Payne",
"Marti",
"Michael Lilley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"its ish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94096 | Slow cooker - start from 'cold' or boiled?
I'm pretty handy with my slow cooker. I use it a lot - pot roasts, stews [curries, chilli, paysane etc]
However, I've always been a little paranoid about having everything completely up to temperature before I drop it into the slow cooker element itself.
I start by frying off, browning, sweating; add my liquids & then bring to a full boil before allowing it to simmer 10 minutes... the same as I would were it to just be in a saucepan for a couple of hours.
Only at that point will I transfer the pot into the slow cooker & let it take over for the next 4, 6, 10 hours.
Do I really need to do this?
Can I [or should I] just transfer it to the slow cooker as I drop my liquids - so at the point I have seared/fried/browned 'solids' but cold or only warmish stock &/or a couple of cans of tomatoes or beans etc I just dumped in & gave a quick stir.
Am I being over-safe by bringing it all to the boil first? Should I trust that the slow cooker, given sufficient time, will do the job eventually?
I am never in any rush doing this, so either way is fine. I just wondered if I'm being over-cautious.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49366/67 ; I personally put it on high 'til things get warmed up, then turn it down to low. (and I don't chill down the crock)
If you're cooking for 6-10 hours, you're not making a squat of a difference. With 4h... oh, add half an hour to be on the safe side. The whole beauty of slow-cookers is that you just dump the ingredients, add water and leave it to simmer. No special preparation procedures are needed.
According to official Crock-Pot website when asked about refrigerating the insert with food overnight, then cooking the next day:
Yes, but it is very important to understand that starting to cook with cold stoneware and cold food will affect the ramp up time of the slow cooker. Always add sufficient time into the cook time to ensure food is safe, as well as tender. It is recommended to use an instant read thermometer when cooking with chilled stoneware and chilled food to ensure food temperatures reach well above 165°F and food becomes tender. Never place your stoneware (whether it has been refrigerated or is at room temperature) in a pre-heated slow cooker base.
So, starting with cold, cool or room temperature food will be okay.
Bringing it to the boil is standard practice and recommended by most manufacturers along with preheating (the latter isn't as necessary for metal inner pots as it is for crockery ones).
It's a good idea as the heating power is rather low, and it will take a long time to get up to temperature (as I found when using one for mulled wine, which isn't a hazard kept warm).
However your simmering for 10 minutes isn't usually necessary (kidney beans should be boiled for 10 minutes, or even 30 in some sources so they're an exception). The surface of items in the liquid has already reached almost boiling point by the time the dish comes to the boil, and the interior of each piece won't heat up appreciably faster on the stove than in the slow cooker. The interior temperature is much less of a concern anyway; think how long it takes a roast joint of meat to cook through.
There are plenty of foods that are suitable for just putting in and adding boiling liquid, without bringing the whole thing to the boil. These are generally low risk and low thermal mass, like porridge oats, then of course there are things that use no liquid like jacket potatoes. Slow roast meat (like a whole chicken) is generally nicer if browned before putting it in, but there isn't any liquid to bring to the boil - preheating is more important then.
I often assemble hot ingredients in mine using it as a reserving dish and giving the final stir, but we're talking about adding fried veg, then boiling stock, beans etc. (I can't remember the last time I cooked meat in mine, though I sometimes use meat stock). At all times the food in it is above the danger zone.
tbh, I would normally be on a 3-pan start to something like this. Onions etc sweating in the pot [it's aluminium so it goes from hob to slow cooker] Meat I sear in a good frying pan, move across, deglaze. Beans in the above scenario are canned, so no boil required, but from scratch they would have spent 60-90 mins going through the regular setup.
With the non stick aluminium pan I could often get away with only using that. With the crockery one it's a single pan and the slow cooker. I know there was something I wanted to add, but I've forgotten - the downside of posting while commuting
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.395258 | 2018-11-20T17:39:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94096",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"SF.",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108124 | Turkish substitute for Mascarpone?
I often make this simple recipe - [fresh] tagliatelle with spinach & mascarpone.
Garlic, sautéed in butter & olive oil, wilt the spinach, a dash of nutmeg, very generous dollop of mascarpone, bit of seasoning; then mix in the tagliatelle & loosen with reserved pasta water. Done in 10 minutes, start to finish. Lovely.
Due to the current lockdown, my source for the cream cheese will be my local Turkish 'mini-mart'. The guys there are great, they are well-stocked, but have unsurprisingly a great number of products directly imported from Turkey.
They will always try their best to find me something close to what I need, but sometimes we get lost in translation or there is no direct equivalent. They're also shopkeepers, not cooks, so sometimes just don't know which might be best/closest.
They have about 8ft of fridge space for cheese/dairy, floor to above head height, so there is a lot to choose from, not more than half a dozen of which will be British products labelled in English.
A bit of research online tells me I should be looking for perhaps taze krem peynir or labne. The first I understand to mean fresh cream cheese, the second I'm not sure. I've also been warned that some are like 'Dairylea' or 'Laughing Cow' processed cheese, which I'm keen to avoid.
Is anyone well-versed enough in Turkish food to give me a reasonable guide to what I may actually be looking for? Bear in mind, I really won't be able to read the labels in any meaningful way, so I need the big clues to identification.
I've seen What is a substitute for mascarpone cheese? but even to substitute 'cream cheese' I've first to correctly identify the right cream cheese, so I'm back to square one ;)
The closest Turkish equivalent is kaymak (pronounced like guy-mac but with a k, accent on the second syllable). It is reasonably well available in Turkish mini-marts, although the only available brand may use gums or other thickeners.
It is not a perfect substitute, and may not whip well if you mix it with cream for pastry-making. But for mixing into a pasta sauce, it will work very well and give you that fat-rich mouthfeel from real mascarpone.
By the way, I have seen many variants of this sauce. I make mine most commonly with German quark as the dairy component (if you want to try that, ask the Turks for kesmik, but make sure you are getting a wet kind, not a dry kind). So feel free to experiment with any kind of fresh cheese or high-fat fermented dairy, all of them are likely to produce something good, but slightly different in texture and flavor notes. Also, a small tip beside the dairy: instead of all-spinach, try half spinach, half chard (both wilted).
Cool, thanks. Chard isn't commonly-available here, in fact outside of those nitrogen-filled mixed salad bags, almost impossible to find. The original recipe used half mascarpone, half double cream… but I thought it was fat-laden enough without that ;)
Yay! Managed to get some kaymak. Will report back how it went. Dinner is scheduled for Wedesday - due to lockdown we're planning a long way in advance.
A day earlier than planned - but it came out perfectly. It may have had thickener, but it melted down into the sauce just fine. Taste-wise I wouldn't have known the difference. Excellent advice. Thanks.
@Tetsujin Glad to hear it!
kaymak means milk head, and is different from the cream you follow, and the milk head is separated when the milk is boiled.
The closest thing you can find to cream is the cream, which is written in "kerem"
I'm not looking for cream, I'm looking for soft cheese.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.395745 | 2020-05-05T08:15:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108124",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122983 | Why we can't deglaze with oil/butter?
I was cooking chicken soup today. Everything happens in a medium-size dutch oven. I've started with browning some meat in olive oil, then removed it, and added butter and onion to caramelize.
I tried to scrape all the brown bits from the bottom while onions were cooking in the butter, and had trouble. But when i added a splash of chicken stock, it immediately lifted all browned bits with minimal scraping.
What is the mechanism of that difference? Why can't oil/butter lift brown bits?
See: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117261/how-does-deglazing-work
This feels like a duplicate of that question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396021 | 2023-01-10T16:03:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122983",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99448 | What is the term for "plain" non-flavored ice cream
Me (russian) talked to my partner (american) about ice cream flavors. In Russia and post-USSR plain flavor (creamy-milky one) is extremely popular and often called пломбир. It is the default flavor, in contrast to American default, vanilla.
In the US though, this flavor of ice cream is not a real thing. Is there a term that I can use to find and buy that type of ice cream?
It seems like a common question, and some people call it "cream flavored ice cream", and russian->english translation can be "rich creamy ice-cream".
It's called "sweet cream" ice cream. If you make your own ice cream with something like milk, cream, eggs, and sugar, and you don't put any additional flavoring in it, it's called a "sweet cream base".
oh, that is something googleable! https://mcconnells.com/products/sweet-cream-1
Crema is a standard in Italy as well. Cream and chocolate is the classic combination. Indeed in some countries even nearby is not, or less, common, too.
I've seen this sort of thing once in a restaurant, I think, under "whipped cream flavored ice cream" as part of a more elaborate dish (aka cream flavored cream, so I think it would count) so there may be other, odder terms the same thing pops up under.
"Milk flavored ice cream"...or "milk ice cream" would work as search terms. I'm not sure you can purchase it in the US, but there are a few recipes on-line.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396103 | 2019-06-08T17:26:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99448",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Megha",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65034 | Lemon juice as drinking water preservative
I drink water at work from a plastic bottle, refilled at cooler. I wonder if putting lemon cuts (0.25 lemon/L) in it will preserve it and decent way to keep water safe.
Is there a chance that lemon can go bad if left in bottle for two or three days?
@Stephie please write an answer if you have one. Short answers are OK, answers in comments are not.
any idea why the downvote? I wonder because I want to calibrate my questions to rules of the community, it seems to be in scope
This is more likely to introduce organic matter (the lemon cuts) that can induce spoilage than prevent it... common experience shows that food that has "some lemon juice" added (and the amount you are suggesting is in the same order of magnitude) is not significantly preserved by that, so we can assume the acid (which would be the preserving factor) is far too diluted in that mixture to keep either the water or the lemons from spoiling. Also, lemons as bought from a store or vegetable stand are far too widely variable in their acid content to make any statement on chemical potency - the only remotely safe way to preserve anything via the acid from natural produce would be to educate yourself on the suitable pH range, then after each preparation take a sample and examine it with a pH measuring device (pH meter, indicating paper - do not dip such devices directly into anything that still gets served as food or drink!).
OK, now I see it in more detail. I was thinking there is some common knowledge, but couldn't find any. Drinking out of bottle adds only bacteria from mouth, but lemon itself definitely can bring something extra. I'll try to run a test: take a sip from bottles with and without lemon, and let them stay for couple of days, then see under microscope or grow cultures
Some bacteria will be there anyway even with clean water, to have the water even close to clear of any bacteria you would need to at least fill it into a sterile container right after boiling or, even more effective, pressure cooking it. Compare what is done in canning to get stuff actually, truly sterile: Food is sealed into containers which are then, as a whole, pressure cooked. Drinks you get in shelf-stable containers in a supermarket will have been cooked (pasteurized) OR have been treated with DMDC OR be far more alcoholic or acidic than lemony water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396252 | 2016-01-03T08:57:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65034",
"authors": [
"Bogdan Nistor",
"Helen B",
"Mustafa Abdullhamied",
"Neil Hewing",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16041 | Anodized pans? Cleaning?
Hoping SA would clear some controversy.
I was told that it's bad practice to put anodized non-stick pans in water immediately after cooking; as the water will cause it to degrade
I argue that it's harder to clean after the fat has solidified.
So does adding cold/hot water to hot non-stick anodized pan cause the surface to deteriorate and thus losing it's non-stick abilities?
There's a difference between putting the pan immediately in the water and being so cold that the fat has solidified. Let the temperature reduce a bit but not so much that the fat goes hard and you should be fine. On a side point, I wouldn't put a pan immediately under water from the stove because the fat would splatter.
Teflon-coated pans -- no, not a good idea, as the teflon and metal will contract differently when cooled, causing the layer to separate and flake off (eventually).
Hard-anodized aluminum: may cause warping if the pans aren't too thick, as aluminum isn't that mechanically strong, but the layer shouldn't separate, as it is strongly bonded to the aluminum, being produced from oxidation of the aluminum itself.
Pans that incorporate both teflon and hard-anodization: probably not a good idea to throw into water before cooling.
Indubitably, throwing a hot pan in water will deglaze the grease quite effectively, but if a teflon layer is involved, you are inviting trouble.
Adding cold food to a hot pan is not too dissimilar to putting a hot pan in cold water. I always run cold water into the the hot Teflon pans to clean (de-glaze) it. They last fine, it the small cut and scratch the end up making the pan non-non-stick
Anodizing is incredibly tough, factory made or natural. Even if you do scratch it off, it reforms naturally very quickly. I have had pan for 30+ years that still work and look fine
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396468 | 2011-07-09T00:33:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16041",
"authors": [
"Alice",
"NadyaZa",
"Rincewind42",
"TFD",
"danimal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46765 | If bacon tastes like fish, is it still good to eat?
I've had some bacon in the freezer for a few weeks, got it out and fried it up today, and it tastes like fish.
Is it still good to eat?
No, there was no fish in the freezer
No, there was no fish cooked on the frying pan previouslyl
Per the FDA guidelines, if it was safe when it was frozen, it should be safe now. I have no idea why it would taste like fish, though. I've never had that happen and I've frequently eaten bacon that had been in the freezer for months (with fish in the same freezer, even!).
But was there ever fish in your freezer? Smells can linger, and if the bacon wasn't wrapped airtight...
Has this happened with any other items stored in your freezer? If not, most likely the cause is not your freezer.
More importantly, even if it is safe: do you still want to eat fishy bacon?
The smell of fish could be caused by a bacterial proliferation on the meat. If the bacon was not stored or thawed correctly, chances are microorganisms landed on the surface and found a fertile field to grow.
If you cooked the bacon at high temperature there should be no risk but since you're asking if it's "still a good idea to eat it", well that's personal opinion: if I eat pork I want it to taste like pork.
Is the bacon smoked or un-smoked?
Bacon should not smell or taste of fishy amines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19234946
I discovered years ago that pigs that are fed fish meal on a regular basis, particularly close to the date of slaughter, will usually result in pork, ham and especially bacon (because of its high fat content) that smells and tastes of fish. It's safe, just unsavory. For obvious reasons, I've changed where I get my pork.
If you can figure out the mechanism and reverse-engineer the process, where you can get fish that tastes like bacon, you will be a very, very wealthy person.
It might be Bacon from a Schweinelachs :)
I raise my own pigs and don't feed them any fish. I feed all kinds of fruit, avos, eggs, acacia tree leaves, red apple succulent etc. All past pigs were excellent and not fishy. I never had the fish taste problem before this"girl" pig. It tastes like fish when cooked. It is like fresh fish, not fishy bad fish. It does not smell like fish or good or bad. I was wondering if it had to do with her having had a hip injury when she was young. She limped and did not run around much. Some other parts do not taste like fish. I keep it in the deep freezer well wrapped with no fish. I ate it and it seems fine.
That's a very curious tale!
When pork tastes fishy it means it's been eating too much fish products like fish meal or other protein supplements which have fish products in them.
My hypothesis is that this has nothing to do with fish. However, when fat goes rancid, it can take on a "fishy" aroma/taste. It would be useful to know how how your bacon was handled before you froze it, how long it was in that state, how it was wrapped for freezing, and how long it was in the freezer.
its because the pigs are fed with fish. if you get bacon from a good organic supplier [rmember fish is organic] they don't feed pigs with fish products
If that is the case, the bacon would have tasted of fish before it went into the freezer. The asker doesn't mention if they tasted any of the bacon before it was frozen but I'd imagine that any bacon company whose product routinely tasted fishy wouldn't last very long as a bacon company.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396646 | 2014-08-31T03:49:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46765",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Commercial Interior Design Ltd",
"David Richerby",
"Dean Rather",
"Doug",
"Elliot Young",
"Janicemlb",
"Jeff Mockford",
"Jennifer Draney",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Shalryn",
"Stefano Driussi",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"buttlord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6607",
"rackandboneman",
"user5561"
],
"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
} |
46793 | Hot Peppers in Olive Oil Safe?
I chopped up some raw assorted hot peppers, covered them with olive oil and then refrigerated them immediately. How long will they keep in the fridge?
also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9451/botulism-garlic-cold-pressed-olive-oil-and-mason-jars?rq=1, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41586/how-can-i-infuse-olive-oil-safely?rq=1, and, for encompassing info on food safety, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer. Your infused oil falls into the "cooked dishes" part, because there is nothing in there to prevent bacteria growth - so the general rule of "3-4 days in the fridge" applies to it too.
Anything stored in olive oil is subject to bacterial growth, even in the fridge. If it is in an air tight container, such as a mason jar, it should last about 1 week. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.396964 | 2014-09-02T00:26:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46793",
"authors": [
"Colleen Quigley",
"Dan",
"Dirk Nankervis",
"Glen Gladden",
"Prezioso Firas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112862",
"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
} |
46812 | Best tool for quickly cutting vegetables into a salad?
I like eating a salad for lunch, but would like to somehow optimize the time it takes to cut the vegetables. My salad usually contains tomatoes, cucumbers, bell pepper, carrot, etc.
I could buy an electrical blender, but the end result is usually not as tasty since the vegetable parts are too small. Therefore I tried to look-up for some alternatives:
Starfrit Chopper
Prepworks Chopper
Freshware Chopper
Anyone have experience with such devices? Perhaps there's some great alternative that I haven't found yet?
The first two only cut to one size, and it's either slabs or sticks ... the third one is more like a hand-crank food processor ... where you can get inconsistently sized bits if you're not careful and you'll never have larger slabs or sticks. There's another style where you have a spring loaded blade that you push down, which is like the third one, but tends to be smaller.
@Joe They've got several different blade assemblies. Looks like two sizes of square cuts, and one slicer. I just used something like one of these to cut up tomatoes and peppers for chili. It work pretty well. However, even the larger squares might be smaller than you want in a salad; 8X8 mm or so?
IMO, user a "chopper" will result in too finely cut vegetables.
Thank you very much for your help! I eventually decided to get this tool (Genius Salad Chef Junior). Works like a charm. Here's what I've tried it with:
Cucumbers - great
Tomatoes - works, but a bit hard to push through completely
Apples - great
Cheese - very hard to push through, but works
Carrots - great
Smoked salmon - doesn't work
It should be sufficient for most salads. The bowl is sealable and can be used to store several portions.
Could you comment on how well it does with various vegetables? (especially tomatoes and really firm things)
@Joe answer expanded
Not trying to be flippant here, but perhaps the 5 minutes it takes to make your daily salad is not worth the added efficiency of a device of some sort. Vegetables like carrots and celery can be prepped during less hectic days of the week. Likewise, cucumbers can be marinated in wine vinegar, water & spices, to add a piquancy to the salad. Cherry or grape tomatoes are much easier than slicing a big tomato. Bell pepper strips last longer than chopped bits.
Lastly, there's a lot of veggies not mentioned by your use of 'etc' after the list of your favorites. What else do you do with your salad? Do you add non-veggies like seeds or nuts?
Depending on occasion I also add boiled eggs, pecan nuts and radish. I don't really mind the knife, but it's nice to have a convenient tool :)
You could chop all your veges with a knife once a week and put them in containers...
If you are set on a machine, pick up a Food Processor (like a Cuisinart). It has attachments to slice or grate your veges quickly and uniformly, and has many other uses too (quick bread dough, sauces, puree soups, etc.)
A Mandolin slicer will also work, and you can julienne things, but make sure to get a good one. I am not happy with mine at all. The advantage to this is you can change the thickness of your slices (i.e. thick cucumber slices, thin radish slices).
The tomatoes you will just have to cut by hand though. There are tools for that, but I haven't seen a consumer version (giant slicers/wedgers at McDs, many decades ago).
The 'V slicer' mandolines can slice firmer tomatoes (eg, romas) ... but if the goal is time savings, it's faster to clean up after a knife than any of the tools mentioned. (unless you have a dish washer ... but even then, food processors are a bit of a pain to disassemble / reassemble for just one salad).
I don't disagree. I only break out the big guns when prepping a lot of food at once (like gallons of slaw). For just one salad, a knife is good enough. Plus daily practice in knife skills is always a good thing.
I could cut up the veggies once per week, but I prefer to eat fresh salad. I think I will try a Mandolin slicer.
I'm firmly in the mandoline camp. The break even point comes at about 200 g of vegetables for me, below that knife is quicker because of the cleanup time. It also doesn't add to your electricity bill and is by extension environmentally friendlier than running a 0.5 KW food processor daily. If your knife speed is different, your break even point will be at another amount.
Because a real food processor requires much more cleaning, I find that the break even point for it vs mandoline comes at about 800 g of vegetables.
I have never made good experience with small handheld choppers like the one in your first link. Maybe I just happened upon bad products, but they were clumsy and didn't cut well. A good use for them is raw onions - the enclosed cutter reduces tears because only very little of the vapors escape.
I have never used tools like your second and third link. But I'm very skeptical about them. If their cutting surfaces aren't razor-sharp, they will smash the vegetable rather than cut it properly. You'd need a softish vegetable for them anyway, I doubt that they can do carrots or potatoes. Even if they are perfectly sharp when you buy them, they will go dull with time and there is no way to sharpen them.
Can you recommend a good mandoline model?
@JonathanReez I've been very pleased with my Oxo GoodGrips handheld mandoline (and everything else I've bought from that range). Somewhat pricey, but great build quality and action on everything they make.
Ya, I got the Kitchen Aid in the same price range. I don't like it at all. Could be because of a diagnonal instead of a V blade, but by the second or third slice, it doesn't cut all the way through. Doesn't matter if I am slicing ginger, potatoes, or celery.
I would STRONGLY advise a GOOD chef's knife. I am not a professional, but I would not trade either of my chef's knives for a gadget. For anything LESS than MASS PRODUCTION (think "cooking for 50"), the knife is quicker and more versatile in the results.
Let me emphasize a GOOD chef's knife. It should either be an 8" or a 10" knife. The blade should be 1.5"-2" thick from top to bottom. It should have a smooth blade, not serrated. Hold the knife in one hand, and the vegetable in the other. Make sure you hold the vegetable with your finger tips, but bend your hand so that the knuckles is closest to the knife blade, not your finger tips. That gives you a good grip on the food without putting the fingertips under the blade, and the knuckles are high enough off the food that you should use them as a guide. Hold the cutting spot of the knife against your knuckles and use them as a cutting guide. With each slice, slide your fingertips away from the blade just enough to make the next slice uniform with the 1st. Alton Brown on FoodTV gives a very good video lesson on knife use. Until I got my 1st chef's knife (I have both the 8" & the 10", and I use them differently, depending on the size of what I am chopping), chopping vegetables was a horrible experience trying to use a carving knife - it was a long, slow, tedius, dangerous process.
As a "professional" chef for over 10 years. I have to disagree with your statement of "smooth blade, not serrated". As far as Vegetable preparation goes every chef I've ever worked with including myself swear by one knife, and one knife only, for just about all veg prep' and that is the Victorinox Pastry Knife this -> http://www.victorinox.com/ch/product/Cutlery/Category/Household-knives/Standard/Pastry-Knife/5.2930.26 not only does this knife make chopping vegetables easy as anything. Once you've sharpened the knife too much (a year or so) and all of the 'teeth' have been worn down ..
.. you are left with a perfectly smooth, easy to sharpen knife. The steel is quite soft so sharpening at home is easy, no need for a stone just a steel. Once the knife is worn down to the smooth blade it is also perfect for slicing meat (cooked and raw) or preparing fish. All of these reason are why every kitchen (In the UK at least) will have 4 of these for every one other knife. I think a ratio of 4:1 pretty much says it all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.397090 | 2014-09-02T14:07:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46812",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"JSM",
"Joe",
"JonathanReez",
"Keji Oyebade",
"Kyle Neff",
"Mary Stark",
"Max",
"Michael Cox",
"Michael Scott Proud Squeaks",
"Neil",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Tim Badger",
"Urgent Care Walk In Clinic For",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jam"
],
"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
} |
116157 | How do I find a toaster that doesn't "leak" crumbs from the bottom?
Every toaster I've owned seems to "leak" crumbs from the bottom, requiring constant clean up. You could put it into a tray of some sort but unless you 3D-print one, its hard to find a tray that exactly fits it. Is there a magic keyword of some sort that would let me find a toaster that doesn't have any holes at the bottom?
How do you intend to get out the crumbs from the toaster when it is closed on the bottom?
@rumtscho turn the toaster upside down? That's what I have to do anyway as not all crumbs successfully leave from the botton.
First, there will be fewer crumbs coming out that way, more of them getting stuck and not falling out. Second, you will be tempted to leave it some time alone before cleaning it. Third, the space will be enclosed, and not cooled by air, while all these combustible crumbs accumulate in the bottom. The open bottom sounds like a safety feature.
@rumtscho not a concern in my case as I'm always present when I'm using the toaster (are some people not present? are Wifi toasters a thing?). If something starts to burn, I'll see it immediately. I have a much more dangerous gas-powered oven right next to it :-)
@rumtscho as for crumbs getting stuck... unfortunately my current toaster is impossible to fully clean out unless I take the time to disassemble it. So there's quiet a few crumbs there from toast I made years ago.
How do you find one - you go into a big electrical retailer & look underneath every model until you find one. It's not the kind of thing that's going to feature heavily in their product advertising.
You could put it into a tray of some sort but unless you 3D-print one, its hard to find a tray that exactly fits it.
Finding a tray that fits is possible with a bit of smart shopping or DIY.
One way to find an tray that exactly fits under your toaster is to trace around your toaster on a piece of paper and cut out the tracing to bring with you to the store.
Go to a flea market or large secondhand store (eg, in the US, find a larger branch of Salvation Army or Goodwill). The advantage of shopping secondhand is they'll have a hodgepodge of different sizes and shapes, including sizes and shapes that are no longer widely sold new. Plus it'll be cheap. Alternatively, you can try shopping at yard sales, but you'll probably have to visit more than one to find the right pan.
If you're up for a little DIY, get one of those cheap aluminum foil pans that are meant to be single-use, like the kind you would use to make lasagna to take to a potluck. Get the size closest to your toaster's size. Use pliers and tin snips or an old pair of scissors to reshape the pan to exactly the right size. If you cut the metal, make sure you leave enough extra so you can fold over the cut edge so you won't cut yourself on it.
Many toasters have removable crumb trays, where crumbs collect instead of falling out the bottom. You then empty the tray once a week or so.
Not all such trays are equally effective, so I suggest using your usual sources of reviews to find the ones which are (Amazon, Consumer Reports, etc.)
Sadly for some reason there are holes under the tray for every toaster I've seen or read about.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.397820 | 2021-06-21T04:07:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116157",
"authors": [
"JonathanReez",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46870 | Short-term bread storage
I bought all kinds of bread today (Thursday morning), pitas, whole-wheat rolls, a kind of challa-looking thing. The best before is about five days time. They're for consumption on Friday night and Saturday, so up to three days from purchase, although we'll be out camping and they'll probably be in a hot car for the drive out and in bags in the sun during the day while we're walking.
For the 24 hours or so from Thursday morning through Friday morning before the drive, is it better to put the bread in the freezer, or just let it sit on the shelf?
how are they packaged?
@ElendilTheTall, All in plastic bags with those regular bread clips.
If you leave them sealed it should be fine. Keep them out of sunlight.
Personally I have had varied results when freezing bread. I have had some that came out wonderfully after a couple of months. I have also had some that after a couple of days came out very dry. Note that when freezing bread, I only freeze fresh, and in a very short amount of time after getting it home. I find that results vary depending on the type and brand of bread.
All that said about freezing, I don't think how you keep the bread for the one day period will affect anything as much as the conditions you describe after leaving home. Bread in a bag in a hot car can be bad but bread in a bag sitting in the sun can be really bad. (Even on a short trip to the market I will not place bread in my car where sunlight can hit it.)
What I would recommend is to use a cooler. When preparing to leave for your trip, line the bottom and sides with frozen ice packs and cover the ice packs with a heavy towel to keep them from direct contact with the bread. Cover the items in the cooler with a towel (a little more insulation). The idea is to keep the bread at a moderate to cool temperature.
I do this whenever I carry foods that I want to keep cool but not in contact with ice packs. It works well for bread, perishables (great for salad greens), etc.
I also learned that a couple of layers of bubble wrap can be used in place of the towels. I can't take credit for the bubble wrap idea though. When ordering perishable items I noticed that this is how they were shipped.
Thank you. I don't have a cooler, but I'll see if my friend does. If not, I'll just line a bag with aluminium foil and make a makeshift one and use towels like you said. Hoping for the best.
Think about a cheap Styrofoam cooler without the ice packs. Refrigerating bread speeds up recrystallization of starch and so accelerates staling.
@BobBrown The idea is not necessarily to refrigerate the bread but to help keep it at a moderate temperature as it will be sitting in a hot car, possibly in the sunlight. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
I'm pretty sure ice packs are going to accelerate staling, and moderately certain that a little warmer is better than colder. The only way to be certain is to perform the experiment, which might mean sacrificing some bread.
The freezer exacts a price on bread. If frozen and thawed correctly, many bread will come out fine, but from that point forward, their shelf lives will be shorter than they would have been had they not been frozen. That makes the freezer a good idea for mid- to long-term storage for breads that you plan to finish within a day or two after having been thawed. Your situation doesn't call for freezing.
Keep the breads wrapped in plastic, with an aluminum foil wrapping on top of that, as tight as can be without squishing them. If you want to go all-out hog wild, put the plastic-and-foil-wrapped bread in resealable bags. If your wheat rolls are crusty, they won't be after this kind of treatment, but they will at least be soft and fresh.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely any bread would survive for several hours in a hot car followed by a half-day of direct sunlight without the protection of something like a cooler - but it need not be very cold. It only needs to keep the bread cool.
Well, I've read that if you store bread with an apple it will keep fresh for longer - check it out here: http://www.listonic.com/protips/get/fyhzvxdwcc
When it comes to freezing, I agree with @Cindy Askew - it all depends on the variety of bread.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! One comment: When referring to another answer be careful about "the one before me", because the order of answers will change over time as those answers receive votes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.398081 | 2014-09-04T09:15:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46870",
"authors": [
"Bob Brown",
"Cindy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James Pettefer",
"Jo Wilson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Pamela Hernandez",
"Robert Klassen",
"Rose Corby",
"Shelagh Weston",
"Upax",
"bjorne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50172 | Can I purify / kill germs in a water to make it drinkable by putting it in a freezer?
I've conducted a research on how can I purify the water to make it drinkable and the results are many, but most of them says that drinking a freeze water can cause cancer to us.
I am using a freezer safe container and I put it in a freezer, let that for one day then when it is freezing I will let it thaw for maybe 6 hours, then I will put it in a water container so I can drink it in the future. Is this safe to drink? Does it kill the germs?
One of the answer in a forum is this
Cold and freezing will not kill microbes and parasites
Please enlighten me. :) I am doing it for almost a month and so far nothing bad happens to me.
The answer, briefly, is no -- freezing will not make your water safe to drink.
Freezing does damage living cells, mostly because water expands when freezing, and ice crystals can break the cell walls. Thus, some bacteria will be killed by freezing. And many larger organisms (e.g., parasites, pests) will often be killed by freezing. Long-term freezing can increase the number of bacteria killed further.
However, freezing does NOT sterilize food or liquids. It may decrease the number of bacteria present, and it will generally prevent them from multiplying. But it is not an acceptable way of purifying water acquired from an unsafe source, because many harmful bacteria will generally still survive. Also, many microorganisms have spore forms which can survive freezing much more easily and reactivate when thawed.
If your goal is to kill off most microorganisms, boiling may be an easy alternative (and may even require less energy use than freezing). However, be aware that boiling will generally not affect the levels of any dissolved chemicals that could also render the water unsafe.
I'm using refrigerator because there are still many spaces left in the freezer area, this is much more practical for me. Thanks for enlightening me. By the way, do you recommend to drink from the tap water (city water) that has been frozen and thawed? Is it enough to make it drinkable?
Freezing is NOT an effective treatment for anything other than perhaps some parasites. If your "city water" has been properly treated (e.g., with chlorine) to kill microbes before it comes to your house, then what you do afterward doesn't matter. It will already be "drinkable." If your water still contains things like bad bacteria, freezing will NOT make it safe. If you are putting water in your freezer just to fill it up, that's fine, but you will not improve the quality of the water by doing so. Again, freezing also requires a LOT of energy, so it's hard to justify it for little benefit.
Freezing does not generally kill bacteria, or even yeasts.
There are entire industries which rely on that fact.
I lived in Brasil for ten years and putting water from the tap into 2 liter bottles and keeping them in the freezer was common practice. We always had 3 or 4 at all times and I've never heard of anyone including myself getting sick. If you just drink water straight from the tap in south America expect to be making many unwanted trips to the bathroom
“We did X and nothing happened” is never a good basis for food safety, which is based on biology, chemistry and statistics.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.398448 | 2014-11-29T13:31:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50172",
"authors": [
"Ann Tomaszewski",
"Athanasius",
"Cary Bondoc",
"David Pruett",
"Mel Vargas",
"Simone Hall",
"Stephie",
"erlinda fernando",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"ubu walker"
],
"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
} |
54626 | Spolied Meat Test?
I left a beef roast in a crock pot covered - 10 hours -forgot to plug it in. Meat was still cool to touch. Home kept at 72 degrees. Safe to cook and eat or throw it out?
Throw out. Raw meat should not be kept at room temperature for more than 2 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.398981 | 2015-02-12T03:09:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54626",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Washburn",
"Gregory Chrislip",
"Karissa Rivera",
"MarcDefiant",
"Mary Jevons",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54693 | Doubling a red velvet cake recipe
I have made 4 times the recipe in order to make a half sheet cake. Do I lower the degrees and bake time?
Your title says double, your text says 4 times, which is it? Are you making one big cake or 4 smaller ones?
A half sheet pan is 18" by 13" (46 by 33 cm), is that the size you're making? Sheet pans are thin, with a 1" (2.5 cm) raised lip. This is jelly roll territory, it would either make a very thin cake or you can cut it make a many layered cake, which would make sense with a red velvet cake. Can you explain exactly what you're doing and post your quantities? 4X makes no sense, 2X maybe, depending upon your recipe.
I'm confused. The above comment and the answers refer to using a sheet pan. I don't see anywhere in the question where the OP says she is using a sheet pan. She says she is making a sheet cake. Sheet cake pans typically range from 2" to 4" deep.
If you're making the same thickness of cake, and it's a relatively thin cake (suggested by the fact that you're using a sheet pan), you typically do not need to change the time and temperature. So if you've doubled the recipe and doubled the area of the pan, you don't need to make any changes.
A larger area cake will rise more as there won't be as much edge that will set before the rest has risen.
If it's a thicker cake (the batter is more than 1/2" / 1.25 cm deep before baking), you'll want to turn down the temperature and bake for a longer time. If the batter is an inch or more deep, you may want to consider cooling strips and/or a heating core.
Here's a highly rated recipe for a Red Velvet Cake in a sheet pan by Lee Drummond.
If you're in fact using a sheet pan, compare the quantities of your ingredients to hers. I wouldn't go any bigger in a sheet pan, or it will overflow. I know from experience, that makes a big mess.
She uses:
2 1/2 cups cake flour
1teaspoon salt
1 cup buttermilk
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 whole eggs
1 1/2 teaspoons vinegar
1 1/2 teaspoons cocoa powder
1 1/2 fluid ounces red food coloring
1 cup shortening
1 3/4 cup granulated sugar
Make sure your ingredient quantites are in line with that.
She goes on to bake for 20 minutes at 350F (178C).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.399059 | 2015-02-13T14:33:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54693",
"authors": [
"Charlenene Newell",
"Cindy",
"Diane Dix",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Maudlyn St Hilaire",
"Richard Lund",
"Shiryn Payet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57988 | How can I cheaply cook a bratwurst that is similar to a grilled brat with only access to an oven or stovetop?
I'm currently not TOO excited to spend $100-200+ for a propane grill. Is it possible to cook brats with a small budget (preferably around $20-30, but as high as a soft $50) and get that nice, crispy skin around most of the sausage on a low budget? I have a wobbly, thick, not-nonstick pan (on a glasstop stove), and an oven. Oh, and a good, thick, as well as many terrible thin nonstick pans at my disposal.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14265/how-to-cook-sausage http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14434/how-do-i-get-sausages-to-cook-evenly-in-a-pan
Most ovens have a 'broil' setting (where the top element is on, and not the lower element).
You'll likely want a 'broiler pan' so that you can drain the grease away from the food (and catch it so it doesn't light on fire). They're under $20 online.
Set the rack of the oven so that the food will be about 2" from the upper heating element.
Heat the broiler on its hottest setting, but leave the door to the oven open.
Place the food in the oven, but again, don't close it.
Turn the food occasionally until it's cooked to the level you want.
As for the bit about not closing the door :
If you close the door to the oven, it might heat up too much, and shut off. You need the element actively heating, so that you have radiant heating, not convection or conduction. (this is also why you want the food really close to the heating element). Note that this is for electric ovens -- I don't think gas ovens have the same issue.
Conversely some electric ovens are designed to be used in "grill" mode with the door shut. This is now the norm in much of Europe with the intention of reducing power consumption. The top element doesn't heat the cavity very much compared to the top+bottom/side elements in oven mode, and has some thermal mass so when it does briefly cut out it will still radiate a bit. If you've got a manual for the oven, check it, it's possible that it will cut out with the door open. The effect is slightly different, there's a little more roasting about it.
This started as a +1 comment to GgD's answer, but it's too long, so I'll post separately.
I agree with GgD: Buy a charcoal grill. You can actually have a "grilled brat" with better taste, for less money than gas. A quick internet search shows small charcoal grills selling for as low as $15-20. And you can do a perfectly fine job grilling on even the cheapest charcoal grill -- it really is just a metal box with a hole in the bottom and a hole in the top, with two grates (one for the charcoal and one for the food). You could actually make a makeshift one yourself if you have a couple metal grates lying around, but for $15-20, I'd just go buy one.
Charcoal itself is very cheap as well. I personally prefer the "natural lump" charcoal for flavor, and you can often get a large bag for $10 or so. (The standard briquets are even cheaper, and they'll do fine if you're really on a budget.)
Also, skip the lighter fluid and use a charcoal chimney for easier lighting and even more savings without the chemical aftertaste. They often sell for $5-10 at a store, but if you have a large empty can, you can easily make one at home for $0; instructions can be found online.
The only disadvantage to charcoal is the extra time (15-30 minutes) it can take for charcoal to light and heat up. And it has a somewhat steeper learning curve than a gas grill. But once you've done it a dozen times or so, you'll have at least as much control as a gas grill (and arguably more in some situations, like when you want temperatures outside the "high" and "low" range of the gas burner, or when you need to move your heat source around dynamically while cooking).
Lastly, in terms of cooking technique: put your hot coals on one side of the grill; even with a very small, cheap charcoal grilll you can have a "hot side" and "cool side." Brats usually like to have a longer time over indirect heat on the "cool side," so the interior can heat and the fat will liquify, producing a juicier result. The longer time on the grill will also absorb good "smoky flavor" from the charcoal. If you like, sear on the "hot side" at the beginning to get that crispy skin as dark as you want.
+1...but you could go even cheaper by building a fire pit....hole in the ground...some rocks...all you would need is a grate...and that could be taken out of your oven in a pinch.
@moscafj - True. However, your solution wastes a lot of fuel and energy (unless the person has access to free firewood or something it may cost more in the long run). Also, I don't know where the questioner lives--many cities have ordinances that restrict or prohibit open fires, but allow the use of contained grills. Finally, a grill offers much more control, including a cover to create an "oven effect" that I find really helpful for slow cooking sausages. (I like cooking over open fires too, but it's a lot more inconsistent than a $15 metal box with controllable air vents and standard fuel.)
@moscafj - or perhaps the bigger question: why the grate? Whittle a stick, put the brat on, and roast it. Easier to control than a grate over an open fire. :)
All good points!
Thanks for all the replies. I'll look into charcoal in a few paychecks. Only downside is that we have charcoal grill bans from time to time based on how dry the flora gets around here.
If you cannot splash out on a propane barbecue why not use charcoal? There are plenty of options there, you can pick up very simple bucket barbecues for very little money, and in my personal opinion you get much better flavor from charcoal than gas. For brats a disposable charcoal barbecue will give you decent results, and they are pretty inexpensive.
Look at local yard sales and classified ads, you'll see someone selling a decent used barbecue at some point, gas or charcoal.
If these aren't options and you do have a broiler (aka grill in some parts of the world) in your oven then use it as @Joe suggests, you'll get the closest thing to a bbq. If you don't have a broiler then pick up a grill pan and use it on your stovetop. I like to keep a cooking torch handy to touch up the areas that haven't been browned. You can get a plumber's torch at a hardware store, it's the same thing.
You don't even need charcoal -- if you're just cooking up a couple, you can improvise an assador de barro with a few metal skewers and an appropriately sized heat-proof dish, and some alcohol. You could then even do this inside (although keep something available to smother it the first time, when you don't know how much alcohol to use, or how much fat the sausages are going to drip)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.399291 | 2015-06-04T03:03:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57988",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Joe Estep",
"Martin Stone",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sašo Klančnik",
"Susan Sampson",
"Tyrian",
"barb etchason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jayne herron",
"moscafj",
"plonk420"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54767 | Spicy foods and weight loss
It is well known that consuming spicy foods increases your metabolism and contributes to fat burning, mainly due to the presence of capsaicin.
Since this effect is very small, how many spicy foods would one have to eat (in terms of capsaicin) in order for the weight loss to be noticeable, strictly theoretically speaking?
Hello Pickle, and welcome to the site! I'm sorry, but we don't do anything related to weight loss or other effects of food, we only concentrate on cooking the food.
The increase in metabolic rate from ingesting capsaicin is nominal and would make very little difference to someone trying to lose weight.
Of more interest is the fact that capsaicin appears to increase satiety - it increases the feeling of "fullness". Studies have shown that adding capsaicin to food results in the overall consumption of fewer calories. This effect too is relatively small, and so would likely only have any practical effect if the eater were also carefully managing their calorie intake.
Eating more spicy food would not cause you to lose more weight - you would simply be consuming more calories. Attempting to add more capsaicin to food in order to increase the effect would simply result in unpalatably hot food.
So, all in all, whilst there does appear to be an effect, it's small. I don't think any amount of spicy foods will cause weight loss on their own - only a planned diet will do that. In other words, spicy food won't cause you to lose weight, but if you are trying to lose weight, spicy foods may well help you to feel better while doing so.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.399814 | 2015-02-15T12:15:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54767",
"authors": [
"Janet King",
"Spammer",
"Susanne Brent",
"Thomas ",
"VN L",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128999",
"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
} |
54907 | Make Ahead Quesadillas
A few friends of mine are visiting and I wanted to make some Quesadillas (No meat). Ordinarily, I would make them, keep them covered in tin foil and serve hot in a few minutes. However, this time, I need to pick up my friends at the airport which would be a ~2 hour return journey. I was wondering at what point should I pause my recipe to go pick them up and resume.
I wanted to get as much prepared before hand so I can serve immediately after we return home. If I fry vegetables, tortilla, layer cheese and keep them ready to fry, would that be OK?
Yes, that sounds like a great way to do it!
Prepare all of the components ahead of time, assemble the quesadillas, and stash them in the refrigerator.
When you return home with your guests, all you need to do it warm and serve.
The only real consideration is the moisture content of your veggies. You may not want to include them inside the tortilla during the fridge testing period of they are in danger of making the tortilla soggy. It probably won't be an issue, but it's something to consider. You can always cook up the veg and keep them in the fridge separately from the quesadillas until you are ready to heat.
If you're going to leave them for longer than a couple hours, I might just wait to assemble them to avoid any chance of sogginess in the tortillas. Just prep everything, and throw it between tortillas while the pan's heating.
Yeah. After reading the recipe there is definitely cause for concern on the sogginess front. I think keeping them separated from the tortillas until you're ready to serve is the best bet.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.399982 | 2015-02-19T05:47:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54907",
"authors": [
"Alysoun Goebel",
"Angie Lofquist",
"Cascabel",
"Dawn taylor",
"Preston",
"cathy snyder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55018 | What is the US equivalent of "Joint of Sirloin"?
Wanting to make a roast for dinner tonight. The recipe is a British one calling for 1.5Kg of 'joint of sirloin' but I think the butchers in America call it by 'where' on the sirloin it is. The recipe calls for roasting it around 55 min. Thanks!
Any butcher can probably get you a Joint of Sirloin by request, but you will not likely find it "on the shelf".
A "Joint of Sirloin" is a rare cut in the US given the other possible uses of the sirloin.
If one looks at the T-Bone/Porterhouse cuts, where the the "T"-bone bi-sects the steak. The smaller side is the tenderloin and the larger side is sirloin. While it is not entirely uncommon for the short-loin primal to be cut to form a tenderloin roast from that side of the "joint" when that is done the sirloin is then usually (in the US) trimmed to be either "New York Strips" or "Kansas City Strips".
Here we see a section of the short loin primal, from this end only a thin layer of fat separate the tender loin from the sirloin.
And this is the trimmed joint of sirloin.
And the Bone-in version of the joint of sirloin
Usually, in my area at least (north, UK), we call use the name sirloin for the steak and striploin for the whole joint.
Indeed, I have learned that cuts which we may think of as 'common' are often far more localized than we know.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.400143 | 2015-02-22T13:28:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55018",
"authors": [
"Arantxa Lottering",
"Bill Kelly",
"Cos Callis",
"Doug",
"Erin Holcombe",
"Janettw Musgrove",
"Kimberly Rummel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"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
} |
55116 | Tartine + Sourdough Taste
I just moved to the San Diego area and began making my bread starter from scratch (it's 3 weeks old now) from the Tartine cookbook. I just made the country loaf and it rose perfectly and looks just like the pictures.
My issue is that is doesn't taste anything like sourdough bread. In the book I believe the author mentioned to extend the bulk fermentation phase from 3-4 hours to an extended period of time to create more complex flavors. So I extended that fermentation phase to 7 hours, but it still lacked the Sourdough taste that I was looking for (I'm comparing the taste to Boudin bread in San Francisco).
Is there something I need to add or should I just keep feeding my starter and eventually it'll get there? From what I understand it has to do with the bacteria in the air or in my hands, so maybe I just need my friends in the Bay Area to ship me some C02.
Thanks!
Remember that the Tartine bakers who made the starter in the book are, themselves, covered with natural yeast from working in that bakery - it's no wonder they have a hyperactive starter. For me, I found that my starter developed its sour characteristics a full couple weeks after it developed its capacity to leaven. Baking sourdough using a 5 1/2 week old starter produced a loaf that smelled and tasted like a San Francisco sourdough. By that time, the wine-y lactic acid-y smell of my starter had given way to a distinctly acetic acid smell that I associate with the bay area.
Thanks Stephen, also did you continue feeding it every day or did you throw your starter in the fridge and feed it periodically?
That was after 5 1/2 weeks of daily feedings. I didn't refrigerate my starter until after 10 or 11 weeks of daily feedings - by that time, I wasn't seeing any perceptible changes in starter smell (and the rising power had been fine since about the 3rd week). Surely the starter would have continued to evolve, albeit more slowly, if I had never refrigerated, but I was satisfied with the taste of my bread by then and tired of the daily ritual and wasted flour. Longer fermentation times using young starters won't generate the flavor that comes with a fully mature starter.
Like eating a day old brie instead of the nice mature stinking gooey mess from 3 months ago
Congratulations on creating a picture perfect loaf. But I had to chuckle a little at your comment because, in my opinion, comparing Tartine bread to Boudin bread is like comparing a Lamborghini to a Fiat. Yes, they both come from the same region, but only one of them is a lovingly crafted divine work of art.
My own experience diverges somewhat from the celebrated Tartine experience. Don't get me wrong, I think it is an amazing book and an amazing bakery...it's just that my experience is not commensurate with the book.
First of all, remember that the Tartine bakers who made the starter in the book are, themselves, covered with the natural yeast from working in that bakery - it's no wonder they have a hyperactive starter.
When I decided to make a foray into sourdough, I went with a starter that was basically the Tartine starter. I consulted numerous sources for inspiration, but ultimately found that my starter matured MUCH more slowly than what I saw in the books I consulted.
My starter matured in two stages: (1) where it was able to double in volume within 12 hours of feeding, & (2) where it developed its complex sour smell and flavor characteristics. With daily feedings, my starter finally started doubling in volume after about 2 weeks (I was using equal parts rye and whole wheat to feed it). But it took well over three additional weeks after it developed its capacity to leaven before the flavors in my starter were fully developed. I didn't bake my first sourdough until my starter was 5 1/2 weeks old.
I think that a sourdough starter should be judged more by smell then by leavening capacity. My starter went through phases of smelling like leather, then smelling like wine-y fruit, and finally like acetic acid (vinegary). I baked my first loaf when my starter smelled like San Francisco smells outside a bakery at 5 am - that's how I arrived at the 5 1/2 week mark. And I was going for that bay area sourdough too - nothing subtle. I live in southeastern Virginia - a LONG way from San Francisco - and I swear that my loaves have the uniquely buttery/vinegary tang that I associate with the bay area sourdoughs.
I didn't refrigerate my starter until after 10 or 11 weeks of daily feedings - by that time, I wasn't noticing any perceptible changes in starter smell (and the rising power had been fine since about the 3rd week). Surely the starter would have continued to evolve, albeit more slowly, if I had never refrigerated, but I was satisfied with the taste of my bread by then and tired of the daily ritual and wasted flour. Longer fermentation times using young starters won't generate the flavor that comes with a fully mature starter.
Also, I totally recommend using filtered or bottled water for your starter and for any bread you make with your starter. Starters can smell chlorine like dogs can smell fear. And if you really like your sourdough sour, try using scalded buttermilk for the liquid in your loaf - it adds some lactic acid back to the equation and the milk will help soften the crumb of the loaf.
Good luck and have patience. Great sourdough is worth the time and discarded flour.
So to clarify, you're looking for a yeasty, bread-like smell when it's mature?
If you're referring to the yeasty smell of dried commercial yeast and fresh non-sourdough bread, then no. My own mature starter smells a lot like what San Francisco sourdough bread tastes like. It definitely smells of lactic acid (buttermilk-y) and of acetic acid (vinegar-y) and just a little bit fruit-y with the background odor of the flours I'm using to feed to starter (typically some whole wheat flour, some bread flour, and a bit of rye flour). The strongest smells from my starter are acidic and they are accurate indicators of how my baked breads taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.400413 | 2015-02-25T16:08:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55116",
"authors": [
"Amy Scott",
"Chantal Voyer",
"Doug",
"Elizabeth Belser",
"Redbomber",
"Rick",
"Stephen Eure",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"schmudu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55325 | Best Way To Remove Fajita Contents From Marinade
Usually when I marinade something it's just a single piece of meat. I can just pull it out and discard the rest of the marinade. However, when I have strips of chicken and vegetables all marinating in a single bag what's the best way to remove the contents? Should I just strain the bag over the sink? Or should I just reach in with tongs and pull everything out?
I guess my problem with both solutions is losing too much marinade from straining (don't want to lose more flavor than I have to) or pulling in too much liquid from using tongs (I don't want my tortillas to get soggy)
Any advice would be great
A colander over a bowl. That saves the marinade, so you can use as much as you want. Be sure you completely cook all of the marinade that you use, and discard the rest. It is not safe to reuse it.
Okay, so when you say use as much as I want you mean incase the fajitas are not as flavored as I want I can add some more marinade in until I get the desired taste? Then discard after done cooking?
@CuriousCooker Yes, but if you do it that way, bring the reserved marinade to a rolling boil. Still discard any leftover marinade, but you can use as much as you want while you are cooking the meal. You can also reduce/thicken the marinade that way. NICE!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.400831 | 2015-03-03T01:18:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55325",
"authors": [
"Curious Cooker",
"I Mc",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sonja Lewis",
"Spammer",
"Tan Shek Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33935"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57450 | Roasting 3 Stuffed Pork Loins
I am roasting 3 stuffed pork tenderloins together. If the timing for one is 30 minutes, how long should I roast 3? (A digital thermometer will be used to measure internal temp.)
Basically the same as "If one egg needs to boil for five minutes, how long does it take to boil a dozen eggs?" Upvoted!
30 minutes. Provided you have some space between them so the air can circulate, it doesn't matter how many you roast at once.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.400969 | 2015-05-13T14:09:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57450",
"authors": [
"Andrew Moodie",
"Ed Marcus",
"Margaret Hewitt",
"Riku Lätti",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57526 | Can I mix multiple types of pudding powder?
I would like to create a pudding with vanilla + cocoa pudding powder, from the same brand.
Can I combine the two safely(cooking them all at once)?
Unless the package instructions are very different, yes that should be fine. A typical pudding mix will consist of
starch
the main ingredient, required to thicken the liquid (typically milk)
sometimes sugar
especially for the "instant" types, others let you add sugar separately
flavourings
sometimes "the real deal" like vanilla, often artificial.
sometimes extra goodies
like chocolate shavings or caramel crumbs for an interesting mouth-feel
sometimes additives like food colourings or preservatives
not really neccessary, IMHO.
(A very basic pudding mix would be corn starch and cocoa powder, btw.)
So if you combine mixes, you combine starch with two (or more) different flavourings, which will be absolutely fine. Just read the labels to make sure you are adding the correct amount of milk etc.
Strictly from a safety perspective? Absolutely. If these are from the same brand then likely the only difference in their formulation is the flavoring agents used. Most of those will be quite similar, and won't react with each other or anything. I'm also pretty sure that powdered pudding mix is quite safe in general.
So long as you follow the manufacturer's directions you'll be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401050 | 2015-05-15T18:18:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57526",
"authors": [
"Isaac Richardson",
"Joan DiRisio",
"T 1980",
"TL Foodlabeling2024",
"c o m p l i c a t e d l o v e",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136867"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70548 | Cooking Belgian Waffles in waffle iron
My waffle iron does not cook Belgian waffle enough (they are not brown on the outside but are cooked on the inside) at the recommended temperature and time. what should I do, raise the temperature or cook them long?
I would first try cooking them longer. Raising the temp can also work, but you run the risk of burning whatever oil you are spraying onto the waffle iron, which can taste off (not a big risk) and will smoke up your home.
Without knowing about your batter, I'd suggest adding more sugar in some form. That's often the culprit in homemade pancake/waffle batters, we neglect to use enough sugar. More sugar will allow the outside to caramelize more, which is the browning you see. (Ok, it's a malliard reaction)
Browning occurs when sugars and proteins (in the flour, eggs, milk, etc) interact under high temps. So not enough of either, and you will end up with a paler product no matter what.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401190 | 2016-06-08T19:07:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70548",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70604 | Gas grill flare up made flame covers look rusty
I had a fairly intense flare up on my KitchenAid gas grill (too much canola oil) that lasted about 30 seconds. The inside of the grill is covered in soot (expected) but the flame covers (triangle shaped pieces above the flame) are now copper colored and look rusty. I got most of that off with cleaning, but it seems weird for a big flare up to have caused it.
Anyone else ever have that happen?
Thanks!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! "Has this ever happened to anyone else?" isn't really a question we can answer because there's no problem to be solved. What do you actually want to know? How to prevent it? How to clean up after it?
Thanks. Just curious if this flare up could cause rust? Or if copper coloring is a normal part of a grill aging and this isn't rust. I'm new to the world of grilling, so pardon the ignorance.
It is most likely rust. The covers over top of the burners will eventually experience that sort of decay. They have a constant barrage of high heat applied to them, which speeds oxidation of the metal. You will experience this effect with the burners as well.
Too right. Flame covers are the first part to go in a grill. High Heat speeds oxidation by a lot. When you strip cast iron lots in an oven cleaning cycle, they start out metal grey and then turn orange as they cool after opening up the oven.
It might be rust, but if it was rather smooth and more orange-ish, it might've been that you ended up seasoning the metal. (seasoning over shiny / polished metal tends to be orange until you have a few coats down when it'll get darker).
Of course, as you mentioned that you were able to clean it, it's more likely it's rust (as Sean Hart said), as seasoning can be rather difficult to get off without exposing it to more heat to completely bake it off.
...but I thought I'd mention this possibility in case anyone else has an oil spill and is wondering why aluminum or other non-iron object has gone orange-brown.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401296 | 2016-06-10T23:38:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70604",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47325",
"mstrom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70752 | Avoiding gritty cockles
Is there any way I can identify whether or not a cockle is likely to contain grit before I bite down on it? I don't mean by cutting it open before hand, but a visual identification. General shade/darker areas don't seem to correlate with the amount of grit.
They're so tasty but I really don't like it when that happens...
For information, I buy them ready cooked but from the fish counter in the supermarket (not the ones in jars which are usually farmed and grit free).
The cockle vendor is not taking the time to let the cockles flush the grit, most likely because it takes time and should happen in salt water, both inconveniences. I rake clams in the Peconic Bay estuary system and flush them twice using fresh bay saltwater each time for at least two hours each time. After that NO GRIT EVER.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401469 | 2016-06-16T09:07:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70752",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23186",
"user23186"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73495 | How best to store steaks in the fridge (for taste)
This question is not about preventing meat from going bad or about aesthetics due to oxidation etc. and is specifically about how best to store meat in the fridge for taste.
Depending on who I get my meat from (i.e. which butcher) sometimes it comes wrapped in paper (either individually or all together), sometimes in individual bags or sometimes all bundled together in a single bag like today.
How is it best to store them, for up to 3 days? Leave them all together in contact? Separate and individually cling wrap them? Put them together in Tupperware?
I guess what I'm really asking is does it make any difference to taste or texture depending on how it is stored in the fridge as long as the meat remains fresh and continuously refrigerated? *
*Not including uncovered storage in the fridge which would dry out the meat.
Beef ages, so it comes down to your preference, and the cut. As Tom Mylan, executive butcher and co-owner of the local, sustainable butcher shop The Meat Hook in Brooklyn, NY, explained in The Atlantic:
During wet aging, the plastic doesn't allow the meat to breathe, so it ages in contact with its own blood, which lends it "a more intense sour note and a more bloody/serumy flavor," according to the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota. This sounds a bit negative when you're talking about the flavor of a steak, but the fact that upwards of 90 percent of the beef taken home by American grocery store shoppers in plastic-wrapped foam trays is wet-aged seems to suggest that it can't be all bad.
Dry aging, on the other hand, allows the meat to breathe, lose water (which increases its "beefiness" since there is now less water and but the same amount of muscle fiber), and get acted upon by other microbes beside those of the muscle itself. Those other microbes are the long, threadlike mycelia of various airborne fungi that begin to digest the meat, giving an aged loin its distinctive flavor, aroma, and fuzzy exterior. So dry aging wins, right? It's complicated: while most meat snobs (myself included) prefer dry-aged beef, the American public actually prefers bagged beef according to a number of very expensive meat studies. Certainly you could chalk those results up to Americans preferring what they have become used to and choosing bagged meat over the funkier flavor of dry-aged beef.
Ultimately neither method of aging is the be-all-end-all: it is impossible to properly dry-age steaks like the flat iron, skirt steak, or chuck tenders because they lack the protective fat and bone that cover traditional aged cuts like rib and short loin. Once they are removed from the carcass, they simply begin to degrade and dry out, which is why I think everyone agrees they should go into plastic.
Isn't the time scale of aging way longer than the few days of storage the OP is talking about?
@Jefromi, it can be, but the storage methods listed by the OP can have an affect on the meat during it's three days in the fridge.
Well, I guess my usual fridge storage method has an effect on taste and texture, but it's off the track of your question - in some sort of marinade.
Other than that I don't think it will make much difference so long as they are tightly wrapped/sealed. One thing that could make some difference is something I've resorted to at stores where only excessively thin steaks are stocked - buy a roast (uncut) and only slice it into steaks when ready to cook. That reduces the surface area exposed, but I do it simply to get a steak that can be properly cooked, rather than one of those ones that goes from raw to overcooked in no time flat, being too thin. If buying from a butcher this should not be a problem you have.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401559 | 2016-08-27T16:52:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73495",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85644 | Which type of UK supermarket rice is closest to Philippine rice?
I have visted the Philippines twice and had many delicious dishes served with the most amazing slightly-sticky rice.
Which type/variety of rice, which is readily available in UK supermarkets, is closest is terms of grain size, texture and fragrance? I have tried authentic Thai Jasmine rice which is delicious but much more fragrant. Long grain rice is nothing like it.
I've looked online and haven't been able to find any varieties that I recognise. I accept that I probably won't be able to find exactly the same variety so I'm looking for the closest match. There aren't any asian food markets/stores near me but it could be an option if nothing else is similar.
Any ideas? Thanks!
I think you want Dinorado rice by farm boy. A 100% Philippine upland rice. I do not see a way to export it threw farm boy. Brand we buy. or maybe Sinadaomeng by Harvistor. Again I see no way to export it from them. Sounds like you want Dinorado to me if this helps.
Found a way to do this. Go to Lazada Philippines. [ on line shopping] There you can order rice. Sinadomeng &some others. Have that shipped to you or to Germany to reship to you. Shipping will not be cheap.
If your goal is slightly sticky rice, you can mix glutinous(sweet) rice with plain rice in different ratios to get the right blend of stickiness you are looking for.
Short grain rice also tends to be more sticky, chewy, and denser. So go with short grain rice if you remember the rice being more dense and chewy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.401878 | 2017-11-14T17:02:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85644",
"authors": [
"J Bergen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73307 | Why does steak change colour after seasoning?
When I have sirloin steaks, I take them out of the fridge and season them while they return to room temperature before I cook them.
I add various seasonings - salt, pepper, garlic etc. it depends on my mood.
I notice that after I season them, the more heavily seasoned areas turn grey. Why is this? Is it to do with dehydration from salt or something else?
The steaks are always delicious so it's not a concern, I'm just curious as to what causes the colour change.
Details on beef color changes can be found here.
Briefly:
When beef is first cut (or ground or whatever), it has a purplish hue, caused by deoxymyoglobin, a pigment that can only exist in the absence of oxygen.
When exposed to oxygen, a chemical reaction occurs, producing oxymyoglobin, which leads to the bright cherry red color most people associate with "fresh meat."
Eventually, the molecule oxydizes, producing metmyoglobin, which can no longer bind oxygen -- and this turns the meat brown. (There are natural enzymes present which can convert back to oxymyoglobin when in the presence of sufficient oxygen, though these will eventually be depleted. Packaging can preserve the strong oxygen-rich environment for longer, which is why grocery store meat stays bright red on the surface.)
When meat is cooked, the globin denatures and forms a tan/gray hemichrome pigment which can no longer convert back to the other myoglobin pigments.
Anyhow, this is all a preface to explain that certain chemical additives will change the chemistry here, pushing the reactions to move to or away from certain pigment states.
The primary one that you mentioned is salt. As discussed in the linked article:
If salt has been incorporated into patties or is present in the case
of enhanced steaks, salt decreases metmyoglobin reducing activity
allowing more MMb to accumulate [i.e., turning brown]. . . . In addition, salt promotes
heat denaturation, or breakdown, of myoglobin [i.e., turning tan or gray].
Basically, salt causes the pigmentation molecules to convert faster to states resembling old or cooked meat, causing the color change you see.
Perfect answer - answered my question and satisfied my related curiosities! Thank you
By the way, I discovered last night that this is also the case with Tuna steaks! When seasoned with lemon juice, pepper and parsley.
This is off-topic, but an important point to note!
From a purely culinary point of view, it all comes down to when you season.
For example with proteins (Meats) it is highly recommended to season just before the cooking process. The simple answer to this been that seasoning agents such as salts and acids draw moisture out of the product. It is important to retain this
moisture(the flavor) while the meat is been seared.
Try this with two identical cuts, one seasoned before hand(say 15 mins), the other just before searing. Use two pans that have similar properties.You will notice the cut of meat seasoned before hand will have more moisture in the pan while it is been seared. You want to be able to maintain a dry and hot cooking surface to maximize the caramelization process for optimum flavor.
On a side note, use minimum oil as possible, next to nothing, let the fats from the meat do the work. i.e use a oil quantity relevant to the fat content of the meat.
This does not apply to marinated techniques. You need to add the seasoning before hand for best results.
Final, this also applies to vegetables. For example, if you are doing a stir fry and you want the vegetable cooked but crispy, season the dish at the end of the cooking process. You get better results in terms of texture and color.
Once again sorry for the off-topic answer, thought I will share as we sometimes forget how important seasoning is, using it and when to.
Just to note: while much of this is true, salting beforehand is fine if you wait long enough (minimum ~45 minutes; I personally go at least an hour). Salt will draw out moisture for the first 30 minutes or so, but eventually the surface brine produced will break down the outermost muscle layers and cause most of the moisture to be reabsorbed. More details here and here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.402017 | 2016-08-21T20:29:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73307",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Lyall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.