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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
70891 | How do I use a Convection Microwave Oven Hybrid?
I just moved to a small studio apartment, and it has a convection microwave/oven. The top half has a metal rack like you would find in an oven, while the bottom has a round glass rotating thing that you would find in a microwave. What kind of plates/pans are okay to use in something like this? Is microwave safe the same as oven safe in this scenario? If it's microwave mode does that mean microwave safe plates/bowls are allowed? Or should I only use what would be okay inside an oven?
I'm incredibly new(read:inept) to cooking and can barely handle frozen pizza in a normal oven, much less this cyborg hybrid monster. So ANY tips at how to use this at all would be greatly appreciated :D
It's GE if that helps. It has a rotating knob in the middle and some preset buttons as well.
Have you considered looking for the manual on line? Most manuals can be found for products on the web and it should tell you how to use the specific model you have...
It depends what mode of cooking you're doing. There are a few possibilities:
convection: heating with a heating element (no microwave power), circulating with the fan
microwave: heating with microwaves, no fan
microwave+convection: heating with microwaves, also using the fan (and possibly a heating element, who knows)
If you're in convection mode, it's just a small oven, so everything needs to be oven-safe, but you don't have to worry about microwave safety. You likely need to use the rack, and it's possible you need to remove the turntable (check the manual).
If you're in microwave mode, it's just a microwave, so everything has to be microwave-safe, but you don't have to worry about oven safety. Note that this may mean you'll need to remove the rack (check the manual).
If your appliance has an actual combination microwave+convection mode, you'd need both oven safety and microwave safety.
In all cases, it'll be best to just check the manual to be sure - you need to know what the modes are (and what the buttons on your microwave do), and what the rack and turntable are okay with. In particular, you want to be very sure if you're expecting microwave-only or convection-only; if you accidentally end up with microwave+convection, it could be an unpleasant surprise.
This is the theory, but I have frequently seen people say that the convection mode does not work as supposed and leaves the microwave on. I can't say which brands and models are affected, but the user should always make sure there is no microwaving going on before using metal in the oven.
Right, I'm talking about what the thing actually does, which may or may not match the buttons on the thing very well. For what it's worth, I did look at a manual for a GE convection microwave, and it does say it has these three different modes, with the heat source(s) explicitly named, so the OP might be in luck.
There is some variability in these so do try to track down a user manual for your model or a similar one from the same manufacturer. The manual is likely to have recipes that will adapt.
In ours, for any use with the heater element on (convection, grill or combination) there's a metal baking sheet that must be put on top on the turntable. It should be taken out on microwave-only mode. From experience it seems like it can't handle the microwave on full power (it's an inverter model).
If you've used convection, grill, or combination mode, you won't be able to put plastic microwave dishes in until it's cooled down, so pyrex or ceramic containers are good all round. A few ceramic dishes don't work well in microwaves so check before buying.
You can generally just set convection mode and dial in a temperature, if you want to use it like a "normal" oven. The heat from the top can be a bit fierce for some things especially if they're tall, so be prepared to turn it down a little or switch off for few minutes at the end.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.402363 | 2016-06-22T20:57:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70891",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
} |
70946 | What happened to my cornbread? Please help
please help me. My cornbread sunk in the middle.what did I do wrong?
Hi. It might be helpful to your question to add in some details - like what recipe you were using, how you made it, when it sunk in the middle (or when you noticed), things like that.
Maybe a long shot, but did you by any chance just make this recipe up yourself? Or modify a good recipe? This happens to my baking experiments a lot; I think when my batter starts out too liquid & doesn't cook all the way in the middle of the pan, or it has too much leavening (baking soda/powder) which causes over fluffing, then sink-age when the baked product isn't strong enough to sustain all that air as it cools.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.402742 | 2016-06-26T00:56:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70946",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71126 | What to do with left-over rices from Chinese takeouts?
Nobody here eats much of the rice, that Asian restaurants include with take-out orders. Three people can finish their entries sharing a single box of rice. But we don't like to throw out food either.
There are currently five boxes of cooked white rice aging in the refrigerator -- is there something cool I can do with it to make it palatable to the rest of the family? Thanks!
Two words: Fried rice. And don't forget our canonical post: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer. Welcome!
There are so many dishes you can just throw it in. For sure any soup.
Feed to chickens. Collect eggs. And the aforementioned standard ideas, though I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't been closed as a recipe request.
Apart from the Fried Rice mentioned.
Rice Cakes - not the polystyrene looking discs.
Wor Bar/Puffed rice cake (Shape is strictly personal preference)
drying/dried wor bar
fried wor bar
fried wor bar
Pressed/shaped rice cakes are dried, before frying into a puffy rice cake, to be eaten on it's own or with some dip/seasoning, or as a crispy sizzling base for a saucy dish).
The rice needs to be wet/sticky enough to squish together form a cake (alternatively add some flour, try 1 tablespoon per cup of rice), before leaving to dry on a rack, low oven, or a dehydrator.
Once dry, deep fry in hot oil until all the rice puffs up (ideally the rice stays white, but fry as long as you prefer)
Mi Xiang - Puffed rice cake
mi xiang being pressed/rolled
mi xiang bars
Puffed rice with a binding agent (honey, syrup, or caramel), typically mixed with roasted peanuts, sesame and/or coconut (however, any fruits, nuts, or grains can be added), before being compressed, then cut into bars (similar to a flapjack/granola bar)
Puffed rice - Cooked Rice can be dried, then placed into hot oil, which will puff up similar to 'rice krispies'
Jhaal muri
Puffed rice mixed with a selection of spices, and optionally other fruit, vegetables, nuts or sauces.
Deep fried rice balls/Arrancini - A deep fried rice ball, which can be stuffed with filling and/or coated (breadcrumbs, flour, nuts, etc)
Rice Tamales A rice parcel with sweet or savory fillings, that is wrapped (bamboo leaf, banana leaf, corn husk, etc) before being boiled or steamed.
Onigri - A compressed oval/triangular shaped rice, can be plain or filled, and/or wrapped with a sheet of roasted seaweed 'nori'.
The completed Onigri can be grilled, broiled, or pan fried into 'Yaki Onigri'
Thickening agent - Soups and stews can be thicken as the rice absorbs liquid and breaks down.
Sushi - gunkan, nigri, maki, temaki, oshi sushi, inari sushi, etc.
Chirashi sushi - A bed of rice (seasoned with vinegar), with toppings covering the rice.
(Cheat's) Hainanese Chicken Rice - A Boiled chicken and rice dish, originally from Hainan, China.
(Cheat's) Congee - A rice soup/gruel/stew , which can be flavoured with stock, meat or vegetables.
If you steam or broil a dish, try using rice as a bed, it will heat up and absorb any sauces or juices.
There seems to be a number of leftover rice recipes on the internet.
Like most of you answer but you cannot make Sushi from refrigerated rice - it just won't stick.
In my experience it depends on the consistency of the rice. You can warm up the rice and then add some sushi vinegar, or add warm/cold the sushi vinegar to the cold rice.
I am going to the trouble to make Sushi I am going to use fresh rice.
Thanks, @FoodLover, for the rice cakes idea... Any particular recipe? I'm thinking, something with raisins perhaps -- where I can substitute the raisins with dried sour cherries (my favorite)?
@Paparazzi Out of choice, sushi is better made from fresh sushi rice. However the topic is for ideas on using leftover rice, not the best practice for sushi or any other rice dishes.
@MikhailT. No unfortunately, but you can have fun trying out a few ideas. Maybe you can include the family involved in the process.
Rice pudding.
Some of the quickest and easiest recipes for rice pudding start with leftover rice. Essentially just mix the rice with some milk (soya milk or coconut milk work nicely) and a bit of sugar. Then cook for 15 minutes or so until most of the liquid is absorbed. You can also add spices (nutmeg, ginger or cinnamon), and a bit of fruit (eg raisins) if you want.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.402831 | 2016-07-01T14:44:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71126",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Food Lover",
"Mikhail T.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47775",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71171 | Rice water ? Spoiled?
I came across this beauty hack using rice water as the core ingredient. I soaked rice in water COVERING IT WITH A PLASTIC BAG (ORDINARY SHOPPING BAG) left it for one day at room temperature and today when I removed the shopping bag it smelt kinda bad. I was gona use it as a face mask... but now im sure weather to use it or not? So is it spoiled? Also do you have any suggestion how do not I spoil it I.e maybe
1.wrapping with the plastic bag was a bad idea...or
2.shouldn't have left it at room temp?
3.or any other suggestion?
You might want to have a look at our generic posts on shelf life and refrigeration. And yes, if it smells bad, dump it.
I'm wavering - you stating that you want to use the rice water on your skin for a beauty procedure is clearly off-topic here. Yet I can imagine other posters wanting to consume the water from soaking rice. For now, I have to vote to close this question, but if you could [edit] your post for some kind of use we address here, I'll be happy to retract my close vote or vote for re-opening. Please take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about the site.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because as it stands, it's not about food, but about food items as cosmetics.
Yes it would be safer to discard the rice and water. Rice has a tendency to ferment.
I would wash & drain the rice at least once, as there can be traces of husk, talc and any other unwanted dirt/impurities. If you soak the rice for long periods of time, depending on the humidity and temperature of where you are soaking your rice, you may place this in a cool shaded place, or place in the refrigerator as the temperature is regulated.
Alternatively you could consider substituting rice flour instead of rice grains. Note: This could also ferment, but may reduce the required soaking time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403163 | 2016-07-02T16:21:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71171",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"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
} |
71242 | Freeze before sous vide or sous vide, defrost then sous vide
I over bought St Louis style ribs and wonder if I should freeze them in their original packing now and Sous Vide them at a later date, or Sous vide them, freeze tem and finish them at a later date.
Thank you.
Is it cryovac'd ? If so, it keeps in the fridge for a long time -- check the 'use by' date on it.
This could work either way, and in part, depends on how you like to prepare them. Since you would likely cook them low temp for a long time to take advantage of the cooking technique, I would marinate or brine (your preferred preparation),sous vide, then freeze. That way, you would only have to thaw (or re-therm in bath) and finish (sear of some sort) to have a meal ready in less time than the original preparation
I buy meat in bulk, add seasoning plus a little oil (about a teaspoon per steak is plenty), vacuum seal and freeze raw. Then I just pop them into a water bath to cook. You can also sous vide and then freeze. A lot of people do it this way. I suppose it depends on what you want: if you want a quick, convenient meal, sous vide before freezing (good for chicken breast, for example). If you want succulent, delicious steaks, chops, or ribs that you finish off the grill, I would freeze raw and cook all in one shot.
Since ribs are considered a tough meat, they benefit from a long cook. Here are a few tips:
1) For long cooks (more than about 6 hrs), do not salt the meat. Other seasonings are okay but not always necessary, as the meat cooks in its own juices and tends to be flavorful without any additions.
2) Beef ribs do well at 140F for 48-72 hrs. Pork ribs do well at 149F for 48-60 hrs.
Here are sous vide time and temp tables for proteins; this may help you in the future.
Freeze them already vacuumed in the sous-vide bags and thaw them in the sous-vide-tank. Just add some time to your usual time (i don't have values at hand).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403334 | 2016-07-06T04:38:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71242",
"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
} |
71414 | Old, unpasteurized orange juice has extra tang
I've been buying unpasteurized orange juice recently for its richer flavor, as compared to pasteurized OJ. I've had some sitting in the fridge for about a week, and upon tasting it just now I noticed an extra tang that I'm pretty sure was not there when I first bought it. I presume this is due to some new acid in the juice that has formed from the breakdown of other components of the juice as it aged. I quite like this additional complexity of the flavor, but I am curious: What is it? In particular, what acid might I be tasting?
Could it be alcohol?
I had this happen just this week to unpasteurized OJ. We did not smell anything off, nor taste any bad or even alcoholic, but it tasted slightly carbonated to me. I vote CO2. From some kind of organism.
It is almost certainly a fermentation - opened juice does not keep for a week in the fridge. So you got some bacteria in it which are creating tangy byproducts (lactic or acetic acid). It is a method of creating fermented drinks such as cider (or even fruit wine), but without following a tested process, you cannot be sure if some of the bacteria may be harmful. So it is not safe by today's standards.
Fermentation does not automatically mean alcohol (sauerkraut is not alcoholic, for example) and when it does, it creates alcohol slowly. If yours was an alcoholic fermentation, you probably had 0.5% or less alcohol in the juice, you would have needed to drink 3.5 liters to feel the same effect as from one small beer.
I just opened a jug of unpasteurized orange juice that had been sitting in my fridge for a couple of weeks (as long as I've ever let it sit) and got a huge wallop of what I'm pretty sure is vinegar. So I believe the acid in question is acetic acid.
What is it? In particular, what acid might I be tasting?
Could be all kinds of stuff. In any event, you can be almost certain that a changing flavor of unpasteurized OJ is due to something not very healthy. Example literature.
If you really like the acidic flavors, consider purchasing pasteurized OJ, and then adding Tart Cherry Juice Concentrate. Or even food grade citric acid, a common ingredient in Sherbets.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403507 | 2016-07-14T06:48:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71414",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71490 | Why are nectarine pits different colors?
Some nectarines have a dark reddish pit, while others have a much lighter tan color. Why is this? Are they different species?
They are not different species (all nectarines belong to the species peach), they are different cultivars. It is normal for different cultivars of a fruit to look and taste different.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403681 | 2016-07-18T10:14:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71490",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71534 | Using I Can't Believe It's Not Butter and salt in a recipe that calls for unsalted butter
There's a cookie recipe I'm going to make that calls for 3/4 cup unsalted butter, melted and 1/2 teaspoon salt. We use I Can't Believe It's Not Butter as a substitute for butter, however that contains some Sodium already. So to figure out how much I should reduce the salt by I did the following:
ICBINB contains 55mg of Sodium per 2 tsp
That means for 3/4 cups = 36 tsp = 2*18 tsp, there is 0.055*18 mg
or about 1 gram of Sodium in ICBINB
This next step I am not sure about. Using Google, it tells me 1/2
tsp of salt (or 2.5 grams of salt) contains 1000 mg of Sodium. Is
this correct?
If the above is correct, that means 3/4 cup of ICBINB contains 1/2 teaspoon of salt, and since the recipe calls for 1/2 tsp salt with 3/4 cup of unsalted butter, does this mean I put no salt in the recipe since ICBIB already contains the necessary salt? Or should I put a tiny pinch of salt anyway just in case?
It sounds like you've done this before, but just in case... cookies can be sensitive, and replacing butter with margarine can definitely make them come out a bit differently.
Just a note, this may not be a good substitute, depending on which ICBINB product you are using and the type of recipe you are making.
We do also have vegetable oil, extra virgin olive oil, and clarified butter in the house. Would any of those be better substitutes or should I stick with margarine?
Melted (but not clarified) butter would also have a little bit of water in it. I don't know if the substitute would as well or just be whipped fat (and salt and flavorings). The water might be needed for gluten development if you're trying to get a chewy cookie.
Are these cookies going to be baked? Maybe you should start a new question that includes the recipe & instructions, asking if this would be a good substitution?
Related question about substituting butter in cookies: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52354/substituting-margarine-for-butter-in-cookies Not sure about the answers but it's worth having a look.
Your math and numbers look about right. I found 1/2 tsp. table salt is 3 grams, so about 1125 mg sodium. I would not add any additional salt in this recipe.
Was that for table salt, or kosher salt? They pack differently, so there's less sodium (as it's less weight) in the same measure of kosher salt vs. table salt.
@Joe - Table salt. Kosher, pickling and other specialty salts will not have the same weight/volume ratio.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403744 | 2016-07-20T04:14:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71534",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"Joe",
"Karnage2015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48175",
"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
} |
71547 | How to shred carrots without them getting mushy
My goal is to shred carrots to use in a green salad. I've used graters with differently-sized holes, but it seems whenever I shred carrots, the shredded bits are very mushy and clump together. How do I get the nice, dry shredded results like I find in restaurants or in the salad packs at the grocery store?
What types of graters are you using? Box style/plane style?
Box style usually, though I recently tried on an inexpensive mandolin slider, too.
@cbunn I've gotten dryer 'shreds' from a food processor w/ a shredding disk -- I don't know if it's because it's sharper than my box grater, or something about the speed at which it does it ... but a fine julienne on a mandoline is what I use when I'm making coleslaw and such. (when I don't want to effectlively melt down / have no discernible texture in the dish I'm cooking).
Are you using good fresh carrots? Older carrots are mushy no matter how you cut them or grate them.
@rumtscho As far as I can tell, the carrots are fresh. They have a clean appearance with a healthy, orange color.
One of the issues, I think, is that a duller blade will bruise the carrot more - pull a little more liquid out by tearing the carrot, rather than slicing cleanly. Box graters depend on the force and speed of the hand grating, rather than the sharpness of the metal - you might find a sharp mandolin slicer better for the kind of shredded carrot you want. An inexpensive mandolin slicer might be more effective than the box cutter, but may be less so than a better one - it depends on how sharp it is.
Other possible factors might include the size of the shreddings (width and thickness both) since smaller shreds will have more surface area and opportunity for the carrot juice to present itself, or the moisture level of the carrots themselves - which may be linked to freshness or temperature or all sorts of things. Drier, firmer carrots will probably not clump as badly, fresher carrots (with more snap and less bend) might slice more cleanly and so leak less moisture. Grated carrots (torn little uneven fragments) will be wetter and more mushy than shredded carrots (which are longer and more thread-like).
And , finally, it is also possible that the commercial shredded carrots are somehow treated before being sold in the store or used in a restaurant - being stored in shredded form might allow them to air-dry a bit, or they are let sit until extra juice drains to the bottom of their container and then fluffed for presentation, or extra moisture is blotted away with a towel or something, or they're dusted with a fine layer of starch (like shredded cheese) especially to minimize clumping.
Another factor is probably that the store-bought carrots (at least the ones I've seen) aren't actually "shredded"... they're an extremely fine julienne.
@Catija - yeah, there's that - I kinda tried to touch on that with the grating versus shredding line, what the commercial shredded carrot is, is not the same thing that a box grater produces. I hadn't matched it up to the "julienne" term, though, thanks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.403951 | 2016-07-20T15:18:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71547",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"cbunn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71815 | Why won't my sourdough form a shapeable dough that doesn't stick?
I'm pretty new to the sourdough game and will admit that I have very little knowledge of the science behind it (hydration, etc.). I have so far tried two sourdough starters to make two simple sourdough boules which have both failed.
The first was a Paul Hollywood starter and bread recipe. My starter seemed active as described in the book (it would double in size and recede each day when feeding) yet when it came to make the bread my dough would be semi-shapable but would end up sticking to a well-floured (I really mean well-floured...) proving basket and ended up ruining any proving that had occurred rendering it useless.
The second starter I made following this starter recipe from Youtube and this bread recipe from the same person. I decided to go along the video route as I thought I could better see how my dough should look and feel at particular stages. The only difference was that I initially kneaded mine in the KitchenAid Mixer with dough hook to bring it together. For the most part my dough was sticky and wet as expected but didn't quite come together to form the cohesive shapable dough that he seemed to get. I tried adding a bit more flour but it seemed as if I would need to add a lot more to get to the dough that he had. I was able to shape the dough into a ball to place into a well-floured proving basket but again it simply stuck to it when it was time to place it into the oven and lost all air structure from the proving.
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
Are you using a conventional/wet starter or a stiff starter? If your bread dough is too wet or loose for your needs, perhaps using a stiff starter will make the difference.
When I was young and poor I baked all the bread my family of 5 ate, for several years. I baked yeast and sour dough breads with various flours.
So some hints: 1. Use good bread flour! King Arthur's or Hecker's brand, if those are not available look for a high gluten wheat flour, if possible unbleached.
2. Get good at making yeast breads first. Yeast is more efficient than lactoacid bacillus and will make bread rise better. Once you have made a few batches of nice home style white, then try adding in some different flours. I used to make oatmeal, rye and Anadamer bread. All of which are variations on white. None of them will rise as well due to the lack of gluten. Then add your sour dough to the yeast dough. Yes, you can get sourdough to rise without yeast but it will take much longer and occasionally fail. Adding the sour dough starter to a yeast dough will still get you the great sour flavor with the bonus of a better success rate.
3 There is no substitute for kneading. You generally can't stir enough flour into a dough to make a firm bread, you have to knead in the last couple cups. Your problem really sounds like not enough flour being kneaded in at the end. Your boule should be smooth and have a dusting of flour on the outside. You can over knead, if the dough starts to tear rather than stretch just let it rest for half an hour.
Ok, I've looked at your links, and have a few suggestions that might help. You mention using a mixer and dough hook for the initial kneading. This might make a big difference in your dough coming together, especially since the video emphasizes the kneading method (the folding-over technique) shown in the video to develop the gluten.
The video specifically cautions against using flour to make the dough less sticky, instead of kneading enough - which means the dough is supposed to be very soft and sticky, and it is common enough for people to treat it as a problem - and adding more flour will not give the results they want. The dough hook may not be kneading enough, so you underestimated the amount of time you needed to knead afterwards... or it might take more kneading because you used the mixer, I'm not sure. Just keep kneading until the dough comes together, and you can tweak the recipe (or pick a different one) after you've made it work the first time. You might look at other questions (like this one) for tips on how to work with very soft and sticky dough.
Another point that might be relevant is the flour mix. The video used both bread flour and whole wheat, in the starter and in the dough - which is fine, but a problem might come in because he mentioned several times that the mix was optional, and could be made with either flour or any combination of the two. If you faithfully used the exact same mix for the starter and dough that he used, then the procedure should work exactly the same way - but if you customized your flour mix, as he encourages, you will end up with a dough that's a little bit different, and might (for example) need to be kneaded a bit longer to develop like the dough shown in the video.
Possibly even if you used the right ratios of flour, a difference in brands or quality might make a difference in your dough's moisture level. This video depends on interacting with the dough and watching its development, which lets the recipe be a bit looser and less exact - but if you're sticking strictly to the timeline, a slightly different flour mix might throw you off.
Along the same lines, there's a couple places where more water is added to the dough, when he uses it to keep the dough from sticking to his hands or to the spoon during the initial mix. It shouldn't be enough to throw the dough completely off recipe, but changes like that can help add up to a bigger effect. I once had an issue with my bread, where I had replaced part of the flour with gram flour, which threw off the moisture balance - and when I tried using water rather than flour against sticking the combination had the bread melting (well, flattening) in the oven before it could bake, since it was too, too wet. A couple small changes can stack up, especially if you don't think to compensate for them.
In addition to the other comments, it is important to bear in mind that sourdough is a mix of bacteria and yeats that perform both lactic and alcoholic fermentation.
In practice, this means that as the fermentation goes on, the pH of the dough lowers, triggering a digestion of the gluten network developed during kneading. As the gluten is digested, the elasticity is lost and your dough becomes liquid-like pancake batter. It is unavoidable.
The question "how long does it takes for my dough to become liquid" depends on several factors, many already raised above:
Flour protein content. Stronger flours (i.e. more gluten/protein) develop better elasticity.
Temperature of the environment. If you leave your dough next to the radiator it will ferment much faster than if you leave it in the fridge.
Initial quantity of sourdough you use.
Initial ratio of water/flour in the dough.
Kneading helps to develop a stronger initial gluten network.
Stretching and folding helps to develop extra elasticity during.
Strength of your sourdough. Healthy active sourdoughs work faster.
There is no "ideal" way of dealing with these factors. It all depends on which result you are aiming and how much time you have to assist your dough. If you have time to keep track of the fermentation, you can do stretch and fold and feel the consistency. If you do not have time and want to leave it unattended, you could either do an initial stiffer dough or reduce the initial quantity of sourdough in the mix. Of course, all these three will lead to slightly different final results. But this is the magic of sourdough!
Had the same problem. It was fixed by adding more stretch–n–fold action intermingled with resting. Dough likes time and patience. If it is still too sticky – repeat. Then dust it with flour and give it a final rise in the bowl. (Dust the bowl generously too).
You will end up with crust slightly more dense with flour then the inside of the loaf. That density is what prevents runny dough from sticking to the bowl.
Empty the bowl immediately before you score and place it in the hot–hot oven. At this point, even if it is still look a bit flat, it will rise to form a nice boule – due to the additional air bubbles you incorporated during stretch and fold.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.404210 | 2016-08-01T19:24:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71815",
"authors": [
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104733 | How to make a more apple-y apple cider yeast bread
I would like to figure out how to make a strongly apple-flavored yeast bread
I found a recipe for a yeast bread that I was quite happy with, which starts with the yeast in 2 cups of milk, then uses 1/3 of a cup of honey as the source of sugar. More recently, I came across this BA video on cider donuts which starts out with essentially making mulled apple cider and reducing it to a syrupy/jelly consistency.
This inspired me to try to make an apple cider yeast bread. I found this recipe for an apple cider yeast bread, but it says that it produces a bread with "a hint of apple and a faint sweetness". "A hint of apple" is not enough for me, I really want to make a yeast-based bread that truly tastes of apple.
What I tried:
I substituted 4 cups of apple cider (with cinnamon, cloves, and an allspice berry), reduced to about 1/2 cup, for the honey in the original recipe (I checked, 4 cups of cider has about the same amount of sugar as 1/3 cup of honey).
Unfortunately, my bread came out tasting like a wonderful yeast bread, without the slightest trace of apple (it doesn't taste like the original recipe, I think it's actually better, but no trace of the apple cider). I would like to make my cider bread truly contain a strong apple flavor.
Can I:
Substitute cider for the milk from the original recipe
Make a second batch of the cider reduction and fold it into the dough somehow
Some other option that will produce a stronger apple flavor
Would you be open to including bits of actual apple in there (perhaps dried and finely grated)? There's only so far you can go with adding liquid, but that's all you say you've tried.
@ChrisH I have not tried with bits of apple, that's an interesting idea. One reason I hadn't tried it yet was because I had a side-by-side comparison of a very small amount of the reduction and a decent size lump of cooked apples on top of a crepe, and the reduction was far, far more potently apple. I will look into that as an option; you might even be able to expand the comment into an answer, if you like.
If the milk-fats are needed for the bread, an option would be to use powdered milk and re-hydrate it with cider as an experiment and see if you like the results. There may however be other effect such as too much total sugar or the increased acidity due to the cider. It would be worth a try though.
If you're not wedded to yeast bread, you might want to look at apple muffin recipes, and modify it to be more bread-y and less cake-like. (many of them call for putting diced apples on top ... some apple quickbread recipes call for placing sliced apples in a pattern on top.)
@Joe I can always find a different apple-based recipe if I want (I've got an apple pie recipe that I really like) but I had a bunch of apple cider on hand, and I've been meaning to get more comfortable with making yeast breads, the combination of which was the driving force behind this experiment.
You'll want pie Apples, the sourish variety, rather than the sickeningly sweet things they pass off as "eating apples" these days. Malic acid rather than sugar is your friend in terms of getting an appley tasting dough. Sweet Apple's will also make your dough rise too fast and too high. If not careful, your dough will actually collapse, leaving you with a disastrous flattish bread-like catastrophe. As Chris suggests, some actual apple chunks would be good.
I don't have a recipe nor experience but this sounds like a job for a nice scoop of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_butter
I suggest that (in addition to using a reduction of the juice*/cider) you add some solid apple.
Personally I would get dried apple, of a tasty variety if at all possible, and put it through a food processor until fairly fine. I dehydrate my own home-grown apples, selected for flavour, but would buy Cox or Granny Smith for this. Then add as you would other dried fruit. If you get the really dry dried apple chips, you could partially rehydrate the pieces in spiced apple juice/cider to soften it a little, adding to the flavour.
* Where I'm from "cider" is always alcoholic, the unfermented juice is just "juice" even if cloudy, so I'll use both terms, hopefully correctly.
You won't get apple-tasting bread by using apples. What you think of as "taste" is actually the aroma of the apple, and has little to do with the taste buds. A whole fresh apple tastes of apples. If you put pieces of an apple in the dough, it is already a large amount of dough to a smaller amount of apple (your bread would fall apart if you were to use more than 50% apple), and then you bake it, making a large part of the aroma float away and the rest change (baked apples don't taste like fresh apples).
If you try somehow concentrating the apple products before adding them to the bread, you actually fare worse. When you make treacle, or dried apple, or something similar, you retain the solids and let the liquid evaporate. The aroma is dissolved in the liquid, and so you end up with less aroma per gram of apple than in a fresh apple. So it doesn't help for your purpose.
If you go back to the fresh apple example, my mother used to sometimes make a quickbread with quite a bit of grated apple mixed into the batter. The apple aroma was so mild, I sometimes didn't realize if it is apple quickbread or a cake from a similar batter if I didn't pay close attention to the texture. And I had no chance of distinguishing if she used apples or substituted quinces if she didn't tell me. So, even with whole apple pieces, you get a hint, no more.
You can try "cheating", by adding strong aromas which are typically associated with apple. If you add some cinnamon, people who are accustomed to an apple-cinnamon combination will perceive it as more apple-y. But this depends on the eaters' history, and will only take you so far. Another thing that doesn't do quite what you wanted is to drop the bread idea and make apple strudel instead, with a sufficient ratio of filling to dough.
Your only chance for a pronounced apple taste in the bread is to get some concentrated artificial flavoring and add that in the proper amount (which will depend on the actual flavoring agent). All other forms will give you a slight apple hint, not a strong apple taste when baked as a bread or a quickbread.
I find that the concentrated apple cider retains a very strong apple flavor, though it might just be stronger per unit volume and it could have lost some of its strength overall (such as if it was concentrated then re-hydrated). I do not plan on "cheating" with an extract, I was kind of hoping to find a better way with more cider or apples. You have brought up an interesting point about where the aroma and flavor are carried, I'll have to look into that.
I've gotten an excellent, cider-y apple taste into muffins. (I know you're making a yeast dough, I believe this same method will work with a yeast dough.) Here's how:
Take some good-flavored ripe apples, put them in a paper bag and close the top. This seals in some of the gas that encourages ripening, while preventing moisture build-up. Let sit out at room temperature for a week or so, to ripen the apples to over-ripe. Check on them occasionally to make sure they're not rotting. Every time you open the bag, it should smell very apple-y (if you have fruit flies around, they will be very interested). If they do start to rot, cut off the rotten parts and use the remainder of the apples immediately. In fact, I've gotten the best results with using the non-rotten half of a half-rotten apple. Do a taste-test on a small sliver to make sure the taste is good.
Once the apples are as ripe as you can get them, you're ready to bake. Peel the apples, and use a grater to shred them coarsely. Mix the shredded apples with brown sugar, and let sit for 10 minutes, or while you prepare the other ingredients for your bread. While they sit, the sugar will draw the juice out of the apple shreds, creating a sugar syrup (this process is called maceration*). That way your finished bread won't have soggy spots in it from the apple shreds. Combine your macerated apples with the wet ingredients, and follow your recipe as usual. I try to estimate the amount of juice released from the apples, and reduce the amount of liquid by that amount.
In muffins, the actual shreds of apple aren't particularly noticeable, either in terms of texture or flavor. Most of the flavor comes of the shreds into the sugar syrup, which mixes into the actual batter, and the whole muffin has a good, apple-y flavor.
*Maceration can be done with salt instead of sugar. If you did it with only salt it would probably be too much salt. But you could use a combination of salt and sugar, if you wanted to limit the amount of sugar. Just use the amount of salt that would normally go into your bread, plus as much sugar as needed.
Sounds interesting, I'll have to try that combined with the apple cider
Bread does not have to be made with milk, in fact that is rare - bread is usually made with water. You could substitute apple cider for milk for a much stronger apple flavor, my concern with that approach is the sugar you are adding (apple cider is very sweet) for 2 reasons:
Yeast is retarded by sugar, so a lot of sugar will inhibit your yeast growth. Many people think that adding sugar must help the yeast along but it is actually the opposite. You may need a far longer rising time as a result of adding more cider
That amount of sugar could make the bread too sweet, masking the apple flavor
If you want to boost the apple flavor but nothing else your best bet is to add an apple extract of some kind.
You could take into account the sugar in the cider and add correspondingly less of the cider reduction, so that in total you don't add more sugar than in the original recipe, i. e. only use the syrup made from 2 cups of cider.
@Tinuviel but wouldn't that reduce the amount of added apple flavor? Either way, I would add 4 cups of cider to the recipe.
@GdD I am not quite so worried about inhibiting yeast growth; my bread rose a lot more than I was expecting when I made it recently. I was hoping to find a method without apple extract, or the like.
@GdD Aside from concerns about sugar content, do you think there would be any other effects from substituting cider for milk? I did check, and the cider has about 2x the sugar as milk, so certainly sweeter, but not as bad as I feared. I was concerned about acidity, or any other potential factors that might make it bad to activate the yeast in cider.
I wouldn't worry about acidity, apple cider isn't that sour and yeast has tolerance to acid @fyrepenguin. If you don't want to use extract then add more cider. Cut out any extra sugar, and see how you get on. Cooking the cider down may concentrate the liquid but you might be destroying a lot of the volatile flavor compounds you want, so I'd try avoiding that.
@GdD interesting. Since the cider when concentrated is so potent, I hadn't considered that I would be losing some of the flavor. I'll try it again, but with no milk, cider + cider reduction. I'm going to wait a day or so to see if there are any other answers, but this was informative, so thank you for your time.
@fyrepenguin: Milk also contains protein and fat, in addition to the sugars. If you use whole milk, you might want to add an extra tablespoon of butter or so if you replace a couple cups of whole milk with cider, to provide an equivalent amount of fat. The lower protein probably isn't much of a concern, but if you feel like you're missing something else from the milk, you could also try using dry milk powder too.
@Athanasius That's a good thing to note, thank you. I'll make sure to add a little more butter. I've actually been using 1% milk since that's what I have on hand, so there's actually less fat that I'll need to replace. Thanks for mentioning the fats/proteins, I'll keep them in mind.
Do you know about Boiled Cider? Add a dollop into pie or bread; it definitely augments the apple flavour. King Arthur Flour sells some from Vermont.
That's what I made myself from the apple cider. Not nearly effective enough at imparting an apple flavor
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.404923 | 2020-01-14T06:20:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104733",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Borgh",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Tinuviel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dlb",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
128590 | Was there ever a nonstick RevereWare copper-bottom pot?
I’ve come into possession of a (in poor condition) Revere Ware copper-bottom steel pot and am trying to figure out something puzzling about it. According to the person I got it from, it originally had a nonstick coating. However, the closest to “nonstick” that I can see referring to this type of pot is anodized aluminum, rather than more modern Teflon/etc coatings.
Did they ever make a copper-bottomed steel pot with a nonstick coating other than anodized aluminum?
It seems they made some pans with a teflon coating, including some copper-bottomed ones. I found this site, which states:
The “Perma-Loc” surface required a two-step process – first a metal/ceramic substrate was applied, followed by the teflon coating. Various coatings were used (Teflon®, Teflon II®, Ironstone®) but all carried the “Perma-Loc” name (Revere advertised this coating as “Locked-On” or “twice applied Teflon®”. Perma-Loc was offered on Deluxe Revere Ware, Neptune, Copper Clad Revere Ware, and all the aluminum lines
Deluxe Revere Ware (9000 line) was brought out in 1962 using the traditional copper clad SS construction and profiles, while adding a sleek new handle design with slide-out hanging loops and low slung “pagoda” styled lids with inverted conical knobs. Responding to consumer demand for a non-stick cooking surface,
Deluxe Revere Ware was initially produced with a highly polished “Perma-Sheen” interior surface but Revere subsequently discontinued all use of “Perma-Sheen”, offering the “Perma-Loc” Teflon® surface in its place.
So it seems there definitely were some product lines that had the copper bottom/cladding and a Teflon coating.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.406069 | 2024-06-18T22:28:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128590",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116861 | What happens on a microscopic or molecular level when meat "melts in your mouth"?
The phrase "melts in your mouth" has been applied to meat very commonly, but I was wondering about what actually happens on a molecular level to give that appearance or sensation.
This was prompted by someone asking about how some bacon that they had eaten turned from a solid into a salty liquid in a matter of seconds. Is that the same as how other cuts of meat seem to do so? Or are they different mechanisms? Does the meat or some component actually dissolve, or does it just lose cohesion? How does this actually occur?
I'm not quite certain whether to ask this here or on Chemistry, but I thought that it was more applicable here. I am interested in as technical an explanation as possible, however, which is what gave me pause.
I don‘t think that this has been examined scientificly and I suspect there is more than one factor that is responsible. As this is mostly seen in more collagenous cuts after a longer roast, I feel that the breakdown of collagen might be part of ist. Also I doubt if the melting has to do with the molecule itself but on the breakdown / modification of the structure of the tissues
I don't know about bacon literally melting in one's mouth. I doubt that is possible. However, the term "melts in your mouth," when referring to meat, is usually used to describe an ultra tender preparation.
The sensation probably is mostly centered on how we perceive fat and collagen that were broken down during the cooking process. Collagen and fat actually do melt, and proper cooking of proteins known to "melt in your mouth" keeps much of these melted elements within the final product. Alternately, when you eat a "dry" piece of meat, it is likely overcooked, and fat and collagen have drained from your final product.
Fats and collagen melt at different temperatures, and depending on the preparation, need different cooking times to provide the ideal eating experience. Often, these items are cooked "low and slow". For example, say, a pork butt cooked at 190F (88C) for 12 to 18 hours, or a properly cooked stew. Collagen melts as low as 160F (71C). Fats melt in the 130F to 140F (54C to 60C) range.
No preparation of meat, that I am aware of, literally turns entirely to liquid in one's mouth.
As an aside, this creates an issue for people who use sous vide/low temperature cooking, as sometimes cooking temperatures are below those needed to melt fats and collagen. In that situation dramatically lengthening the cooking time can be helpful, if one wants to impact the texture of the final product.
It is very difficult to name some kind of chemical answer for your question, since the phrase is not a literal description of what is happening. Its usage is a combination of intentional metaphor and a misattribution of real perceptional phenomena.
First, let's consider the rare case of where the phrase is indeed a literal description. You can let a bite of some foods melt in your mouth - say ice cream, chocolate, or pure butter. Except for the intentionally chilled ice cream, these foods tend to be made up mostly out of fat, which is solid at room temperature but melts at body temperature. But: nobody exclaims "my sister's chocolates are so good, they melt in your mouth!"
Instead, the phrase is meant for foods which typically require some active chewing, but have been prepared in a way that the perception reminds the eater of food which simply melts in the mouth without chewing. I have commonly heard it applied to meat, or to sweet items made with dough, such as strudel or brioche, in exceptional cases also to vegetables.
The physical phenomena which create the association with a true melting item seem to be several:
when the food offers little resistance to the teeth during chewing (tender/not tough)
when the food's volume goes down rapidly, with very little chewing, the solid bite "disappears" while in the mouth. This has the same physical basis as the point above, but is separate on the level of perception.
when the food covers the mouth in a liquid that has a taste and texture similar to melting fat. This "juice" is usually rich in actual fat, but for some cuts of meat, the primary texture driver is melted collagen (melted in during cooking, not in the mouth).
Obviously, this is the easiest to achieve with foods/recipes which do have enough fat content that some real fat melting happens, such as the bacon you mentioned. But in addition, they have to be selected and prepared in a way that the non-melting portion is tender and gives way under the teeth.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.406238 | 2021-08-15T05:54:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116861",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71841 | what table material is electric oven safe to place on to?
we have very limited space in the kitchen and the electric oven could not fit into it. Our only option is to put it on top of our glass dining table or buy a new table to the sides. I can't find any information on what are the best materials of the table top to put on the electric oven.
Thanks in advance. =)
More information about the oven would be helpful. Can you point us to an actual model, or at least a type? If it is built to sit on the counter, and your glass table can support the weight, then it should be fine on the table. But I'd like to be sure to understand your question before I answer.
Same problem here. I went to the hardware store and bought a nice, wide ceramic tile in the flooring section. I put some dollar-store felt feet on the underside to prevent scratching, so I can put it anywhere. That is what I set under my little oven when I use it, and it has given me no problems in five years.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.406636 | 2016-08-03T02:50:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71841",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
72932 | How to create very slimy natto?
Natto makers - I'm looking to make natto with plenty of "neba-neba". This is natto's characterist slime/string/goo. I read somewhere online that adding some japanese yam during the inoculation stage helps, and if true, I wonder if this provides the natto bacteria with 'special' nutrition, and I wondered if that would be some kind of sugary starch?
I've also read online (natto dad blogspot website) that using store bought natto as a starter makes better natto than using pure spores as a starter. This makes me wonder if there is a connection between this, and using an added ingredient such as yam. Can anyone provide any additional information about this please? Thanks a lot.
I saw a documentary on NHK a while back, and they interviewed a researcher at a company that made natto ... and the specific bacteria cultures used ... so although wild fermentation might solve the problem, it might be better to look for a commercial starter that specifically claims to have the characteristics you're looking for (flavor, firmness of the beans, stickiness, etc)
found it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN1_rlq3RzY . The factory scene starts at 19:08
In order to make natto we need to eliminate starter cultures - same goes for making kombucha, yogurt, sauerkraut etc. Which came first the chicken or the egg? At some point in time we need to become self sufficient so that if the time comes where we can't access these said cultures, we can still produce these fermented foods.
The Japanese used Rice stalks. There is nothing inherently special about rice stalks that separates them from other vegetation because all vegetation contains Bacillus subtilis. you could use a corn stalk, grass clippings, dried edible weeds, or even a bale of hay. As long as it's dead and dried out and not poisonous anything is fine; you could use dried out cabbage leaves, etc. Right now I'm using dried banana leaves. (not banana peelings).
The rice stalk or whatever you choose to use is boiled for around 10 minutes. It is very important that this boiling is done at the threshold of boiling. You might be thinking that this would be for sterilization to eliminate foreign invaders from taking over the ferment, but in actuality, it is this temperature that wakes up the Bacillus subtilis. I personally don't care for the idea of boiling because it imbibes the dried out vegetation. I find even after I remove all the water possible from the beans, the dried vegetation will still be saturated from the residual leakage. That is inevitable, so I live more dangerously making my natto just like it was made the very first time it was made by the Japanese. If you're interested in considering this process proceed at your own risk.
In order to obtain a good amount of neba I apply the vegetation that I'm using. I use a pressure cooker to cook the beans and as soon as they are done, I get those beans out as soon as possible. I make sure I drain them completely. I want no standing water; this is all done very quickly so as to keep the beans as hot as possible.
As soon as all water has been removed, a bed of the dried vegetation has already been laid down in a large plastic or glass container (like one you would make lasagna in).
The hot drained beans are poured into this container on top of the dead dried vegetation that entirely covers the bottom of the container. The heat from these beans in contact with this vegetation is what wakes up the Bacillus subtilis. Immediately afterwards another layer of dried dead vegetation is put on top with the lid put on top and almost sealed (I leave it slightly open in one corner). It is now placed inside a huge styrofoam cooler that already has a standard heating pad in it turned on and it is heating up a similar sized container of water. The container of beans rests on the container of water so that the heating pad is not directly in contact with the beans. The lid to the styrofoam container is closed and it will remain around 100°F to 108°F for 24 hours. The closest thing to store bought natto will be made with soybeans or garbanzo beans; although a lot of other beans can produce natto, the flavor will vary. Lentils don't make natto.
This answer seems fairly knowledgeable, but is hard to read; I have suggested an edit to make it easier to understand.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, by the way.
Very good info on how to produce natto, but which part of this process improves the neba-neba amount? you should [edit] your answer to explain that better.
I cook and eat a LOT of Japanese foods and lived in Japan for a total of 15 years from the time I was a little boy...back and forth to the USA. The one single food I have never been able to acquire an affinity for is natto! Happy others like it, but for me, it is awful stuff. The answer above was detailed and accurate. Well done!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.406755 | 2016-08-07T09:29:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72932",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"SittingElf",
"SuperWild1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80502"
],
"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
} |
74444 | What's the difference between pearl quinoa and 'regular' quinoa?
..and does pearl quinoa have the soapy saponin residue washed off it perhaps, so that you don't need to rinse the seeds before using them?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.407170 | 2016-10-02T07:24:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74444",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
72954 | Is butternut squash with veins OK to eat?
I had two butternut squash sitting on counter for 2 months. One is the usual bright orange inside but the other had white veins. I think it is the low humidity in Arizona allowing the starch to seep out of the flesh. This happens to a lot of my longer kept produce like cantaloupe. Any other ideas? Thanks!
Hard to say without seeing it but my first guess would be mold, especially with the cantaloupe.
I know this is old but figured if you come across this again.
Squash generally last about one month after they are harvested. If the inner flesh contains any dark or mushy spots, discard it immediately.
I have had some white veins in my squash but they were just harvested and it tasted just fine. Being that they are at 2 months old I would not risk it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.407216 | 2016-08-08T02:43:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72954",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73105 | Influence of salt on gluten
How does salt influence gluten development in sourdough bread dough? Does it inhibit or enhance it?
https://cargillsaltinperspective.com/salt-in-bread-dough/
Updated link of above: https://www.cargill.com/salt-in-perspective/salt-in-bread-dough.
This question is a bit tough to answer, since it depends on precisely what is meant by "gluten development." If you mean "the gluten is stronger and tighter, providing greater structural support for the loaf shape," then salt clearly enhances the gluten structure. If you mean "the gluten can form more chemical bonds and develop connections most rapidly," then salt can have different effects, some of which are mildly detrimental to certain types of gluten development.
Basically, bread dough (sourdough or not) without salt will have a looser structure. Doughs without salt are noticeably more sticky, slack, and hard to work with. The final loaf volume (and particularly height) are usually less, due to inadequate gluten structure support. In that sense, salt is ultimately necessary for a loaf to hold its shape and have adequate support during the final proof and bake to make a tall loaf. Dough without salt will generally rise faster and higher initially, but it will be more prone to collapse if you're not careful. (It's possible to still get a decent loaf shaped without salt -- see traditional Tuscan breads, for example -- but the final size will usually still be smaller.)
However, that isn't the whole story. Many bakers practice some form of autolyse step, which traditionally consists of mixing only the flour and water and letting them rest for at least 30 minutes before completing the final dough. (Some people do an hour, or several hours, or even an day.) While yeast is occasionally added to an autolyse, particularly when using a sourdough culture, many people insist on keeping the salt out.
There are several effects of autolysing without salt, including greater activity of some enzymes which can break down more food for yeast and ultimately make the proofing stage shorter. But in terms of the gluten structure, salt will tighten it immediately and remove more free water, making the formation of a large number of random gluten bonds slower. (Some experts claim there are also different types of gluten networks that form easily without salt, and when salt is finally added, they are tightened up into an even stronger result.)
In any case, doing an autolyse step in many cases can result in a dough that's easier to work with, as well as a greater final loaf volume with a lighter, airy (sometimes creamier) crumb. That said, many bakers find that adding salt to an autolyse step won't make a big difference.* It really depends on duration of autolyse, whether you add any levain (sourdough yeast) to the autolyse, and how effectively and evenly the salt is ultimately incorporated after the autolyse (which can be hard to do, particularly by hand).
Bottom line: Salt mostly stabilizes the gluten structure and makes it stronger, but it can also inhibit development of new gluten bonds somewhat, particularly when the flour is initially hydrating.
*Note: The traditional method of autolyse developed by Raymond Calvel specifically excluded salt. Thus, many purists say that it's impossible to do an "autolyse" with salt; instead, you're just "resting the dough" or something before kneading/mixing further. I see the point, but the word "autolyse" in other contexts simply means "breaking itself down" etymologically, and those who rest dough even with salt are usually trying to achieve some of the benefits of autolysis -- including enzymatic breakdown of starches, flavor enhancement, and gluten formation without as much mixing -- just on a smaller and slower scale. So I'm not pedantic about the word use here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.407406 | 2016-08-13T10:42:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73105",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"SpinUp __ A Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94700"
],
"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
} |
73012 | 100% Whole wheat sourdough bread method
I've recently started making 100% whole wheat sourdough breads and have experienced trouble that the dough wouldn't rise much. I have discovered that this is because of the bran cutting the gluten strands whist they are developing. The solution I have found to this is to sieve the flour and soak the bran, and later incorporate it into the dough. Is there any other method of solving this issue (that doesn't include adding any extra ingredients)? Would just soaking the flour over night do the same?
Have a look at the book: Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads
The key I got was to think of whole grain baking like brewing beer, it's about soaking and extraction. You're on the right path with soaking the bran.
I get 2× volume increase with wholewheat, leaving it on the counter for hours, but when I know back (or transfer to cast-iron bread-pan) it deflates…
The first thing I would say is to be sure this is your main problem. Whole-wheat sourdough is tricky, and low dough volume could be caused by a number of things. Perhaps most common is a weak starter: a weak starter will take longer to rise, and whole-wheat sourdough often requires a longer rise even than normal sourdough bread to achieve sufficient dough volume. On the other hand, a rise that takes too long will start increasing dough acidity too much. That not only results in a loaf that can be excessively sour but also will start breaking down some of the gluten and decrease final loaf volume.
I've frankly never had a significant issue with loaf volume with whole-wheat bread once I was sure I had a super-strong starter and started practicing better techniques (stretch and folds during bulk rise to develop more gluten, proper shaping, proper slashing, etc.). I've heard of these issues with "bran cutting gluten," but I personally found my techniques and weak starter were much more significant barriers to loaf volume.
Anyhow, if you're sure the bran/gluten is the issue, there are several ways of solving this problem. As John Dyer's comment notes, Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads book goes over many of these methods in more detail. (I have to admit that I find his recipes to be overly complicated and fussy, though.)
But to summarize:
Do a soaker, which is generally just flour and water (no leavening). This is most effective if done for many hours, often overnight.
Do a mash (or scald), which is like a soaker, except with hot water. They will be more effective and will act faster (though letting stand overnight is still a reasonable practice). Some people actually heat the grain and water directly, but I'd recommend simply pouring hot water over the grain. Many people just use boiling water, but if you are careful not to get the grain too hot (over ~150-160F), natural enzymes will also extract more flavor and sweetness, thus providing an additional benefit.
Do a preferment, which uses part of the flour but also with leavening (in this case, your sourdough starter). There are many different names for them (poolish, biga, etc.), with different consistencies, but they all basically do the same thing.
Any of these -- or a combination of them -- will hydrate portions of your flour (which addresses your problem), will get gluten formation going ahead of time (particularly if you use a smaller water-to-flour ratio in these), and will add significant flavor.
Personally, I've found the best results (good rise with good flavor) came from doing a multi-stage firm preferment for 100% whole wheat sourdough. (That means: I start with a firm dough ball of starter saved from a previous batch (the chef), then gradually build it up by tripling/quadrupling in size a few times every 12 hours before using it to build the final dough. This is close to a traditional method used by old-school French bakers in natural yeast breads in general to maximize yeast growth/gluten development while avoiding excessive sourness. It's not as laborious as it sounds once you get used to it.) If you wanted a sweeter, richer tasting bread, you could also do a mash with some of the other flour before mixing the final dough. But everyone has their favorite techniques.
Thanks for your answer. I am actually trying the mash, so I'll see how well the final bread tuns out. The weak starter might also be an issue. Need to work on that one as well.
How do you make your starter "strong"?
@FrankPodborski - it depends a bit on your feeding regimen, the amount of hydration in your starter, etc. Usually, to make a starter stronger, you just need to feed it frequently at room temperature for several days. One standard method would be to triple the size of your starter every 12 hours (discarding a portion of the starter when necessary so as not to make a huge amount of starter) until it grows quite fast. But there are other opinions on how best to do it: I'd try searching for info on "sluggish" or "slow" starters.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.407690 | 2016-08-10T11:34:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73012",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Frank Podborski",
"Geremia",
"John Dyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49654"
],
"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
} |
73046 | Frozen fresh figs to make jellies
Can I freeze fresh figs and make the jelly later with the frozen figs. I only get a few at the time and need to freeze until I get enough to make jelly.
I assume you mean fig jam as jelly is clear and made with fruit juice. Figs don't really do that.
Fresh figs have a delicate texture. When I have frozen them they were just ok. They were damaged and were not nearly like fresh.
However, this damage is nothing compared to the damage caused by boiling them into jam.
Your frozen figs will be fine for jam making.
Freeze them fast to minimize damage, and seal them in an airtight container to prevent freezer burn.
I lay mine out on a cookie sheet until they are frozen solid and then pack in freezer bags for short term storage or vacuum bags for longer term.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.408067 | 2016-08-10T19:32:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73046",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92546 | What is the biggest safe container for soup?
What is the biggest safe container for soup? The soup comes out of the slow cooker at a high temperature (not measured), but I need to refrigerate it for storage, and that means that it needs to be cooled down rapidly. That means small containers.
How small should the containers be? They are standard plastic — I don't have anything fancy.
Currently, I put them into containers and place them in the fridge, but that is all. Should I cool them in water?
I don't know about size, but for the cooling down quickly see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/70614/67 . (note that they claim that it's a duplicate, but it's not ... if it was, they should've merged the questions to the other one)
I don't have anything to back it up but I use quart size. Cool it to 140 in a water bath is a good practice. It will cool more rapidly in the freezer.
You said the containers are plastic so you have already determined the size of the container. If the containers are clean and sanitary then they are safe. The only important part is cooling the soup down fast enough so it stays out of the "danger zone"; that is, above 40F for more than two hours. So however long that takes will take experimentation or applied physics knowledge or experience.
You can gain experience by heating some water to a simmer as you would for soup (I think). Then see how long it takes you to cool it to 40F. If you can do that in less than two hours, you're cool and safe.
I agree on timing how quickly it gets cool. So much depends on how good the OP’s refrigeration units are.
I regularly freeze litre (quart) containers of stew, chilli, etc. from the slow cooker. I have done bigger containers but that's not very convenient for use. I tend to have about 3 litres to cool in total, most of that to freeze.
To cool big containers down quickly here's what I do:
When cooking is finished, take the pot out and leave it with good airflow for at least a few minutes (typically while I eat). You could put a thermometer in there (at the edge) and leave it longer, so long as you keep it out of the danger zone with a bit of margin.
Put the entire pot in a sink full of cold water for a while (10-20 minutes). Stir occasionally and change the water when it gets warm, at least once. (This is while I clean the kitchen after a batch cooking session)
Transfer to storage containers. If large give them a few minutes in cold water.
ideally put in the fridge, even if you're planning to freeze. If freezing at this stage make sure they're well away from already frozen foods to avoid partially defrosting anything. Smaller containers can go straight in the freezer (but again not touching other foods). If you have ice packs already frozen you can use them as a barrier.
It takes a little while to do this but you don't have to actually do very much. With smaller containers you can be a bit more relaxed. The approach is based on passing through the danger zone quickly, and not putting large amounts of heat into the fridge or freezer. A water bath cools much more effectively than air.
The largest safe container is only constrained by your refrigerated storage space.
In and of itself, simply moving your soup from the cooking pot to smaller containers is not a sufficient cooling technique in most cases. Cooling is important, not only for the product that you are preparing to store, but, perhaps more importantly, for the products in your refrigerator that you risk warming up when you place a hot product nearby.
There are many techniques for cooling, which can be found using the search bar. Here is one I haven't seen: If you want to cool a large amount of soup quickly, you can freeze water in quart containers. Then, with the containers sealed, float them in a large bowl or pot of hot soup. Stir gently. The soup will soon be cool enough for storage. Once cooled, you could stick the entire pot in the refrigerator, or transfer to smaller containers.
A larger pot has a smaller surface area to volume and will cool slower.
The pot from a slow cooker holds a lot of heat itself, and is a poor thermal conductor. Putting the whole thing in the fridge is very likely to mean the food stays warm for a long time - and a slow cooker can be used so full that there's no room to insert ice packs.
@ChrisH it clearly has to be cooled first. That point is contained in my answer, as is the option to place the contents into a large bowl for cooling.
@paparazzo for sure, but the contents can certainly be cooled to safe storage temperatures.
The "stick the whole pot in", at first reading, looked like the whole slow cooker pot from the Q, and I doubt your (otherwise useful) trick with containers of ice would work without transferring. (Not my DV though, not even close)
@moscafj "Once cooled, you could stick the entire pot in the refrigerator"
@paparazzo exactly! Once cooled, there is no problem with the size of the container.
Ball Mason Jars are great for storing just about anything. They come in a huge range of sizes https://www.freshpreserving.com/gallon/.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.408175 | 2018-09-30T19:55:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92546",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"RoboKaren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73185 | Split pea soup won't soften. Any way to soften the peas without burning?
I am trying to make split pea soup. The first time I did it the peas softened just fine but the soup was scorched. I am trying again but at a lower heat, and the peas are refusing to soften.
Ingredients are 1 bag each of split peas, frozen carrots, and frozen onions, plus a small amount of Spike seasoning.
How can I soften the peas without scorching the soup? Is a slow cooker the best option?
What do you mean by "soften"? Is it the same process described here, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23711/split-pea-soup-but-peas-arent-dissolving?rq=1, or do you mean you want them soft but still as distinct "kernels"?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/44992/67
How old are your peas? I've had them turn to irreducible bits of concrete after 8 years. Not likely your problem here, but it does happen.
Does this answer your question? Split Pea Soup, but peas aren't dissolving
The reason your split peas are hard is that you added salt or stock to the water before they finished cooking. From your initial post, you say you've added something called "Spike seasoning". I'm guessing that's the culprit. It's probably got salt in it.
You have to cook split peas in just water for at least an hour, then stir to break them down and add any vegetables to flavor the soup. Only after another 30 minutes or so should you add salt to taste.
Thank you!!!! That is probably the reason. Salt increases the osmolality of the soup, so water won't be pulled into the peas by osmosis.
If this helps you, that's great, but I cook split pea soup regularly and always start with salted water and the peas break up just fine. They do indeed need a full hour to soften so you want to cook them on their own before adding any other vegetables (unless you want those vegetables to fall apart too). To prevent it from burning, use a heavy-bottomed pot (to prevent hot spots), a low heat that just keeps it at a simmer, and stir regularly, scraping the bottom.
Starting with more water than you think you need, keeping the lid on for a bit and then stirring a lot while it reduces to the desired consistency should be all you need to do. Don't go far from it once it starts to thicken because it will need too much stirring.
You can cook split peas in a slow cooker, but I haven't found the softening very reliable. A fast boil before you start might help.
What temperature should I use? Also, would using a food processor to puree the peas be a useful shortcut?
The food processor will change the end result significantly, even if you're cooking until completely soft. Using the food processor first would make it more likely to stick and catch as you'll have a ticket liquid for longer; using it after cooking will blend everything else as well. In the slow cooker use high.
What about the stove setting? What should I use for that?
Adjust it to get a fast boil if you're boiling fast. Turn it down to cook more gently (so it's just bubbling) the numbers are almost meaningless even ignoring the fact that it depends on your pan, how full it is, etc.
If the peas (and beans or lentils for that matter) are old, they will not soften. It is best to buy new ones. Their shelf life is about one year. If you can, try and buy from a place with a regular turn over of stock.
You can cook them in a pressure cooker. This will soften them in a relatively short amount of time. Another option is to soak them longer in advance of the cooking (for a day or so) in water, and baking soda...
What about stirring?
When I want to stir/monitor my soup, I still like to soften my peas/beans/lentils/rice/etc in the instant pot, then stir in the rest of the ingredients afterward in sautee mode or on the stovetop.
It is very frustrating to find out your green or yellow split peas have not softened even after cooking for one hour. I find that if I puree them, then cook for another 30-60 minutes, the split peas will soften.
I am alarmed to see a response that says to cook split peas in a pressure cooker. I use a Presto pressure cooker for many things, but its instructions are spelled out, "DO NOT COOK SPLIT PEAS." Please follow instructions for your pressure cooker to avoid a disaster in the kitchen.
If after overnight soaking and cooking split peas for the normal time in the recipe, you might consider putting a portion into a blender or food processor to see if that gives the desired smoothness and creaminess.
There are safe ways to cook split pea in pressure cookers https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68133/split-beans-in-a-pressure-cooker#68156 or there wouldn't be so many recipes around. Just don't use high heat and don't overfill it the pot.
I obviously the best way to cook them is to soak them overnight. There is a method that you don’t have to do that with split pea so I’ve decided to meet that theory in the middle. I put the split peas in a boiling pot of water. Let it boil and then turn down the temperature and monitor it for an hour to four hours when it reaches the softness you want to start making your split pea soup with ham, of course good luck keep in mind there are some people that like their split pea on the harder side and a lot of people like to spit pee when it gets very soft and thickens the pot with your ham and other stuff. I put salt in mine, and it comes out fine, but I do it while it is cooking halfway through.
Grew up cooking split pea soup in my house. If you want the broth thick and green with the peas soft you have to boil it hard and boil it for two hours. Salt makes no difference,I always put it in first and frequently add salty ham or bacon at the beginning as well and have never had it not soften, except when I don't boil it hard at the beginning. Of course you turn down the heat after 15 minutes, but it needs to maintain the boil, so just adjust your burner accordingly. Happy eating!
You have to put them into water for a few hours before cooking ( you can even add a hint of sodium bicarbonate to the water to help). When cooking, when the water starts to boil, you have to remove the foam from the top. Then it cooks in around 10 minutes.
The reason why legumes often stay hard is because cooks often add salt and acid in the beginning of the cook.
You must only add salt and acid and all spices at the very end. Legumes are naturally neutral tasting. So adding some flavour seems natural.
The trick is just to do that at the end when your legume is cooked and has the desired consistency.
Stock cubes are out. They contain lots of salt. Check your spice mixes they often contain salt. Pure spices are OK. Tomatoes and lemon juice will also harden the legumes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.408614 | 2016-08-16T05:06:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73185",
"authors": [
"Adam Starrh",
"Chris H",
"Demi",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luciano",
"Ruben van Bergen",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73217 | Keeping a Bakers and Chefs stainless steel10 skillet from burning foods
I have a 6 inch and a 10 inch skillet that I can't keep from burning foods. High heat low heat. NOTHING. I am trying to use the 6 inch pan for eggs, and they stick. Using butter or Chefs Secret spray... HELP
It seems that you are concerned specifically with eggs, and not just food. This is a duplicate, we already have an older question on that. There is also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5815/ which is more general about different types of food in stainless steel.
Not sure if you're concern is burning or sticking, or both. My thoughts are any combination of:
you are not using enough oil or butter
you are adding egg to a pan that isn't hot enough yet
you may have a low grade of stainless
This video on YouTube shows some good egg cooking on stainless. It's scrambled eggs.
This video was a very interesting approach to a fried egg in a stainless pan. I've never prepared the pan by boiling off water. (if someone has done this, please chime in) I probably missed some info because I don't speak the language in this one. Does she something additional in the water?
If you don't want to use allot of oil, you would have to consider using non-stick pans or well seasoned iron pans.
Without looking at the video, getting the griddle/pan hot enough to make a drop of water ball up and skitter around the surface rater than sit there and evaporate is a standard test of "is it hot enough for pancakes" (at least.)
Stainless is about the last thing I'd choose for a skillet, and if it's thin-bottomed (no sandwich/heat spreader construction) I suspect it will never work all that well. But I have no idea how yours are actually constructed as you've only provided a brand name and size. Supposedly they make a "tri-ply" aluminum sandwich version, that might give you a hope if it's what you have.
Other than using a properly seasoned cast iron pan or a coated non-stick pan, if I were trapped on an island with only a stainless steel skillet I'd probably try treating it like a cast iron pan and seasoning it.
Stainless steel cookware is NOT meant as cookware with nonstick properties, nor is it meant to be a replacement for such - before the invention of nonstick pans, people used cast iron/wrought iron pans - not stainless steel, big difference! - for anything that had a habit to burn/stick.
For some preparations, you let the ingredients intentionally stick a bit until the layer of food directly contacting the pan surface shrinks/dries enough to release the food on its own - that is the reason for doing pan-flipping antics instead of just using a turner (which will force ingredients off the pan that are not yet fried enough) in some classic sauteing techniques. Not for every ingredient :)
The only things that could help with the rest are keeping a lot of motion going in the pan (very frequently stirring) and using liberal amounts of oil to keep ingredients suspended in/swimming on top of the oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.409155 | 2016-08-17T16:34:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73217",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
} |
73264 | Trusted Custom mold manufacturers for confections
Hello Seasoned advice community,
I am new here and just want to say thanks for letting me into your lovely community. =)
I am the R&D manager at a confections company and I am in need of some Custom molds for my jelly products. I've sourced some molds from a company in France and went through the whole back an forth process with them to nail down a design for my molds. They sent me numerous pictures of the mold, as well as, sample products they made using my molds and everything looked great. I received the first set of molds yesterday and they are nothing like the pictures! =( I'm working with them to hopefully rectify the situation but needless to say this will be the last time I use them.
Does anyone know of a trusted and reliable custom mold manufacturer?
When you say 'jelly' do you mean gummi type candies? Because if I remember correctly from an episode of 'How it's Made' or similar show, they used positives and pushed it into corn starch, then poured the gelatin mixture into that. (of course, this was a production line process ... it might just be they were doing it because that's how they could automate it easier)
When I say jelly I mean a gummi type candy made using pectin. We have looked into starch molding systems but decided it wasn't for us, its a long messy process that needs a large curing room to be used correctly. I am looking for Silicon molds specifically but and open to metal or hard plastic mold.
Well, another possibly messy process would be making your own molds (but it only needs to be done once) -- http://www.makeyourownmolds.com/
We have secured a local mold manufacture!!! Thank you to all who responded!
if they work out for you, you should come back and submit it as an answer. (you're allowed to answer your own questions)
I found a local mold manufacture who can produce exactly what we need in a timely manner. The folks over at Acme Apothecary have saved the day!
Support local business! =)
Thanks again to all who commented and thanks to the people at stack exchange for making this all possible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.409410 | 2016-08-19T17:13:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73264",
"authors": [
"Albatross",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49865",
"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
} |
73272 | Canning with water bath
While canning tomato sauce today using the water bath method, three lids "pushed outward" while in the water bath. After they were removed at the end of the canning time, they all seemed to seal, but still have a dent where they were pushed out. What caused this and is it safe to used this sauce?
The cause of the lids bulging during processing is pressurized air trapped in the jar. This happens when the lids are too tight (not leaving sufficient head space can also be a factor). The bands should only be finger tight - From FreshPreserving.com
CLEAN mason jar rim and threads of jar using a clean, damp cloth to
remove any food residue. Center lid on jar allowing sealing compound
to come in contact with the jar rim. Apply band and adjust until fit
is fingertip tight. Place filled jars in canner until recipe is used
or canner is full. Lower rack with jars into water. Make sure water
covers jars by 1 to 2 inches.
Creased or dented lids have a high failure rate, as such, storing them on the shelf would not be considered safe.
To be safe, the jars with buckled lids can be reprocessed with new lids within 24 hours, refrigerated and treated as if open, or the contents could be frozen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.409598 | 2016-08-19T23:13:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73272",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65934 | Is-there any good way to make smoked chipotle pepper at home?
I love smoked chipotle peppers and I would love to use them in my sauces. So if any one knows how to make smoked chipotle pepper at home please share. All the best
I'd like to know too. I tried it once with my little chief smoker with not great results.
So just to be clear, a chipotle is a smoked red jalepeno, however chipotle is most often used and purchased in Adobo sauce so there are two flavors to this answer. To make the pepper itself, start with ripe jalepenos, by ripe I mean when they are bright red. Red peppers are a lot sweeter and caramelize better than green.
If you don't have a real smoker (I don't mean little smokers that use liquid smoke), then you can use a charcoal grill.
Soak your wood chips for an hour so they don't catch fire. Get your charcoal coals hot and once they've settled down toss some wood chips on top of the coals and close all of the bottom vents. Keep adding presoaked wood chips as necessary for fuel, keeping in mind you need to stay ahead of the fire going out so the wood can dry out and smolder rather put put the fire out. A smoker it better for this because you can manage the coals without moving the peppers out of the way.
Once the peppers have dried completely, they are done.
Then if you want, make Adobo sauce with the peppers which is mostly ketchup and garlic and purée of some of your peppers and adding some more whole. Use whatever Adobo recipe you like, but store the finished product in small containers that can hold only 2 or 3 whole jalepenos plus sauce, that's important. Why I am not sure, but it seems make a huge difference.
I like your answer, with the exception of soaking your chips. You might find this interesting: http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/mythbusting_soaking_wood.html
Well I read the article and although his math is correct, the only thing soaking the chips is meant to do is prevent them from going "poof" into flame which will reduce the smoke because the smoke will get consumed in the combustion processes of the flame. He even goes on to describe other ways to accomplish this such as removing the air from the wood chips so they can gasify "that's the foil wrapping with holes part". Once the wood has a layer of coals on it, it won't burst into flame, it will smolder. Smoldering produces the most and highest quality of smoke.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.409830 | 2016-01-27T10:11:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65934",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Gretchen Gage",
"Jolenealaska",
"Merv McLeod",
"Mike Flux",
"Robyn Post",
"Sarah Voland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"iona Towler Evans",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65150 | what is the ideal ratio to mix mustard powder with flour?
Hi I am making mustards and soon planning to do it commercially too.
My question is the rate of mustard powder&wheat flour mixture ratio. Otherwise it's too hot and too expensive to sell. I welcome also other solutions to use less mustard powder.
Any recommendations would highly be appreciated.
The question about the right ratio seems entirely opinion-based: mix it until it's the strength you want. The question about other solutions is maybe okay, though I think you might need to clarify: when you say "making mustards" do you mean you're making a dry mustard powder, so you have to use something dry to bulk it up and reduce the heat? Or are you making mustard, the condiment (a paste), where usually the addition of water and vinegar dilutes the heat plenty?
Flour? Never seen a recipe containing flour for mustard ever.
Assuming it's not uncommon to add flour, wouldn't the ratio be one of those well guarded company secrets?
I see you have another question about stabilizing hot sauces you're going to take in to production. No offense, but are you sure you're in the right business? Perhaps you are, but, and this is coming from a complete idiot, I would hire professionals to tell me about this kind of stuff, and not rely on public forums for this kind of information.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1042/how-is-mustard-made
Thanks for all replies, after all these comments I am not going to add anything else than real mustard powder. I already have an amazing recipe and I am not going to touch it. Let it be a little expensive I don't care and I think real mustard lovers will don't care etiher :)
Hi me neither I don't see any recipe with flour, but I saw some mustards in the market with wheat flour added. But I don't think it's a good idea and I'm not gonna do it.
If want to sell mustard, make mustard, not a stretched fake mustard. You would be cheating your customers and depending on your location the authorities might be after you, too.
The "sharpness" of a mustard is balanced by the ratios of different mustard seeds, white/yellow, brown or black and the temperatures used during preperation. Typically, vinager is added and sometimes other flavouring compounds like other herbs, spices or honey.
There is not flour in mustard. Typical ingredients include sugars (usually brown), turmeric, paprika, garlic, and other flavoring spices. The mustard seed powder and the sugar compose most of the "structure" of the sauce. You would moderate the hotness by adding more sugar or mustard seed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.410117 | 2016-01-07T16:36:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65150",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Peter Brennan",
"Stephie",
"Tan Nguyen",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"celia sham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42266",
"piri sos",
"steve ziselman",
"wesley McCorkindale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65249 | Nuke TV Dinner and then renuke it 3 hours later?
I need to feed 10 people a Hungry Man TV Dinner each (please don't ask why--it's too long a story) and I have only 1 microwave oven. I need everyone to eat pretty much at the same time, but this is not possible since it will take 8 minutes for each TV Dinner to heat up. So, my solution is to to spend 80 minutes heating all the frozen meals, and leaving it for three to four hours until mealtime comes. My question is: Would reheating an already heated TV dinner alter the taste and texture (like get dry and hard)?
TV dinners used to have instructions on how to reheat in the oven. I have no idea if they still do or not. The only reason that I can think of that they might not recommend it would be if they changed the plastic used in the trays. (I've run into cases when 400°F softened the plastic trays from Wegman's ... who also used to have oven instructions on heating stuff from their catering department but didn't this last time around).
How are you going to store them in between? This is a huge thermal mass, so your fridge will be working hard if you stack them in there... and leaving them out on the counter, worst if stacked, for 3 hours after heating them will leave them at the top end of the danger zone uncomfortably long...
At the very least, you could set the oven to its lowest setting (usually around 200°F), microwave them individually, then set them in the oven. Although holding for 3 hrs means that they'll dry out some in that time if you have an electric oven.
Oh ... and don't think that you can get away with borrowing a friend's microwave to make it go twice as fast. My place of work's rec center did that when they decided we weren't allowed to use the ovens, stove, or indoor grills anymore after their 'renovation' (turned the @#@!% place into a conference room). They put both microwaves on the same circuit, so as soon as we started warming things, we blew the circuit ... and they had no clue where the breakers were. (luckily, that year Wegman's still gave oven instructions)
I would try pre thawing them all so they don't take so long to nuke when the time comes. So maybe defrost them in the fridge a few hours before so you aren't microwaving from frozen. And just stack them in the oven to stay warm while you nuke the rest.
The crazy part of me would disassemble the meals.
1: all veg in a pot.
2: all mash potato in a pot.
3: all meats on an oven tray
4: heat it all up on the stove and oven
5: re assemble all meals onto clean trays or clean plates.
But I'm kinda crazy. And it might not be easy if there is gravy involved.
Also if you haven't already purchased said meals why not just get a bag of frozen veg, a box of instant mash potato and a frugally priced meat option of your choice to just make dinner for all at once. (But maybe not an option for you)
That's all my ideas :) good luck!
Agreed: if you're going to essentially thaw them, let them cool, then reheat again, you might as well do it on purpose, in a safe way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.410411 | 2016-01-10T17:08:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65249",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Denise Lum",
"Fiona Hamilton",
"Helle Frederiksen",
"Joe",
"Steve Binks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"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
} |
65473 | Catering our daughter's wedding
My husband and I will be catering our daughters wedding. It's a very simple ceremony with about 120 to 130 people. An afternoon wedding with the reception right after. My question is how do you figure how much meat per person. We will be having chicken (fried), ham and turkey. Potato salad, green salad, and a fruit salad. Would love any input anyone can give me!!! Thanks!!
1/2 pound to 1 pound per person is standard for US when planning meat amount; pending on the overall average guess and type of party.
For sides; figure on 2-3 gallons = 50 people
Another way to look at it; since you have so many sides.
1-1.5 pounds of food per person; total.
that is very simple: in europe we do 120 grams of meat per person (not including bone) and in the US I think it is 200 grams, festive occasion, 300 grams max per person.
In the US we don't measure anything in grams...
You are welcome to convert it to whatever scale you like to use
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.410746 | 2016-01-15T22:34:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65473",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Claire Fraser",
"Kevin Fitzgerald",
"Lisa Lippmann",
"Little Rainy Construction",
"Marc Luxen",
"Michelle McQuinn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"paul munro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65535 | How to prevent greek yoghurt getting more sour
My mum has always liked making home made yoghurt, but the major problem with it has been the fact that it gets more sour over time. The night after she makes it the flavour is usually a perfect balance between creaminess and sourness (very much like the flavour of many supermarket greek yoghurts).
The only problem is that whereas supermarket yoghurts flavours do not change, our home made flavour does, and we have no idea what we can do to it to stop it doing so. Any ideas please?
Unfortunately (actually… let's say fortunately) homemade yoghurt still contains a lot of active cultures which will continue to work even after you refrigerate it. Refrigeration will slow that process down, but it will not stop it completely.
There are two (well, three) things you can do to avoid that tart flavor from the active cultures at work:
Refrigerate a portion of the batch early
When you (or rather, your mum) is making a batch of yoghurt, refrigerate a portion of the yoghurt before it is quite "done" and let the rest continue as normal. The refrigerated portion will continue to finish in the refrigerator while you consume the portion that was allowed to achieve that "perfect balance". You can estimate how much yoghurt you should set aside by noting how much you have have left over when it starts to become too sour for your taste. The next time you make yoghurt, set that amount aside (in the refrigerator) to be consumed after the first batch is gone.
Freeze what you cannot consume quickly
This option is far from ideal. You can slow or just about stop the fermentation process by freezing a portion of the yoghurt just after you make it. Unfortunately, when yoghurt is frozen then thawed, it can separate and become somewhat watery and grainy. Sometimes you can mix it back in, but it may not have that wonderfully creamy consistency of the original. You may have to try it and see. Defrosted yoghurt will still be healthy to consume, but some believe you will lose much of the health benefits as the live bacterial cultures can be destroyed by the freezing process.
Or keep it as a frozen treat
You may also consider not defrosting the frozen portion at all. Some people actually enjoy the experience of frozen yoghurt as a healthy snack alternative. If you consume some fresh and some frozen, you can think of it as two treats in one.
but how does the food industry do this? pasteurising?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.410886 | 2016-01-17T16:15:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65535",
"authors": [
"David Davis",
"Karen Britton Britton",
"Marc Luxen",
"Tim Vaughan",
"Wanda Baker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"james brandon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65541 | Beef stew was left cooling on the stove for like six hours
I cooked a pot of beef stew...I slow cook the roast and vegetables until 2am I fell a sleep and woke up around 9am is it safe to eat?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. We get a lot of similar questions like this. You might find some useful information in Stephie's link as well as in this question. Basically, government food safety organizations generally say you should consume or refrigerate leftovers within 2 hours. Cooked food may or may not be safe beyond that time.
Basically you need to guestimate whether your food was in the danger zone below 140F / 60C for more than two hours. My estimation: yes. Does this mean your food is certainly spoiled? No. General food safety guidelines - and that's what we follow here - will tell you to discard the food. See more here and here.
Seven hours is not much, starting with a sterilised stew. Use you senses. Are there bubbles? Does it smell strange? Have a mouthfull, does taste off? If not, I would eat it. In fact, I wouldnt even give it a second thought after seven hours starting from fresh.. but US regulations, yes, would say it cannot be served. Good you are not running a restaurant, but this is just home cooking, er?..
The tests you recommend won't catch everything that could have gone wrong with it... would maybe eat (if I ate beef), wouldn't serve to anyone else without an understood warning. And also, there is a term worth nitpicking about: You aren't starting with a sterile (but pasteurized) stew unless you pressure cooked it and kept the cooker shut until you started measuring. If the pot was covered all the time it might (speculating from physics) reduce the chance of problems, IF it was last covered (and kept so) when the contents were colder than they ever were after cooking finished.
To be extra clear, the big reasons we tend to stick to strict government agency recommendations here are that outside that it's hard to say anything but "maybe, it's risky" and that potentially thousands of people could read any page here, so even if it's a one in a thousand chance of serious problems, it might well result in something pretty bad happening.
Yeah yeah, better safe than sorry, rules are there for a reason. The chances of getting even slightly sick are minute guys, and you know that. To throw away good food that you put care in for abstract remote safety possibilities is just another symptom of a society gone crazy about risk avoidance. Agian, using you senses is a great test. That is what they are for. I am certain if 100.000 people in this situation would do this, NONE of them would get poisened. A few hours at room temp, with no signs of spoiling? Really, use your common sense. Especially because neither of us know the stats..
To be extra clear: I am fighting the mentality of blindly obeing rules here, that were put in place based on little data, and an over-the-top mentality of risk avoidance. I am not saying restaurants should ignore these rules, but in home cooking , well, that is a different situation. Anyone can blindly follow rules, make them into an answer, and feel right about it. I am sticking my neck out and trying to get some form of rational thinking, common sense into this. We should have that much more, and that runs deeper then advising about a stew.....
Yes, that's what I mean with "you still shouldn't serve it to others that are unaware of what happened to it", because such rules are there for others to rely on, too.
Yes, and that is exactly what I mean: more excuses to follow rules. Just because you serve it to friends and family, does not mean that you should stick to industrial standards. You STILL an think for yourself. Mayb an example: raw milk cannot be consumed in the US, but a farmer can drink it of course, and give it to the friends and family. Should restaurants serve raw milk?? Maybe..in france you can buy it in the supermarket, in the US they would close the shop for it, Now, whose rules are you obeying? US, France? Why? Think for yourself, seving to others does not change anything.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.411132 | 2016-01-17T20:16:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65541",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Janel Johannsen",
"MM Bronx Tree Service",
"Marc Luxen",
"Paula Kinsella",
"Robin Boswell",
"Stephie",
"catriona eghan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57758 | making iced tea with lowest caffeine content
I want to make lemon iced tea with lowest caffeine content possible. I understand I should use white tea leaves instead of green or black. Is this true?
Also, should I steep the leaves in boiling water, then refrigerate or should I steep directly in cold water while in refrigerator?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/91262/67
The only way to significantly reduce caffeine content is to use decaffeinated tea or "herbal teas." I know it's probably not the ideal solution, given the limitations on variety and flavor.
There are various claims about which types of tea have more or less caffeine, but the reality is that there's a huge amount of variation in individual tea varieties and blends. Caffeine content has to do with how and where the tea leaves are grown, more than the way the tea is processed afterward (and it's the processing that determines whether a tea is black or green or white or whatever).
For example, this study notes, based on 20 different commercial teas:
Caffeine concentration in white, green, and black teas ranged from 14
to 61 mg per serving (6 or 8 oz) with no observable trend in caffeine
concentration due to the variety of tea.
Each sample was brewed for 1, 3, and 5 minute times, so most of the lower numbers resulted from the 1 minute infusions, while the high numbers came from 5 minutes.
Granted, this is a small sample, but you can find other similar studies that come to the same conclusions. (This study measured caffeine in 4 different ways and found the white tea sample to have the highest caffeine of all.)
I believe the idea that green and white teas have less caffeine comes from the fact that such teas are often brewed at lower water temperatures (steaming rather than a full boil), which will in fact reduce caffeine content somewhat. But if you brew all the teas at the same temperatures, you'll find little consistent differences among tea types.
Caffeine concentration does become greater with longer brewing times, but if you brew the tea for a shorter time, you're likely need to use more tea leaves to create sufficient flavor, which can negate any reduced caffeine effect from the shorter brew.
A similar thing can happen with temperature. Yes, caffeine will dissolve more slowly by brewing at a colder temperature (see here for a detailed experiment showing the rates), but so will many other flavor components. You'll obviously need to steep cold-brewed tea longer, and that longer steep may counteract the fact that caffeine dissolves more slowly. Whether you can end up with a cold-brewed tea that tastes like what you want with a lower caffeine content will likely depend on your exact process and your exact tea leaves.
In any case, if you're actually trying to reduce your caffeine consumption significantly, I'd have to recommend decaf or herbal teas. Some tea companies may publish statistics on how much caffeine their "regular" tea contains, but it's hard to say how reliable these are, how consistent they could be from year-to-year, or how they would be impacted by different brewing methods. And short of having that sort of information on brands, the only way to know whether switching your tea/method has an impact would be a lab test.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.411522 | 2015-05-25T10:07:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57758",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kathy Vinson",
"Mike Wilson",
"Sian Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"melvin pascual"
],
"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
} |
84261 | Is it okay to remove oil/grease stains from anodized aluminum pan using vinegar?
I bought a brand new hard anodized pan for making roti. I used some oil while cooking. After cooking, washing I saw these stains (most likely grease) that would not be removed after washing with my usual dish washing liquid.
Pan photo
I heated the pan hoping that oil would come off. It didn't.
Then I gently scrubbed vinegar soaked toothbrush on the greasy spot. Some of the grease got removed, (50%) but it remained there in other spots.
Is my cleaning process correct?
Try this approach, as I describe on my blog:
1) Fill the pot or pan or other aluminium utensil with water.
2) Add a tablespoon of vinegar or two teaspoons of cream of tartar for every quart of water.
3) Boil this solution for 10 to 15 minutes and scour the vessel with a soapy steel wool pad.
4) Rinse and dry.
A major point is that winegar is less effective than water alone, as far as the material to be removed is fat or grease.. If really necessary I would go with a non greasy clear and crispy solvent. Such as acetone or nail enamel remover It could be unpleasant in a kitchen but assuming a thorough washing / evaporation, no health concerns. Obviously I am a chemist :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.411784 | 2017-09-09T14:11:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84261",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57798 | Forgot to turn the crockpot on with pork in it
I put 2.5 lbs of salted raw pork shoulder in the crockpot, then added boiling hot liquid to the crockpot. I forgot to turn it on, and noticed an hour later. Then I turned it on. Is the meat still edible, or should I throw it away?
If the liquid was boiling hot to start, it might still be okay. What was the temperature of the water when you realized your mistake? (if it wasn't significantly below 140°F, you should be okay). Turn the crock pot to 'high' to get it back up to temperature, then whatever heat setting you want to cook at.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23922/67
Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't check the temperature, but it was warm - room temp when I put my finger in it.
The USDA provides online Food Safety Information describing the risks. You can also call them with questions.
Generally, two hours in the "danger zone" is OK, but keep in mind that's two hours total including time at the meat packing company, in shipping, at the store, on your way home from the store, during your preparation, and any reheating.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.411913 | 2015-05-26T22:17:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57798",
"authors": [
"Cindy R. Trievel",
"Dave Cantrell",
"Erina Henry",
"Joe",
"NANCY A SWEENEY",
"Pat Bianco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user35793"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58241 | Ribs safety after outside defrosting
I defrosted a package of unopened sealed ribs outside for an hour and a half because I was short on time. I did not think it would be a problem, but after reading all the different posts, I am a little concerned. The package was sealed, so are they okay to eat? i rinised them and salted them and they are in the oven...
'outside' is likely affected by where you are, and when it is. I've defrosted frozen turkeys outside for Christmas ... but it was fridge-like temperatures at the time, with water (and some ice) for thermal mass.
You say that you read other posts, but you seem likely to have missed our main post about defrosting outside, which explains the exact time limits of the danger zone.
From the FDA: Food temperatures between 40 °F and 140 °F, are ideal for bacteria.This range of temperatures is often called the “Danger Zone.” Never leave food out of refrigeration over 2 hours. If the temperature is above 90°F, food should not be left out more than 1 hour.
That said, if your ribs were frozen to begin with, then it certainly took 'some time' to reach 40°F and was likely not in "the danger zone" for over an hour, and 'should be' safe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.412047 | 2015-06-14T20:41:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58241",
"authors": [
"Carol Spittles",
"Chris Collett",
"Christine Taylor",
"Joe",
"Suzanne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"فواد گویلی"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58357 | Traveling with Cooked Chicken
My family suggested the process of grilling chicken on a thursday, freezing, traveling 8 hours by car (with meat on ice) on Friday, then reheating to serve on Saturday. Is this safe to consume?
Related (although it's traveling w/ raw chicken) : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16428/67
It depends. The chicken cannot be at above 40 degrees for more than 2 hours. If it is frozen, and kept on ice it might be fine. I would store it with a thermometer and periodically check that it is still an appropriate temperature. If it stays frozen or refrigerator temperature for at least 6 of those hours, then you're fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.412561 | 2015-06-19T03:15:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58357",
"authors": [
"Corey Cooper",
"Joe",
"John Diller",
"Richard Holmes",
"Ronel Marson",
"Todd Abbott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146702",
"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
} |
58394 | Accompaniment for salty soup?
I've made a soup that has a fairly salty, this is by design. The taste of the soup has turned out well. What I'm looking for is a good accompaniment or palette cleanser to counter the salt but compliment the taste. The soup is a Apple and Gammon with a vegetable stock base.
I'd go for a fresh baked crostini. Simply sliced bread soaked in olive oil and baked under a grill. If you think you need some freshness to offset the salty broth you can drizzle them with a bit of lemon juice.
I'd try to combine this with bread and tzatziki dip, to my taste the potassium in cucumbers balances the salt, allowing very salty things not to taste oversalted.
@EugenePetrov: I agree that cucumber is a good balance to salt, but do you have anything to back up the idea that it's specifically potassium that has that effect?
@Max From some reading I did after comment it's appears to be the opposite. Although cucumber as a whole will help the potassium will add a salt taste if anything. What potassium is good for is countering the effects of salt on the body e.g. High blood pressure. Regardless I went with the Crostini suggestion since it was easier and I had the ingredients already.
Right: any potassium occurring in food is not metallic potassium (which reacts violently with water) but usually as a salt, such as potassium chloride, which tastes... salty (and is used as a substitute for table salt, sodium chloride).
@Max I tell this from my experience that cucumbers, potatoes, coconut water, zuccini almost can't be oversalted, though meat and fish are easily can. I think it's combination of water and potassium... though it's just an assumption
@EugenePetrov Interesting as what you say is generally right but it shouldn't be the potassium that causes the effect so I wonder what it is.
@Max I doubt there was a research on this topic, but potassium is only 0.6 times saltiness of sodium, which is main ion responsible for the saltiness, and maybe potassium substitutes sodium in oversaturated with salt taste receptors. And anion plays its role here too, sodium bicarbonate is not so salty, sodium glutamate is rather sweet than salty, and I think the potassium in cucumber is mostly in form of some organic salt too.
and to my taste taking water as 0 and salt as 10 points of saltiness cucumber and coconut water are -5 points :) but my taste far from normal as I eat a lot of salt, I don't add salt while cooking because people complained it's way oversalted.
@EugenePetrov The substitution hypothesis is interesting, thank you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.412674 | 2015-06-20T20:35:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58394",
"authors": [
"Dana Cogburn",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Flatlyn",
"Max",
"Phil Plumb",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Theresa Shearer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36318",
"ram"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58406 | water bath processing for jam
When I am canning jam, after filling the jars, can I process the filled jars in a boiling water bath in two batches, or must all the jars be processed immediately after filling?
There is a simple rule to water based canning:
Cold jars go into cold water, hot jars into hot water.
The reasons behind this rule are
It prevents breakage due to thermal shock.
It should ensure correct canning/heating times.
So fill all your jars at once (or you might run into a problem like in this post), process the first batch. For the second batch you could either keep the jars in warm water or well covered, then no significant adjustments are necessary (perhaps a few minutes to make up for the heat loss), or leave them to cool and adjust the temperature of the water for the second round. Then the second batch will need slightly longer because you need to heat the water and the jars. Canning time starts once the entire pot has reached the prescribed temperature (hence never cool jars into hot water, times will be too short, leaving you at risk of food poisoning!).
You can process in two batches. Occasionally a jar may not seal properly, you can reprocess it with in 24 hours, according to freshpreserving.com/fresh-preserving-solver.
What happens if a seal fails?
Use food or refrigerate immediately. Only If the food was properly processed the first time, you may correct and reprocess if done within 24 hours. If an ingredient was left out, an ingredient was added, the wrong processing method was used, or the food was not processed long enough, you only have TWO hours to reprocess correctly.
This would apply to your situation as well. I would fill the jars and get them ready to place in the water bath, then process as soon as the first batch is done. They should still be quite warm which will help insure good vacuum and seal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.412933 | 2015-06-21T13:31:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58406",
"authors": [
"Akmal Fikri",
"David Laudoyer",
"Pammy Colby",
"Sunni Lim",
"Tara Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139215"
],
"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
} |
58580 | Difference between sweating and sautéeing?
I would like to know the difference between sweating and sautéeing? Is the difference between the two, the fact that one uses oil, and the other uses fat, or are there any other aspects to be considered?
The answer is a bit complicated, because there is a confusing language issue here.
In standard cooking terminology, there is nothing in common between the two (except that both are stovetop). Sautéeing requires a wicked hot pan, a layer of oil (you can't use nonstick at these temperatures), and constant movement of the food. Basically, you are burning/caramelizing the outermost layer of your small pieces of vegetable while keeping the inside juicy. And if you'd let the food rest for a few seconds in contact with the hot pan, it will burn, so you have to keep it jumping.
Sweating is the process of allowing heat to slowly break down the cell walls of the plant. It is done on medium low temperature, and frequent stirring is counterproductive. In fact, if the pan is not crowded, you can do the whole process without stirring at all. It is usually done with fat, because this produces some very tasty byproducts (I've read of a study found that one of the flavors people found to be most pleasant in meat was in fact produced by a chemical reaction of onions and butter). But the fat is not strictly necessary for the process to take place. The resulting vegetables are soft through and through, and have lost some of their water during the cell wall breakdown. It needs some experience to find the temperature at which the food won't burn, but the juice will cook off quickly enough to not turn the bottom layer limp.
But this terminology is not common among home cooks at all in English speaking countries. I have never seen the term "sweating" in an English recipe meant for home cooks. And for some reason, they use the term "sautéeing" instead, even when they are clearly not sautéeing at all in the culinary school sense. I don't know what has caused this strange language phenomenon, but it has led to a somewhat confusing situation.
The result is that you have to know your source. If it was written for and/or by home cooks, you can assume that there is no difference at all. When you read "sautéeing", you should sweat your vegetables, or brown the meat. If you are using a professional cooking resource, you need to use the other definition. Also, if it's for home cooks but a translation from a language which makes the distinction (e.g. German), it is possible that it uses culinary school terminology. It's a bit like the dinosaur/bird terminology problem in biology: depending on who is talking, it means different things.
I agree with everything except for "wicked hot" and the "you can't use nonstick at these temperatures." Maillard reactions begin to happen at significant rates in the 250-300F range, while caramelization happens in the 300-400F range. There's no reason your food surface needs to go significantly over 400F to saute, unless you plan to burn it. That's perfectly within the reasonable operating range of nonstick cookware. Also, almost all oils will be smoking like crazy before you get to bad temperatures for nonstick coatings; burning oil isn't usually the goal for saute.
@rumtscho, when you say "wicked hot pan", what do you mean by wicked? Also, when you say "bottom layer limp", what do you mean by "limp"? Sorry if I am not too familiar with these terms.
@Athanasius, what are Maillard reactions, and what is caramelization, from a practical and chemistry perspective? How do you distinguish between these two in professional cooking and home cooking?
@Athanasius You are right that you don't need wicked hot for caramelization, but when you do it to the point where it would burn if it doesn't jump (French: saut) all the time, then it is called "saute". It is a very special process of caramelization, just like torching is another special process of caramelization. If you do what you describe, with mid-temperature range and no smoking oil, this is a perfectly good way to caramelize food, but it is not the original meaning of "saute". It is the European equivalent of wokking, if you will.
@JackMaddington "Maillard" is a reaction between a protein and a carbohydrate, "caramelization" is a reaction in which a sugar is pyrolized by itself. Both lead to a tasty brown crust, and there is no difference in terminology between home cooking and chemistry (in fact, most home cooks don't know about Maillard).
I've seen advice by a few different European chefs that oil should NOT be smoking for a saute--perhaps just below the smoke point, but generally not smoking. Harold McGee says 350-450F, which would accord with that observation. German Wikipedia says 160-240C, which is similar, and French Wikipedia says to use a "une température relativement élevée" (and shows a picture with a non-stick pan, I believe). Do you have a cite that suggests sauteing above the smoke point or >~450F? (I'm curious.)
Also, I realized my first comment may have been unclear -- I was talking about food surface temperatures to get browning reactions, not pan temperatures. Just to be clear: I wasn't suggesting sauteing with the pan at 300F or something. Obviously the pan should be hotter, but 350-450F or "just below smoking" is what I've usually heard (which is fine for non-stick). If there are other sources that disagree, though, I'm interested in hearing about them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.413117 | 2015-06-27T12:30:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58580",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Doris Chua",
"Jack Maddington",
"Maddilyn Challis",
"Rob Bauer",
"Samantha McJunkin",
"Sheena STEWART",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36386",
"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
} |
58482 | Do vegans eat honey?
We all know that besides what vegetarians don't eat (meat and fish), vegans also don't eat eggs. But do vegans eat honey, and, if not, then what do they consume in place of honey when they have a throat problem? And what if they happen to be also diabetic?
Most people who identify as vegan do not eat honey. Some do.
Hopefully when faced with a throat problem, they consume medicine (which typically is not a problem for diabetics).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.413585 | 2015-06-24T04:07:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58482",
"authors": [
"Lisa Shoaf",
"Lorelei m",
"Lucreza Borgia",
"Mary Oneyear",
"Wendy Hofer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139397"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79223 | How to season soaking beans
I would like to know the purpose of large spring onions and bay leaves and baking soda when soaking beans overnight as in the following picture.
Is it for cleaning the beans, killing germs, easing in on the smell, or adding flavoring?
What other sort of seasoning can be added when soaking beans eight hours overnight prior to cooking?
The spring onions and bay leaves honestly seem like a waste. Usually you discard the soaking water, and that's going to take most of the already-subtle flavor with it.
So if you want to add flavor, whether with spring onions and bay leaves, spices, or anything else, add it during cooking. The cooking time is plenty long to get all the flavor into the water/broth and beans, and you won't be pouring any of it down the drain.
Baking soda is added during soaking mainly to help soften the beans faster. People will also say it helps reduce gas-causing sugars, and perhaps other reasons, but it's hard to find evidence for them.
Relatedly, many people add salt during soaking to help soften and avoid bursting.
Asides from seemingly being pointless, the acidity of onions is probably going to dilute the alkaline of baking soda in theory reducing it's ability to help break down the bean skins..
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.413674 | 2017-03-17T15:57:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79223",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58490 | What do you call people that eat fish but not meat?
Is it proper to identify people who eat fish but not meat as a class of vegetarians, or is there a better word to describe these group of people (who generally find pulses including beans, broad beans, chick peas, and lentils a perfect substitute for meat but deeply regret the fact that fish fats needed by the hunan body are not available elsewhere)?
Fish fats are NOT required by the human body. There are lots of names, from different cultures. AFAIK none are scientific or medical categories etc.
Could this not have been answered by a simple google search?
I'm a lacto-ovo pescatarian, but since so many people don't know what that is I usually just tell them that I have a trendy eating disorder. ;-)
Vegetarians don't eat any animals including fish. Those who don't eat meat but fish are called pescetarians. For practical reasons, sometimes pescetarians say that they are vegetarians, as Joe says in his answer in this question:
I read something recently (might've been a blog, might've been some
online publication), explaining why the person called themselves a
vegetarian and yet would eat fish:
Because it was easier than explaining all of their can/can't eat items.
Many people aren't familiar with the term 'pescatarian', and if
someone invites you to a dinner party, it's easier to just say 'I'm a
vegetarian' than 'I'm a lacto-ovo pescetarian' and have to take the
time explaining what it means. If they prepare vegetarian food, you
can eat it ... they don't need to know the whole ontology of different
types of vegetarianism.
The word is pescetarian.
5 characters right here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.413810 | 2015-06-24T08:45:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58490",
"authors": [
"Donald Lewis",
"Floyd Millar",
"Neil Meyer",
"Rachel Clements",
"Sophia Locklear-Jensen",
"TFD",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"Огненный ДЕД"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58506 | Damage to freezer food after a power outage
My freezer went without power for 70 hours while we were out of town. The power was restored before we returned and refroze everything. The unit was full and did have some solid ice packs within. Is anything safe to consume in this freezer?
Hello and welcome! I don't know of any way we can answer this as we have no way of knowing if the temperature got into the danger zone and, if so, for how long. Please see the answers to this question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat, as it gives very good information about the USDA guidelines. Good luck.
If this was an upright freezer with cooling coils in the shelves, there was frost on the shelves before your trip, and after you came back there was still frost on the shelves, then you can intuit that things never got above freezing. Otherwise, there's almost nothing you could be sure of, except perhaps by pulling the plug, waiting 70 hours, and then testing the temperature.
There may be other things that let you look for melting and refreezing - for example, bags of frozen vegetables might've originally had some frost mixed in, and now have a solid chunk at the bottom.
Yeah, if iqf vegetables are now one solid block, that means they likely melted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.413990 | 2015-06-24T16:02:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58506",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cindie Cline",
"Cindy",
"Irma Gresslehner",
"James McTaggart",
"Jason Brown",
"Lori Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"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
} |
118079 | Can I (or should I) re-roughen the interior of a ceramic mortar?
I have a ceramic mortar & pestle, approximately 10 cm across, that I use primarily for grinding whole spices. When I bought it about 15 years ago, only the exterior of the mortar (and a small amount of the interior) was glazed; the interior had an unfinished, rough texture akin to bisqueware. Similarly, the bottom 2–3 cm of the pestle was also rougher in texture.
After many years of usage, this rougher texture has been smoothed out in the center of the mortar and at the end of the pestle. I think (though it may just be confirmation bias) that this makes it less effective at grinding, as the spices are not "gripped" as much by the ceramic surfaces.
Is there a good way to re-roughen the grinding surfaces of this mortar & pestle? Or would it not be worth the trouble to do so?
Potter and maker of ceramic mortars here.
Should You: whether or not a mortar actually becomes smooth enough to affect grinding inside depends a lot on what kind of ceramic material the mortar is made from, and what temperature it was fired to. I have a steel-furnace-fired kaolin-based pharmacy mortar that's over 100 years old that I still use, and it's just rough enough (sandstone-like) for good grinding. On the other hand, many inexpensive handmade ceramic mortars are made from low-fire earthenware, and will totally grind smooth with use. Once the interior reaches the smoothness of 'polished wood', it's going to be harder to grind seeds (but see below). Mashing of leaves, roots, and aromatics should be unaffected.
How To: sandpaper. Get some 20 to 50 grit (depending on how rough you want it to be) wet/dry sandpaper. Dampen the mortar (you do not want to breathe the dust) and sand away. The carborundum of the sandpaper is harder than any but the hardest ceramics, and it should roughen it nicely. Then scrub out the mortar and let dry. If you have trouble sourcing low-grit wet/dry sandpaper, use a very rough grinding stone with a Dremel-like tool instead.
Think About: if what you do is primarily grind spices that come in the form of seeds, think about getting a Japanese-style "combed" texture mortar (see pic). These mortars are specifically designed for grinding seeds, and the rough interior won't grind smooth, particularly if you use the recommended hardwood pestle.
Dang. Now I have a new kitchen gadget for my wish list.
"you do not want to breathe the dust" - I wonder about the advisability of ingesting the "ground-smooth" dust over the years (genuine ignorance here, not an allusion). If this may be problematic, maybe replacement is advisable in any case (with something more wear resistant)? But my instinc says it may not be significant...
I have a boron carbide mortar that would argue with your claim regarding carborundum, but I guess that would be covered by the "but the hardest ceramics" part. +1 Anyway. Funfact, you can generally roughen a surface with a softer material it just takes more time. Carborundum sandpaper should do fine.
@frIT ingestion of (most) mineral dusts is far less of an issue than inhalation - we have far better mechanisms for removing bits of unwanted but not actually toxic stuff from our guts than from our lungs
The very hardest seeds (fenugreek) won't care how rough it is, because you have to hit them pretty hard to break them up, but roughness certainly helps with things like coriander where pressure and a grinding action is key. Mine is also pretty smooth. I wonder if I have any really coarse wet/dry at home to give it a try (I know I have much finer)
Thanks, this is extremely useful! One question, though: did you really mean 20 to 50 grit waterproof sandpaper? And if so, where would you buy it? My local big-box hardware store only stocks down to 60 grit, and the coarsest paper that's marked as waterproof is 600 grit.
@MichaelSeifert I can attest to the fact that waterproof 40 grit sandpaper exists. Can't tell a thing about supplies in your area, of course.
@MichaelSeifert I suggest going to a lumber store or a different, better stocked hardware store. Or order online. 60 grit would also be OK if that's what you can find.
@frIT: also, if you're ingesting a migrogram of dust per use, it really doesn't matter. Mind you, if you have shoddy mortar that's giving off a visible amount of grit every time you use it, you need to stop using it. That's really bad for your teeth.
@StianYttervik what does one do with a boron carbide mortar?
@Fuzzychef It was originally meant to grind and mix ceramics before shaping and sintering but the project got canceled and the lab shut down for renovation. Since it was still newly purchased, still in its wrapping I decided to adopt it for culinary purposes. It does fine for that but the metallic sound it makes when you pound seeds is unnerving. It is like striking an ambolt with a hammer, only an octave or two higher in pitch.
@StianYttervik seems like you could sell it to a ceramic artist and get a better one for food. Among other things, boron is not good for you.
@MichaelSeifert The coarsest I've got here (i.e. the coarsest I can easily buy) is 240 grit. I've got coarser in work. I do have some 80 grit paint removal sandpaper that works wet for a little while, but it doesn't do anything to the ceramic. Also for a small mortar you need something quite flexible. The narrow strips of emery cloth might do the job
I had no idea that sandpaper was so hard to source. Adding another suggestion to the original answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.414164 | 2021-12-02T14:46:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118079",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Michael Seifert",
"Mołot",
"Stephie",
"Stian",
"frIT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"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
} |
125783 | How can I keep this flourless cake from falling?
I have made Nigella Lawson's Nutella Cake a few times now. The cake invariably gets a domed top in the oven, which then collapses once it's out of the oven, leaving a depression on top. Since the cake is supposed to be frosted with a ganache, I have to trim the cake around the edges to avoid having a large pool of ganache in the center of the cake.
Is there an easy way to modify this recipe to get a nice level top? Or is it in the nature of flourless chocolate cakes?
Recipe & Method:
(The points where I deviated from the recipe on my most recent attempt are marked in [italics].)
6 eggs, separated
1 pinch of salt
125 grams soft unsalted butter
400 grams Nutella
1 tablespoon Frangelico
100 grams ground hazelnuts
100 grams dark chocolate (melted)
In a large bowl, whisk the egg whites and salt until stiff but not dry. In a separate bowl, beat the butter and Nutella together, and then add the Frangelico, egg yolks and ground hazelnuts.
Fold in the cooled, melted chocolate. [I added the melted chocolate with the egg yolks, etc.] Lighten the mixture with a large dollop of egg white, which you can beat in as roughly as you want, before gently folding the rest of them in a third at a time.
Pour into a 23cm/9 inch round greased and lined springform tin and cook at 180ºC/350ºF for 40 minutes or until the cake's beginning to come away at the sides, then let cool on a rack. [I baked for 45 minutes; the cake was not coming away at the sides, but a toothpick in the center came out clean. I cooled the cake before unmolding it.]
What type of pan are you using? A dark metal pan or a glass pan tend to need the temperature reduced slightly. Also see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13167/67
The pan was an aluminum springform pan with a matte finish. (Do glass springform pans even exist?)
Also, note that this was a flourless cake (i.e. no gluten) that's only leavened by air in the egg whites (i.e. no chemical leaveners), so I'm not sure how much the advice in that other question applies to my problem.
Michael: the tips about cooling the outside and/or turning down the temperature to ensure the outside doesn’t set too quickly are still relevant. You want the cake to rise evenly, and that generally means slowing down the outside from setting and either trying to get the middle to set faster (with a heating core or similar), or rise less overall
This is not the nature of flourless chocolate cakes in general, but it seems to be the nature of this recipe.
What the recipe has you make is basically a large Dutch baby. While the ground hazelnuts are trying to give it some structure, the Nutella is working against that, making it very un-cake-like.
The one thing I could imagine helping somewhat is if you'd try using hazelnut flour, as opposed to ground hazelnuts. This works well for almond flour vs. ground almonds, but I haven't ever seen hazelnut flour being sold, so it might not be available. Even better, add some non-nut flour (if the issue is gluten, you can use any flour from a gluten-free plant, or just pure starch). Also reduce all that Nutella which is weighing it down.
It's not certain that the changes will work though, and it will require several baking rounds of tweaking, without any guarantee of success.
What is the difference between ground hazelnuts and hazelnut flour?
@Marti hazelnut flour is finer, more liquid-absorbent, and in general behaves more flour-like than ground hazelnuts.
It does seem to be the nature of "air-leavened" cakes (that is, those that rely on whipped egg whites for their "lift") to have the opposite problem from chemically-leavened ones: they come out higher around the edge, instead of domed. Your detailed explanation in your answer to the domed-cake question doesn't apply here in specifics, but it does in general principles: it's due to the difference in when the edge "sets" versus the middle. In egg-white-based cakes, the edge is higher because the middle had longer to shrink.
My comment reminded me of a suggestion that I didn't see in my skim-through of the domed-cake question: at the risk of a rather flat and dense cake, you could try simply letting it sit for a few minutes before sticking it in the oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.414609 | 2023-11-11T12:42:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125783",
"authors": [
"JPmiaou",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Michael Seifert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121906 | How should I modify roasting time in this roast goose recipe?
I have an 11½-lb goose that I would like to roast. I'm planning to use a technique from Cook's Illustrated magazine, which calls for a 10- to 12-lb bird, and for which the roasting proceeds as follows:
Stuff and truss goose
Roast breast side down at 325°F (≈160°C) for 1½ hours
Flip to breast side up and roast for a further 1¼–1½ hours, until drumsticks feel soft and skin has puffed around breast & thighs
Increase heat to 400°F (≈200°C) and roast for 15 minutes to brown & crisp skin
However, I do not plan to stuff the goose. I assume, because of the the reduced thermal mass, that I need to reduce the cooking time; but I don't know by how much, or for which step (2, 3, or both) I should reduce the time. What would be the best way to modify this recipe for an unstuffed goose?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415046 | 2022-10-08T13:01:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121906",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116367 | Slow-roasting top round beef
I wanted to try out a recipe for a slow-roasted eye of round roast. However, I was unable to find this cut at my local market, so I purchased a top round roast instead. Can this cut be prepared the same way, or should I use a different technique?
The technique outlined in the recipe is as follows:
Salt the exterior and let sit for 18–24 hours
Season & oil the roast, and sear the exterior in a pan
Roast at 225°F for about 2 hours
Turn off oven and let roast sit undisturbed in the oven until it reaches an internal temperature of 140°F.
The two cuts come from the same general area. They eye of round is more lean, and generally tougher and less flavorful, given the lack of fat. There is no reason you cannot use the cooking technique described on the top round. Using a thermometer will ensure proper done-ness. It will probably take a bit longer than the more narrow eye roast.
Do you mean 'there's no reason you cannot use the cooking technique?'
No worries @moscafj. I've never had much success with round roasts, they end up way too dry for my taste. Braised is better IMO, although if I'm braising it's hard to beat beef shin. Okay, now I'm hungry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415148 | 2021-07-09T15:10:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116367",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58576 | Roasting Pork Butt at 215F
If I wanted to roast a pork butt at 215 deg F, how long would I do this for?
In 600 pan, foiled, salt crusted on a rack.
Until it reaches the desired inner temperature. Seriously, most answers you are going to get here will point out that a good thermometer is the more valuable tool, compared to a timer. But I guess someone will be able to supply an estimate based on experience. Welcome to the site!
As @Stephie says, a good thermometer is your best way to go. However, we may be able to give you a fair estimate as a guideline if we knew the weight of the pork butt. Also, can you clarify what a "600 pan" is?
It's a six-inch hotel pan @Cindy
You want an internal temperature of at least 145°F or 63°C for rare slices up to 195°F or 91°C to get a disintegrating pulled pork.
How you get there and at what temp is very subjective. If you're oven roasting at 215°F then you're in for a 6-14 hour cook time depending on the mass of your roast. You'll get a wonderful, slow cooked meat, but prep time and temperature monitoring become vital. Sous Vide will cook at an even lower temperature; as low as 120°F over 24 hours, but I really don't like that method. Too much time for food born illness bacteria to form.
I like to make pulled pork, that's done around 195°F - 200°F internal temp, but a 7-8 lb roast will take almost 12-14 hours cooking at 215°F oven temp.
If your pork is covered in foil during cooking, you are looking at roughly between 1 and 1.5 hours per pound if you are looking to make pulled pork, 30-45 minutes per pound if you are looking to slice it.
The most important thing to note is these are just guideline times, intended to aid in planning. You should begin checking your roast as you reach the low end of the approximate time window. For example, let's say you have a 5 pound pork butt which you are going to roast in the manner you have described. This means that if you are trying to make pulled pork, you will start checking your roast at the 4.5-hour mark. You will want a skewer or similar probe to slide in and out of the meat with zero resistance. Or if you are making sliced pork butt, you will start checking your roast at the 2.5-hour mark, and your probe should be met with some slight resistance.
I usually cook Pork Butt (or Boston Butt) for around 20 to 25 mins per pound
This link http://m.recipetips.com/kitchen-tips/t--907/pork-cooking-times.asp has a list of suggested cooking times.
I usually do my pork at around 160f to 180f. And would worry that cooking at such a high temperature would mean the meat would be over cooked on the outer parts before the inner part was cooked, meaning some of the meat might be quite tough.
General food safety standards would tell you pork needs to be cooked to a internal temperature of 145F. You are probably gonna be cooking for a while if the oven only goes to 215, with the real possibility that it will not get there.
If the temprature goes up in parallel with the time going down then the temprature only needs to be adjusted to cater to the cooks patience. If you fear a dry piece of swine then some time in a brine may be great for it. Brings just typically take some of the guess work out of cooking times.
Modern pork is pretty lean, somehow lean pork has stopped being an oxymoron. So it does pretty well in a brine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415279 | 2015-06-27T11:02:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58576",
"authors": [
"Carla Bird",
"Charles Miles",
"Cindy",
"DJ Messner",
"Lorrie King",
"Preston",
"Stephie",
"dawn melker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58722 | Broiling Specifics
I have 2 questions when I broil lamb chops. When the recipe says to broil lamb chops 4-5 inches from the top element, to they mean the top of the lamb chop should be 4-5 inches from the element, or the top of the broiling pan should be 4-5 inches from the element? Also, should meat be broiled on the high temperature broiling option or the low temperature broiling option?
The recipe means that top top of your chop should be 4-5 inches from the element, however broilers vary a great deal so I would use that as a guideline and not a rule. This ties in with your second question about setting, as the answer depends on the performance of your broiler.
There are broilers that can barely melt butter on the high setting and others that will reduce a steak to a sad pile of char in minutes on the low setting. Most are in between those extremes, and the only way to know how yours performs is to cook on it. I suggest you cook a bunch of something inexpensive on it first, burgers would be my choice as they are red meat and will therefore give you a good idea as to how lamb and steak will be. Experiment with heat settings and distances until you get the result you want.
For a thinner lamb chop you will want high heat for a shorter amount of time as it will brown the chop without overcooking it. For a thick chop you want a medium heat for longer unless you want it really rare, at full blast you may burn it before the inside is done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415552 | 2015-07-02T04:53:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58722",
"authors": [
"Georgina Donnelly",
"Jill nunn",
"Rhonda MacNaughton",
"Tom D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140039"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58740 | how to remove cover on risen bread dough?
how does one remove the cover on the 2nd bread dough rise without disturbing the rise? My bread tends to fall even after a beautiful rise.
Can you show us what you mean? Do you mean the "final rise" before the bread goes into the oven or a true second rise before the bread gets shaped? Are you oiling the top of your bread? What are you covering it with? Please give us more information.
Is this cover sticking? If so you need to use a bigger bowl
Is this a second rise in the bowl? Make sure the bowl is tall enough so the risen dough won't reach the rim. You have to punch it down before shaping anyway... If this is the rise after shaping, you don't need to cover the dough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415694 | 2015-07-02T19:33:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58740",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Elizabeth Ann Mythen",
"GdD",
"Lee Brockwell",
"Val Reekie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140098",
"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
} |
71859 | Mongolian BBQ Meat Cuts?
I am planning on slicing meat with a slicer for Mongolian BBQ and have decided on slicing frozen chicken breast and frozen pork shoulder butt.
What I do not know though, is what I should use for beef. The meat generally at the local BBQs is rather tough, but I am hoping a somewhat higher quality meat would counteract this.
I bought Pork Shabu-Shabu from the local international market and it was delicious and tender. The worker in the meat department said it was pork shoulder so that's why I am choosing that. Chicken breast is the only thing I can think of that would have enough meat for slicing with a slicer and give good size once cut "paper" thin.
Are my choices correct? What type of cut should I use for beef?
For beef, very related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30178/what-cut-of-meat-is-used-to-make-shabu-shabu
For the beef, I would recommend rib-eye. A traditional Philly cheese steak uses thinly-sliced rib-eye, so it's time tested.
Other than that, I bet sirloin would do well with quick, hot cooking. It doesn't have much fat or connective tissue, so you don't have to worry about melting anything before it becomes tender.
I didn't even think about cheese steak. Ribeye sounds great. Thanks.
Because you're slicing it thinly, so long as you slice it against the grain, you can actually get away with cheaper cuts of meat.
I've never made mongolian beef specifically, but for stir fries, my preferred cut is bottom round -- it has more flavor than many of the other inexpensive cuts, and it's fairly easy to follow the grain. It's lean, but there's still a bit of intermuscular fat. If you want really large sheets of meat, you can get bottom round roasts, rather than a bottom round steak.
As you're slicing it thinly across the grain, you can get away with cooking it more well done. I typically take it to medium at the most, preferably medium rare.
Good to know on the grain. I'll have to try that bottom round steak along with the ribeye and see which one I prefer. Nice to know there are a few options.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415796 | 2016-08-03T18:20:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71859",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"TyCobb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36636"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58995 | Help in identifying Scandinavian dessert recipe
Background -- I made this recipe as part of a group project (in college) that was preparing different foods from around the world. My group had Scandinavia, but as I didn't find this recipe (one of the girls in the group did), I don't know which country the recipe originates from.
I recall it being a simple recipe, but I'd like to see if I can find the full recipe. From what I remember, it required:
2-3 egg whites, which were whipped into a froth
melting a mixture of dark and milk chocolate morsels together
Both of these were poured onto a cake/cookie layer that had been rolled out in a sheet like way, and then left to freeze overnight. This layer of the dessert was almost wafer like, but was very crumbly (but not very crunchy).
It may or may not contain nuts.
Do you have any way to contact members of that group by any chance? Somebody else might remember more details.
Ha -- I was thinking someone would ask that question. Unfortunately, after the project was done, the recipes were thrown out (much to our dismay, as this recipe had been the most popular by far), and no one could find it again. Sadly, it's another example of the one thing Google can never find: "The really awesome thing you forgot to bookmark"
So was it ever baked? How thick was the "cake/cookie" layer? Did you make that layer, too? The more you can remember, the better able we will be to help you.
Never heard of it sorry, not a well known Swedish recipe I would say, if that helps.
This might not be Scandinavian in origin, but it matches your general description : http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-halfway-cookie-bars-117438
It's not a well known Norwegian recipe either, so that makes it Danish, I guess?
Whipped egg whites and chocolate is basically Mousse au Chocolat. So a Mousse au Chocolat cake without baking, where the cake base is made out of crumbled cookies seems to be the direction you should investigate.
Maybe it was a variant of chokladbiskvier, a Swedish macaroon?
Definitely in the same family of recipes. With the amount of time that's passed, I can't be 100% certain, but it's close enough that I'm going to accept this answer.
This sounds most similar to a Swiss roll (although technically not Swiss) or a variation on a Yule log cake (which may or may not have its roots in Scandinavian culture, depending on who you ask).
I believe you may have misread the question. The OP mentions a layer rolled flat into a sheet, not rolling it into a roll.
Well, sounds more like German printen typical in Aachen area..
http://www.examiner.com/article/german-town-of-aachen-famous-for-sweet-printen-cookies
The two recipes don't look very similar?
Printen are small pieces of gingerbread. Sometimes they are coated in pure chocolate. But they aren't coated in a chocolate mousse. Also it is not a cakelike thing with a single large layer.
Hello and welcome to cooking.SE! It may be helpful to add more detail to your answer to explain why you think it might be similar to Printen, as it doesn't seem similar to others.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.415985 | 2015-07-11T20:02:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58995",
"authors": [
"Andrea Heller",
"Catija",
"Dave Kerr",
"Derion Jess",
"Gaynor Baldwin",
"Joe",
"John Hammond",
"John-T C",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kirsty McLaughlan",
"Max",
"NadjaCS",
"Preston",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"malachi1990",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58958 | Problem in cake baking tray
I have purchased microwave safe cake baking pan but as soon as I use the pan in the microwave the spark is coming. What may be the problem ? In which mode should I keep that?
If it is sparking then it is not microwave safe and you should get your money back. No change of mode is going to help, it is the material and construction of the pan which is the problem.
Make sure that there is no metallic loose part in the microwave. It may be of any other origin, not just the pan. And moreover check for the proper neutral in the switch. If every thing is okay then you can claim the warranty I guess.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not too sure this is it, since the question implies that the microwave is only sparking with the specific tray in it. But it's a possibility!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.416269 | 2015-07-10T11:52:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58958",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin Jackson",
"David Cottrell",
"David Gerard",
"Jillian Wolfe",
"Sarah Leadbetter",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85982 | Can I keep chillies in alcohol long term without continuing to affect the flavour?
I want to make jalapeno or habanero infused tequila for a friend's Christmas present. I'd like to leave them in the bottle for presentation.
I've seen recipes only recommend a 24 hour maximum infusion time. Is there a way to leave them in without causing the flavour to develop in undesirable ways from over-infusion? Is over-infusion even possible in this circumstance?
Do not underestimate the heat you will infuse into the alcohol in a short time. An experiment with chopped thai chilies (compared to a smaller amount of vodka, though, since the intent was freezing the chilies in cold alcohol) yielded a liquid too spicy for most to drink within hours. Habaneros are comparable to thai chilies in capsaicin content. Alcohol does not have the slow-release effect of a fatty, rich sauce on the tongue - quite the opposite in fact. Taste carefully, diluting the sample if in doubt.
@rackandboneman that's a good point. My suggestion should perhaps be modified a little to not use as hot a chilli if you are leaving one in. I tend to grow a lot of Apache, which if left to really ripen can end up quite thin-skinned and attractively red. Because I grow them and because they're not massively hot I can experiment with them.
The hotter the pepper, the shorter the infusion time, and the less time for the tequila to pick up any unwanted green vegetal flavor the thick skin of a jalapeño can impart (serious eats)
For presentation you could possibly get away with one nice-looking, thin-skinned (and not too hot) red chilli in the bottle, after straining the tequila off the real habañeros. I'd give this a go (or even make 3 small bottles: strained; unstrained; strained with decorative chilli) it if it was for drinking myself, but for a gift I'd probably either:
say it's for drinking soon, or
decorate the outside of the bottle with a couple of nice-looking dried chillies tied on.
I have found that in some infused spirits, leaving the fruit in too long can cause unwanted flavours (e.g. rhubarb, which picked up just the vegetable flavour my link warns about) while in others you can leave it as long as you like (e.g. blackcurrant).
If you also are willing to test the drink infusion, I suggest an iterative experimentation. Make 5 smaller batches and test them every day.
If 24 hours is indeed the max, you still have plenty of time to make it before presenting the gift. If a week is good, you will also know. The tinctures that you stop early (assuming they are ok) can always be added back to the final mix...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.416391 | 2017-11-28T15:46:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85982",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59350 | Rice has water inside after being cooked
I have this Rooster A.A.A. Scented Jasmine Rice that I recently bought and after a few days, water starts forming in the middle for some reason.
A little background, I had a bag of Thai rice that when I leave the rice cooker unplugged (and rice not kept warm), the rice becomes sticky which is what I like. Now with this new Jasmine rice, I do the same thing but instead the water forms.
Am I misinterpreting something where Jasmine rice does not have the same effect as Thai rice?
Tends to be a bit humid
Wait, you're leaving the rice in the rice cooker unplugged at room temperature for a few days?
I am, but with the rice I initially used, there weren't any puddles forming, it would actually get sticky.
It's not about puddles, it's about the fact that that's unsafe. I'm glad you've been lucky enough not to get food poisoning from it yet, but cooked rice is definitely not safe for long periods unless refrigerated.
I understand your frustration. I learned by trial and error but good rice is always worth a few fails. :)
I've found that Rooster A.A.A. Scented Jasmine Rice is a sweet rice/sticky (glutinous) rice that works best when soaked in water (after cleaning the rice...so that I can soak it in the correct amount of water) at least 30 minutes before cooking and it is a sticky rice...but you are right that it is not supposed to be wet. (Note: try not to open the cooker while it is cooking; rice is very fragile. If water comes out or accumulates at the steam vent; use less water next time)
Rice cookers have different settings that measure out the soaking times (if not, adjust by soaking, using chilled water or the amount of water to control settings manually yourself). If I am cooking regular rice; I put my Zojirushi rice cooker on the "Quick Cooking" setting but if I use sticky rice like sushi rice; I use the "White Rice/Sushi Rice" setting. I also use the "white rice" setting for an average Jasmine rice or the "sushi" setting if I want it to be sticky like Korean rice (for my Kimchi). Remember to use the cups that come with your cooker for the dry measuring and use the marks on the pan for the water *after you put your rice in the pot. Be sure to rinse your rice 5 times every time for consistency.
I have seen quite a difference in textures from the different varieties that I've tried over the years. Try different settings till you get what you want. If you find that the rice is too wet or too dry; add or back off on water with very little variance. A little bit can make a big difference in an enclosed cooker.
Food for thought: Basmati rice (a longer grain of rice) will not work well in this kind of cooker since it cooks on a higher temperature; as to not fall apart. So it is good to keep the length of the grain in mind when cooking.
(Check out a Pars Cooker for Persian "Bottom of the Pot" (Tahdig/ته دیگ ) rice, Korean (Nurungji/누룽지)Burnt Rice or Japanese Scorched (Okoge/おこげ)Rice.)
*Soaking these rices greatly improves the even crisping but; soak it in the same pre-measured water (washing 5 times less intensively than other rices due to their fragile nature). Soaking for some...not for all. Always using a cloth or paper towel between the rim and the lid for Basmati is imperative while cooking in a Pars Cooker or pot to stop water from pooling.
Which makes me wonder if your cooker is getting too hot. With a Pars Cooker, you can adjust the heat to cook other rices by choosing the shorter cooking settings however; to get more browning, longer settings will progressively darken the rice.`(With regular rice, you can start the rice with chilled water to reverse extreme heat in the first cooking phase of your unit)
So, take notice of the consistency of your rice where it touches the pan (or pot) to determine if the correct temperature is being reached in your pot.
I keep specific notes for each rice on my cooker manual & always keep it in my cooker when not in use. :)
What if my rice cooker doesn't have any settings? Like my one is just a really basic one with just like the button to start cooking it and that's about it.
Also about the soaking in water for 30 minutes, is this supposed to be after washing the rice or before?
I have ammended above; addressing your questions in parentheses. :)
Do you mean an actual pool of water forms or the rice just does not get sticky like your other rice?
Have you tried different amounts of water to cook it, either more or less?
All rice is different, depending on the variety and where it's grown. You sometimes have to treat a new rice differently than the rice you're used to.
A pool of water forms
I don't know the type of rice you're using but it maybe because of the quantity of water you're taking to cook the rice. It might vary for different type of rice but I typically use double the volume of water as the rice taken. For ex- if I'm making One bowl full of rice I'll use Two bowl water to cook the same.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.416624 | 2015-07-25T20:44:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59350",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Emma Naughton",
"Heinrich van Zyl",
"Julie Ong",
"Lorilei Lovelace",
"Mariam Ammar",
"PeggySue2u2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37054",
"jackie willis",
"silverAndroid",
"suzanne stafford"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59404 | crispy Dilly beans
I tried a new variety of green beans this year due to being powdery mildew resistant.
I grew (Provider) beans. They are beautiful long, straight green beans. I made a batch of Dilly Beans, using my regular recipe and found them to be softer than I would have prefered and not a crisp as other beans I have use before. Has anyone else tried this variety of bean in canning and had this problem or know of a solution?
It's possible that calcium chloride (sold under the name 'Pickle Crisp') might help. I'm not much of a canner myself (I only know about it from my mom)
It is only a guess; but when I get close to using my vegetables, I crisp them up with a fresh cut and place them in warm water about 30 minutes prior to using them. Just as I would do to fresh cut flowers. When I grew green beans about 3 years ago, it worked like a charm and I semi-pickled them with no problems.
On the other hand, it has been a very hot summer in this neck of the woods as well as dry. Do you think that this could have contributed?
Here; someone asked the question:
"What did I do wrong if my pickles aren't crisp or crunchy?" for green bean pickles.
http://www.pickyourown.org/greenbeans_pickled.htm
Very interesting Joe. In 2009, Ball took Pickle Crisp off of the market and due to the high demand; it was remarketed and improved.
http://www.freshpreservingstore.com/ball-pickle-crisp-granules-5-5-oz/shop/382751/?CCAID=FPPTPD1PRDTL#details
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417133 | 2015-07-27T18:02:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59404",
"authors": [
"Alfreda Carlisle",
"Janet Harris",
"Joe",
"Michael Ruthman",
"Teddy Hammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141950",
"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
} |
68021 | Cooking potatoes curry
I use my method which is i peeled potates and washed them with water. Then, i cut them and washed them with water again before cook them. Is it right or wrong? Because my aunty said, don't wash them again after cutting. Can you give me suggestions?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is a bit tricky - it borders on "opinion-based", meaning that there might be not just one way to do it "right", especially as it's unclear what constitutes "wrong" in your (or your auntie's) opinion. Nutritient loss? Rinsing off starch? Please take the [tour] and visit our [help], then come back to [edit] this question to make it clearer, thanks!
It's pretty clear she's asking if it's proper technique for potato curry to wash the potatoes after cutting them up.
When you wash or soak cut potatoes, you are rinsing away a good deal of starch that has come to the surface during and after the cutting process (it's the white stuff that gets on your knife and fingers when cutting).
In a potato curry, removing this starch by washing the cut pieces can result in a broth that's not as rich or thick, but I would try it both ways to see if it actually makes a notable difference - if your curry tastes watery, washing away the surface starches of the prepped potatoes is to blame.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417286 | 2016-04-05T03:15:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68021",
"authors": [
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"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
} |
68259 | Duck curry with pineapple pieces
Should I use panang paste or red paste when making a duck curry. I have tried red.
So how did the recipe with the red curry paste turn out?
Panang paste usually contains peanuts and tastes sweeter, so it depends on how you feel they go with duck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417424 | 2016-04-14T04:24:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68259",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"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
} |
68401 | Substitute for vegetable oil in brownies
I'm cooking brownies; I have put everything together, and then find out I have no vegetable oil. What can I use to substitute for it?
What oils do you have?
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20007/what-makes-a-chewy-brownie
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3757/67
Any fat can always replace any other fat, so if you have any of the following around, they can be used as a substitute:
Butter
Duck fat
Olive oil (yes, it's a vegetable oil, which you say you don't have, but you might not have thought of this one)
...
Note however, that using different fats will change the texture and taste of the final product. (if you're used to very soft brownies, butter will give you a less soft experience and duck fat will change the taste)
Olives are fruits. Also, don't use olive oil or any strong flavor oil. Neutral oils only. I tried to use olive oil once. It didn't taste good.
@Chloe: Depends on the olive oil: "Extra Virgine Gentile" oil from big olives has nearly no taste (and used mostly for salads) whereas "Robusto" wouldn't be a good match... Anyway, wel'll never know as this was a typical drive-by question where the user posted a question to get an answer to never return to even accept)
I used EVOO in a lemon poppyseed cake once. I won't make that mistake again.
If you would like your boxed mix brownies chewier and fudgier try Melted butter, strong coffee instead of water, and one less egg. The egg makes it cakier, more springy. Adding one less egg will make the batter much thicker before baking and more dense out of the oven. Also try baking them until they are just done, shiny on top and then let them cool all the way before cutting them.Also you can add a dollop of mayonnaise, no Miracle Whip, mayo. It's essentially eggs and oil. I say dollop because I've never measured it, and it works wonders in a variety of recipes, even scrambled eggs. Go figure.
You can use applesause it works better if you ask me I can't have oil so I use applesauce use the same as the recipe calls for
I've never used applesauce in brownies before, but I've used it plenty of times in muffins. (although in that case, I find it best to only replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the oil, and leave some as actual oil).
also related to this answer : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18451/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/6869/67
You can use margarine as a substitute for vegetable oil. Melt the margarine, wait for it to cool to room temperature, and replace the melted margarine for vegetable oil using a 1:1 ratio.
However, this ratio may vary between recipes, so this isn't ideal unless you're used to using margarine in a particular recipe.
I don't think this is always true. It may be often true but margarine is not 100% fat. Oil is. Oil is also liquid and margarine is solid, which makes incorporating it complicated. They have subtle differences. Could you please expand your answer to account for this?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417489 | 2016-04-19T21:19:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68401",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Fabby",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"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
} |
68490 | If salt loses its flavor, how can you season it?
I have a shaker of salt on my table, and (fingers crossed) it still tastes salty. But I'm concerned that someday it will lose its saltiness and then I wouldn't know what to do.
Is there something you can add to salt that will make it "saltier"? Are there things that are saltier than salt? Or things that taste salty for a different reason, so, eg if someone loses their salt-tasting taste-buds they could still detect something as salty?
Salt is not a herb or a spice that loses its specific properties over time. It's a mineral and is salty since millions of years. It will still be salty if you're already gone.
No need to worry here! It will be salty long enough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417713 | 2016-04-23T05:10:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68490",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68515 | whole vs ground spices
I'm new to cooking and I just find some trouble understanding these two terms (probably because english is my second language ?).
I have tried google but I couldn't find something that would give a clear and concise definition.
What is your first language? And as a start, do a google image search for "whole pepper" and "ground pepper".
Or start here, at "2. Pepper".
Ground is the past tense and past participle of grind. Maybe that was why you had trouble looking for definitions? Also, image search is really helpful for this kind of thing (though not 100% perfect in this case): whole spices vs ground spices.
Spices are vegetable products which add flavor to food. These are mostly fruits/seeds (mustard, cumin, poppy, coriander, fennel, pepper), roots (turmeric, ginger), tree bark (cinnamon) or flower buds (cloves). If it is used to flavor food and it is leafy and green it is a herb, otherwise it's a spice.
Spices are often dried to preserve them and concentrate their flavor. They can be used whole or ground. Ground spices are simply the whole spice turned into a powder. Whole spices keep their flavor longer than ground, but ground spices are easier to cook with as they take less time for the flavor to go into the food.
Garlic (from the bulb) is often called a herb, and hardly ever called a spice. Onion bulbs are right of as vegetables, the only real difference being the quantity. That isn't to criticise your answer but to point out how illogical English can be, not least when it comes to food.
There are so many spices few of which being cinnamon, cloves, fennel, star anise, fennel, etc. Now whole spices mean you incorporate the spices in their entire form. Alternatively you can use the spices in their powdered form , which can either be the sole spoce or a blend of different spices to make a spice powder. You can simply prepare a spice powder using a mortar and pestle.
The taste is strikingly different between the different usages. You need to understand the recipe , and decide which suits it the most, the whole or the powdered form. Your taste buds can also help. You can always choose one over the other. No harm. But only by trying out many dishes using both whole spices and spice powder, you can understand it much more. And it will be easier for you to decide . Happy cooking!
Taste, and also texture/presentation/color - eg adding ground cinnamon or cardamom tends to discolor food, while using the whole spice avoids that.
Ya. But depending on the requirements of the dish we can add either. I use to add ground cardamom for many of my Indian desserts which highlights the flavor abundantly and takes the dish to new level. But not necessarily tampers with the color of the dish. But it may be true with other dark colored spices when added in large quantities.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.417804 | 2016-04-24T05:15:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68515",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"Vanpram P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50803",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
109360 | What are the advantages of seasoned cast iron vs enameled cast iron?
I have a 10" Lodge skillet that I enjoy using, but would like a larger (~15") version for using stove top, on my BBQ (gas weber and big green egg), and in the oven as a large roasting pan.
I'm looking for the widest that will work in all these places, and I have made a list of ones that might work. Lodge has a 17" pan which that would be great, but is too big for my oven. There seem to be two options that will work, one which is raw/seasoned cast iron (Smithey 14") and enameled cast iron paella pans from Staub and Le Creuset (about 15").
I have a Le Creuset dutch oven, but I seldom think of being similar to the seasoned Lodge cast iron. Seeing two similar pans, one enameled, one not, I'm trying to figure out if both would work for me. What are the advantages of seasoned cast iron vs enameled cast iron and vice versa?
Le Creuset enameled cast iron has a recommended 480°F maximum ... Depending on your intended use, particularly on your gas & charcoal grills, that might prevent you from using it in all applications. Too high heat would damage the enamel, and shorten the lifetime of the cookware
@AMtwo I believe that's the (replaceable) plastic knobs on the lids rather than the enamelling, but I recall their website being poor on mobile so haven't checked this time. I've used one of mine at 270C (a little over 500F) with no trouble, but normally bake in it at 250C (480F)
@ChrisH : Plastic lid knobs aren't the only issue with high heat -- you risk crazing the enamel. Differences in thermal expansion cause the enamel to develop small cracks, and if you continue to do it, it'll start to lose chips of enamel. Max temperature is dependent on the formula of the enamel, so newer ones might be better, but past advice was to avoid going over 400°C / 200°F. I think speed at which you heat it is a factor, too.
@Joe that's all true, but what I said was that the low figure quoted above is from the knobs. You've also got your conversion backwards I think. Used in and on an aga (not mine, but I've used one) for years they do show lines, but no chipping.
Cast iron is indestructible. You can throw it into a wood fire until red hot and it will only lose it seasoning.
Le Creuset's website shows their latest matt-black, enameled cast iron skillets are Oven-safe up to 500°F.
Enameled and seasoned cast-iron cookware share a number of properties; they're very heavy, not terribly conductive of heat (leading to hot-spots when over a high flame), and capable of storing an enormous amount of heat energy. Cast iron itself is very reactive and tends to rust easily, which is why it is seasoned or enameled to protect the metal with a coating of either polymerised fat or fused glass, and these two processes lead to a number of differences:
Non-stick properties
Properly seasoned cast iron has a quite good non-stick finish - it won't be as smooth as a Teflon pan, but at the same time, the seasoning is much harder to scratch off and can be safely brought to searing temperatures that would cause the Teflon to begin breaking down and releasing toxic compounds. Enameled cookware, on the other hand, is about as non-stick as stainless steel, i.e. not at all non-stick. This means that many frying applications prefer seasoned cast iron over enameled, where getting a smooth release from the pan is important to the dish. For example, I'd much rather fry eggs in seasoned cast iron than enameled.
Setup & initial seasoning
Enameled cast iron is ready to go right out of the box; give it a rinse to remove the dust of storage and travel beforehand, but otherwise it's usable as is. For bare cast iron, and even the pre-seasoned stuff you often find nowadays, it's wise to put a couple layers of your own seasoning on it before cooking anything. This process has been described in many other places, so I won't repeat it here, but it involves washing off any protective coating from the factory before spreading a very thin layer of fat or oil over the entire surface of the pan before bringing it up to a high temperature on the stove or, for evenness, in the oven. Some people recommend flaxseed oil, but I would steer you away from it; the resultant seasoning has a tendency to flake off. Any fat with a high smoke point should do: vegetable, peanut, canola, coconut, even (relatively pure) lard.
Washing & storage
Seasoned cast iron has a reputation for fussy maintenance, and while it does take more respect and diligence than most pan materials and coatings, it's not as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. Maintaining seasoned cast iron involves not letting it stay wet after washing, avoiding particularly harsh detergents or abrasives in the washing process and, if it's not getting enough incidental seasoning from regular use, periodic manual re-seasoning. Meanwhile, enameled cast iron is coated in a layer of what is effectively glass, and it could not care less about your detergents or being allowed to air-dry. Scrubbing with literal steel wool might be a bit much, but anything you'd do to anything made of glass in the sink should be safe for enamel.
Reactivity
Some folks warn against using seasoned cast iron for acidic foods for the same reason they warn against aluminium; the acid in, say a tomato sauce, or Filipino adobo, can leach metal out of the pan and into the sauce. In iron, at least, this can be either good or bad for you, depending on your iron levels otherwise - nutrition isn't on topic here, so speak to a doctor if you're concerned. A heavier layer of seasoning, less liquid foods, and less acidic foods are all ways to minimise this effect. Enameled cookware, meanwhile, is still covered in a layer of nonreactive glass, and won't exchange anything but heat with the food you're cooking.
High heat
Cast iron is often held to be an ideal material for searing food in; its respectable specific heat capacity and very high mass give it an enormous amount of thermal mass, meaning the temperature of the pan won't drop too sharply when food is added, and giving it time to pre-heat for searing can even out the hot-spots caused by its middling-to-poor conductivity. Of the two varieties of cast iron in this question, seasoned can take a somewhat higher temperature that enameled; while it is possible to burn off the seasoning layer, it takes a higher heat than damaging the finish on an enameled pan. This isn't a huge difference, but it does exist. One thing to note is that if your pan or pot has plastic or other non-heat-proof handles, removing these can leave you with a pan usable in a much hotter oven. Indeed, some companies manufacture and sell heat-proof knobs and handles for their products to replace the default ones.
Overall, while both varieties can be used quite well for both frying and stewing operations, the properties of seasoned cast iron lean it towards those frying and searing applications, while enamel is geared towards stewing and braising. This is why it's so much more common to find a seasoned cast iron skillet and an enameled dutch oven than the reverse; the opposites do exist, but they're much less common.
Incidentally, I'd be somewhat skeptical of a cast iron pan sold as a paella pan; my understanding of paella pans is that they're typically thin, light, and made of stainless steel. It's entirely possible that what they're selling as a paella pan is a perfectly reasonably cooking vessel, but I don't know that it's what you'd want to make paella in.
I think the le Creuset paella pan is the same base as their tagine but with a different lid. I've got one but never used it for paella; the pan I would use is non stick stainless. It's really good for cooking flatbreads though.
...capable of storing an enormous amount of heat energy. This isn't really true - like the notion that cast iron is a "great" heat conductor, this idea also is false. There's nothing particularly exceptional about iron or steel's heat capacity. Copper holds just as much heat as iron, for example. This isn't to say that it's a poor performer in terms of heat holding, but there's nothing special about iron that would make you choose it for this purpose over many other materials. The poor thermal conductivity dominates its performance causing hot and cold spots worse than other materials.
@J... the reason that cast iron has a reputation of holding lots of heat is that it is weak and brittle and that to compensate for the material weakness you must have a thick pan which means that you have more mass which means that you have more thermal mass which holds more heat. both mild steel and high carbon steel are tougher so they can be used to make thinner pans (season like cast iron sometimes used for camping).
@hildred Yes, I'm well aware - which makes the argument one for a heavy pan vs a light one, and nothing whatever to do about the material it's made out of. Heavy copper based stainless steel saucepans are greatly superior to cast iron because they're often even thicker in the base than typical cast and hold even more heat still. Due to the copper, however, they can also conduct that heat quickly to prevent hot and cold spots. Cast is cheap cookware - works perfectly fine, but you buy it for fuzzy feelings and old-timey charm. It doesn't bring a lot of technical help to the chef.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear - yes, a cast iron pan's ability to store an enormous amount of heat energy is much more a consequence of the mass of the pan than of cast iron's particular properties (except that the mass of the pan is, itself, a consequence of cast iron's particular properties). It's true that a tri-ply copper-core stainless steel pan of similar weight would retain heat about as well and conduct it much better, but it would lack the non-stick properties of a seasoned skillet, at least, not to mention the price. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
@Blargant Meh, stainless can be as non-stick as cast, it just needs seasoning each time you use it. Hot pan, cold oil, no problems.
Curious about your description of enamel properties and care. My mom had an enamel frying pan, and she was adamant that one shouldn't use a hard sponge, and by no means was it allowed in the dishwasher. I was under the impression that the glossy surface that was to be preserved had non-stick properties. In case of accidental abuse one was to re-season it, similarly to a cast iron pan, presumably to seal any pores and scratches which might have been created. (But as opposed to cast iron, one was allowed to use soap, though dishwasher detergent was too harsh.)
The list of things that should actually go in the dishwasher is much shorter than most people think, honestly; I certainly wouldn't put any kind of pot or pan in there, including an enamel one.
I'm not sure what you mean by a hard sponge; is it one of the sponges that has a scrubbing material on one side? If so, yes, I likely wouldn't use that on it; that would fall under 'things I wouldn't use on other glassware'. I didn't mean to give the impression that the enamel coating was indestructible; merely that it had no trouble with some things that seasoning would.
Regarding the non-stick qualities of enamel, I still wouldn't describe it as such, but that doesn't mean a crazed, patchy, very-high-surface-area region of damaged enamel coating and the raw cast iron underneath wouldn't be even worse in terms of allowing food to stick.
Re-seasoning the bare metal of a damaged enamel pan makes some sense, to protect it, but I've never actually used an enamel pan with sufficient damage to the coating to make it necessary. Re-seasoning the enamel itself wouldn't do anything, mind, you need the bare iron for the polymerisation reaction to work meaningfully.
@Blargant I actually use such a pan (a Cousances) on a daily basis and the area where the enamel has flaked off is so dramatically superior that I'm contemplating removing the rest with a chisel or something. Also the still-enamelled part is dramatically improved by seasoning, it just never gets as good as the bare part. Not quite sure why so many people are adamant that you can't season enamel but I suspect it might be down to the differences in enamel texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.418044 | 2020-06-28T22:12:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109360",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Blargant",
"Candid Moe",
"Chris H",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Laconic Droid",
"Nye",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"hildred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68548 | Can I use a fondue bourguignonne set to make cheese fondue?
I have a fondue bourguignonne set (this model). Can I use it to make cheese fondue? The manual explicitly says that it is not suitable for chocolate fondue, but it says nothing about cheese fondue.
(BTW, I am also curious to know why it is not suitable for making chocolate or possibly cheese fondue. Is the réchaud too powerful?)
For a fondue bourguignonne (oil) or Chinoise (broth), raw ingredients are cooked in the pot, which means you need to get the liquid at least close to a boil, i.e. in the 90-100 C range. The burner under your model should easily supply enough heat.
For chocolate fondue, this would mean the chocolate would burn almost instantly. If you serve a chocolate fondue with a heat source at all, you'd use probably a tea light (small candle) at a distance.
Cheese fondue can take more heat than chocolate, but less than broth or oil. The idea is to just keep the warm cheese liquid. If you can reduce the power of your burner a bit, e.g. by closing the outer holes, you should be ok. Just pre-melt the cheese mix gently on the stove, not over the flame of the rechaud and never forget the "stirring rule": each participant is to use his bread on the fork to stir once or so over the bottom, to ensure the cheese doesn't stick. If you use a heavy ceramic pot instead of a metal one, it would be even better, but your set should work, too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419218 | 2016-04-25T12:05:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68548",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84979 | What are the consequences of not rinsing hermetic lentils prior to use?
There are these hermetic boiled green lentils that I've been eating for a decade. They are great in salads, etc.
The text on these boxes is in Scandinavian languages. It basically says, among other things, that they are ready to eat, boiled green lentils, and that they should be rinsed with water before use.
That means one should drain the liquid they are immersed in and rinse with clean water.
For all these years, I never read the text on the box, and consequently never rinsed them. I just drained most of the liquid and used them as they were.
What would be the potential consequences of not rinsing them?
related, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11903/should-i-rinse-canned-beans-before-using-them
The only consequence is that you will eat the liquid in which they were. They will taste different with it. Also, if you cook them, they may be more prone to sticking, because of starch and other stuff sticking to the surface. This is not an issue in salads, though.
You probably already know the consequences anyway, since you have been eating them that way already.
So this liquid is not bad for health or anything?
"Bad for health" is off topic here. It certainly won't give you acute food poisoning, but beyond that, it is all speculation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419355 | 2017-10-13T06:51:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84979",
"authors": [
"Fiksdal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45467",
"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
} |
83605 | Should beans for making flour be soaked?
I am considering trying to make my own bean flour from black/pinto/red beans, for use in pasta. I cannot find any references to soaking first, all recipes just says to grind them into flour. Except for one I found using chickpeas.
Is soaking not necessary, or is it maybe just taken for granted?
if they were wet, you'd end up with a paste. You want dry things to turn into flour
Yes, naturally it would have to be dried afterwards. Beans could be dried whole, or made into a paste and then ground.
https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/gram-chickpea-flour/
the answer is yes according to this article cat
Thanks. It does however also say that if you only use it occasionally, you can use raw chickpeas, though it is not as nutritional as soaked or sprouted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419495 | 2017-08-09T11:23:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83605",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Keller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45703",
"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
} |
69077 | Why meat gets tough after soaking it in vinegar solution for more than 24 hours?
Vinegar is a marinade and i have tried marinating meat before too but if meat is soaked in vinegar solution for more than 24 hours then it gets tougher.Why?
This may help http://amazingribs.com/recipes/rubs_pastes_marinades_and_brines/zen_of_marinades.html
Vinegar is acidic thanks to its concentration of acetic acid. It thus has a low pH, somewhere between 2.5 and 5 depending on the type of vinegar. Acidic substances can affect the delicate amino acids which form the proteins that make up the majority of your meat (along with other fats and connective tissues).
The end result is not entirely unlike what happens when you apply heat. The proteins in the food change shape and coagulate, whether you're applying heat or acid, and that results in "cooked" meat. It's the principle behind many cures or preparations like ceviche that use chemical action to alter a food from its raw state. The end result often has less moisture; thus it appears firmer and can be perceived as tougher.
The other thing happening is that a strong marinade is much more concentrated than the water inside the cells of the food being marinated, and thus will tend to extract some water through osmosis. Again, you wind up with drier, tougher meat. Most marinades compensate for this to some degree because they contain salt, but 24 hours is a pretty long time for a strong marinade containing vinegar, so that may just be overdoing it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419690 | 2016-05-18T17:32:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69077",
"authors": [
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69119 | How can I make delicious pastries in advance of serving day
I would like to make some amazing breakfast treats to serve at an event we are hosting but I am part of the event and will be very busy the whole week before. Does anyone have any ideas for pastries or something that are good for that?
Hey, recipe requests are generally considered off topic. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic Do you have any starting points for something you'd like to do? Something that you'd like to make, but not sure how to make it shelf stable?
They're time consuming to make in any quantity but pastries using a yeast-based dough freeze well uncooked. Just take them out of the freezer the night before to prove overnight. We buy them like this, and they're the closest you'll get to getting them still warm from a patisserie.
Yeast donuts thaw beautifully (frozen while very fresh) but if you are amateur, scones are breakfasty and very thaw-friendly.
A little powder sugar pattern will have everyone believing you just took off the apron that morning
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419844 | 2016-05-20T01:02:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69119",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69205 | Ceramic made from alumina poisonous?
I was searching for ceramic knife and learned they can be made from Zirconia or Alumina. Some cheap ones could be from the latter because material is cheaper.
Isn't Aluminum Oxide poisonous to human body? I don't care much about the knife, but I do have a cheap manual cranking ceramic burr grinder for coffee. Those single use pepper grinder also has ceramic. Can't imagine they are made with quality in mind.
Should I worry?
Asking whether a specific compound is poisonous is not a question about nutrition or medical advice.
The Url is cooking.stackexchange, I thought that would make a food safety related question valid, no?
It is valid. Health advice generally is off topic. My comment was directed at the person who voted to close this and I was explaining that it is on topic. :)
Aluminium oxide is used in toothpaste (as an abrasive) and tablets (as an inactive filler). You'll get much more from these sources than from food preparation.
It's essentially insoluble in water as well, making it hard to absorb from food. Some other aluminium compounds are much more soluble especially given that the stomach is acidic, and are a cause for more concern.
For a (very) full review of the health science of aluminium compounds in general (including the oxide), see Human Health Risk Assessment for Aluminium, Aluminium Oxide, and Aluminium Hydroxide,
Krewski et al. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007; 10(Suppl 1): 1–269.
Thanks, a very full review indeed. I think the rumor I heard was about some aluminum compound used in food causing Alzheimer, but sounds like it's inconclusive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.419959 | 2016-05-24T04:01:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69205",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Whoever",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45960"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70944 | Can I use this Ikea glassware on stove top?
In particular, this VARDAGEN Glass Bowl.
It's almost a quarter inch thick, feels heavy and solid, wonder if anyone has tried. Nothing fancy, just boil and soup kind of thing. I figure it's healthier than stainless steel. Thought?
The page you link to says 'WARNING - Serious or fatal crashing injuries can occur from furniture tip-over. To prevent this furniture must be permanently fixed to the wall.'. Is your stove close enough to a wall :-)
Must be one of those tub-ready toaster ...
No, you can't.
You should always assume glass is not safe to use on the stovetop. Essentially none of it is, and while there are a very few exceptions, they'll say so explicitly. (For example this set says stovetop-safe in the description.)
That bowl is nothing special, definitely not stovetop-safe - it'd shatter under the thermal stress. If you look carefully on the packaging, you might even find a warning that's not for use on the stovetop.
Thanks, you made it crystal clear. I know the Vision, just not a big fan of the color. The only other one explicit for cooking costs $200. Since it's made by MoMA, I wasn't sure if it meant to be artwork or cookware.
In general, if it doesn't specifically say "stovetop safe", "oven safe", or "broiler safe", it's not safe to use it as anything other than a bowl.
MoMA Art installation: "A Chef who didn't bother reading the labels: The Consequences"
Visions is not glass, from what I recall when they were first marketing it (I have some.) Visions is "transparent ceramic."
@Ecnerwal The description on Amazon says glass-ceramic. In any case it's still the exception.
@Ecnerwal That sounds like spin off transparent aluminum from Star Trek. I thought aluminum is not safe for cooking? Or it's like those lead glass is not really poisonous lead thing.
@Whoever aluminum is definitely safe for cooking
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.420109 | 2016-06-26T00:31:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70944",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Cascabel",
"DVK",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jeff",
"Joe McMahon",
"Whoever",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47659"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121755 | When whipping cream, what is “custard-like consistency”?
I have a 1934 Borden pamphlet with a recipe for Frozen Egg Nog. The directions say to “whip [½ cup whipping] cream to custard-like consistency” before folding it into the mixture as the final step.
Not only have I never seen this phrasing before for whipping cream, I have whipped a lot of cream and never have I seen it reach a consistency that I would call “custard-like”.
I’ve done a search on the phrase "whip cream to custard-like consistency" and found several vintage recipes that use it, such as the 1934 Peppermint Stick Ice Cream from The Library of Congress’s Cool off this July with Vintage Ice Cream Recipes!
I’ve done a Google search on "Frozen Egg Nog" "condensed milk" and found some recipes, all old, but none that call for either that consistency or even condensed milk.
Alice B. Parmenter’s Frozen Egg Nog on page 65 of The Guild Cook Book
Ann Dunkelberger’s Frozen Egg Nog on page 17 of The American Legion Auxiliary Cookbook
Betty Barclay’s Frozen Egg Nog on page two of the December 28, 1938 North Canton Ohio Sun
They all just say to add (or fold in) the cream, whipped. Which is what I plan to do if I can’t find any evidence otherwise.
What does “custard-like consistency” mean in the context of whipping cream? Perhaps custard meant something different in earlier cooking eras?
+1 both for a very nice question, and the following answer! Based on that answer, I will add about your last sentence: Custard meant, and still means, any dairy thickened with yolk, or whole egg. So créme anglaise is also a custard, and probably the type to which your recipe refers.
The answer appears in another Borden cook book, the ca. 1942 This is My Book of Magic Recipes on page 3 under “Hints for making Ice Cream in your Automatic Refrigerator”:
Whip heavy cream to a foamy, fluffy thickness—not until stiff. Cream is of a thick, custard-like consistency when whipped enough.
The same terminology is used on page 16 of Borden’s 1935 Magic Recipes: Quicker, easier, surer to succeed:
Please note that you don’t whip the cream stiff—just to a foamy, fluffy thickness.
A similar instruction appears in several recipes in the 2016 British Recipes Series’s Desserts and Ice Creams; an apparently more modern cookbook that dispenses with the phrase “custard-like consistency” and simply says to:
Whip the cream to a foamy, fluffy thickness…
Based on @rumtscho’s comment to the question, it appears that they were referring to one end of a very wide variation in custards as being “a variety of culinary preparations based on sweetened milk, cheese, or cream cooked with egg or egg yolk to thicken it [which] may vary in consistency from a thin pouring sauce (crème anglaise) to the thick pastry cream (crème pâtissière) used to fill éclairs”.
Speculatively, the use of “custard-like” to describe the desired consistency probably never caught on because of that wide variation in consistencies, as indicated by later Borden publications having to define it. The definition, “foamy, fluffy thickness” is almost as short as “custard-like” and both more descriptive and more precise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.420284 | 2022-09-22T23:37:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121755",
"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
} |
69323 | What do 5 star restaurants do differently when cooking steak?
Recently I had an $80 steak, and it was the best thing I have ever eaten. I do not normally eat this sort of pricey food and so I was shocked at just how good it tasted. My question then, what exactly do chefs at these top restaurants do with their steaks to make it so tasty. Are the raw ingredients better? Is it preparation or cooking mechanism? Some strange technique? I just don't see how the raw steaks I buy and cook myself could ever be made to taste so good. It didn't even taste like the same meat. And it wasn't topped our coated in much, just peppercorn. I didn't even need steak sauce it was so tender.
An $80 steak is likely USDA Prime, which you generally cannot get in the grocery store. Prime beef has good eating characteristics including marbling of lots of fat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.420544 | 2016-05-28T06:30:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69323",
"authors": [
"Douglas Held",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69332 | Can I steam-cook food in a distiller?
I have a counter-top water distiller which I have been using to make distilled water, and it's been working fine for this purpose. Recently, my artichoke plant has produced artichokes ready for harvest, and I had the idea I could use the distiller to steam-cook them.
The possible advantages I can think of are:
Distiller would automatically shutoff when the water is boiled away.
I could set the cooking time by how much water I put in.
No steam escaping into the environment. (I live in a small room, and it gets damp in here too easily.)
Producing distilled water at the same time.
However, the possible disadvantages I can think of are:
Contaminants from the water might splash up and ruin the food.
Difficulty finding a stand to keep the artichoke out of the water.
The particles of artichoke might contaminate the steam, causing the distiller's charcoal filter or even the inside of its pipes to clog.
Anyone actually try this or know of probable problems I haven't thought of?
Here is the distiller I have: http://www.amazon.com/Water-Distiller-Countertop-Enamel-Collection/dp/B00026F9F8?ie=UTF8&ref_=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_i
Why are you distilling the water? If it's seriously contaminated, I wouldn't have it anywhere near food. In most other cases there's a better way to clean the water (boiling, reverse osmosis). Biggest problems I can see: over-cooking; spoiling the flavour of the output water (depending on where your food would sit); making the input vessel dirty.
Artichokes do produce a smell as they're steaming, so some organic compound does come off of them as they cook. I'd be concerned about what that might do to a charcoal filter. Perhaps you could put together a different sort of top to use with your still when you want to use it for steaming? Maybe even put distilled water in the unit so you don't have to worry about Arsenic, or whatever you're using the still to get rid of.
Put some distilled water in a pot, and cook the artichokes. This is just silliness, and likely to cause you grief with a device that's somewhat specialized, and not for cooking.
I used to believe it was wrong to use distilled water for drinking, but I've since changed my mind. Many natural healing practitioners advocate it, so that's why I use it over reverse osmosis. Using a different top is a good idea, but I went ahead and tried this. It worked well. Cooking time can be set by how much water you add, and there seemed to be no downside, only the upsides. I did it twice so far. The release of organic compounds by the artichoke affecting the charcoal filter is my only remaining concern, but it seemed fine.
I did it a few times and it worked great! My artichoke plant makes rather small artichokes, so I put one stem down in a teacup in the bottom of the distiller. I filled the distiller with 1-2 cups of water, estimating that would get me enough cooking time to cook that size artichoke. After it distilled that water and automatically shutoff, I waited until it was cool, opened it up, and found my nicely cooked artichoke. :)
For a larger artichoke I might try to find a metal stand of some sort and lay the artichoke on its side.
Yes, artichokes produce a smell when being steamed. Will this adversely affect the innards of the distiller? I'm no chemistry expert, but I kind of doubt it, hence my willingness to try this experiment. Probably it is a volatile gas, not a solid, that gets absorbed by the distiller's carbon filter with the rest of the volatile gases in the water. Solids should remain in the distiller's "tank" with the rest of the crud and scale that builds up like normal.
So in the end, if you're living by yourself in a small space, just want to steam one artichoke at a time, and don't want to waste space with a regular steam cooker, this seems like a good alternative. Plus, you get to keep humidity down and get clean drinking water to boot.
Hi, thank you for returning and sharing your experience! It is indeed an unusual question, and it seems nobody from our community knew more about it. This makes it all the more valuable for others who search for this information.
Could you add something on how you did it and what gave you best results? If it matters?
Sure, see above. I initially left it out because it's pretty simple, but I guess I could see how it might help some people.
Steaming foods tends to contaminate steamer water with drippings heavily: Steam some broccoli or asparagus and get green water. Some of the compounds - especially aroma bearing ones! - will be easily vaporized and condensed together with the water in the distiller.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.420642 | 2016-05-28T22:22:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69332",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Flurrywinde",
"Robert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95967 | Less sweet / lower sugar alternative to icing?
When making a cake as a base line I usually halve the recommended sugar as I find it too sweet. Now I want to ice the cake for appearance and colour I notice that icing recipes are loaded with sugar. Is there a less sweet / lower sugar alternative that will allow me to decorate the cake
It's loaded with fat but less sweet: Cream cheese icing (example recipe) goes very well on some cakes (like a rich chocolate cake). It does however need to be refrigerated so is best for use on cakes that are to be eaten up when they're served. It can also be flavoured, e.g. with lemon/orange zest, with will further reduce the sweetness (and provide a nice contrast if the cake is too sweet for your tastes).
Another option is one of many variations on Cornflour buttercream (example). These use cornflour (UK)/cornstarch (US) and possibly flour, together with milk, to thicken a buttercream. A simpler version is just to replace a little of the sugar in buttercream with cornflour, but I haven't tested whether you can significantly reduce the sweetness without affecting the texture.
My favorite choice is an Italian meringue.
Italian meringue is whipped egg whites with still-hot simple syrup added. The addition of hot syrup cooks the egg whites, making it quite safe to eat without additional cooking.
The drawback is that it does not keep as well as a buttercream, and will require refrigeration if you're not going to eat it same day
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.421008 | 2019-01-26T21:09:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95967",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65650 | Can I heat and then cool Shiitake mushrooms, and eat cold one day later?
I want to cook them, then keep them in the fridge and eat them cold one day later.
I have heard of some mushrooms becoming poisonous one day after heating, and you cannot eat Shiitakes raw.
Will it be a problem to eat them cold?
Poisonous mushrooms aren't uncommon, but I've never heard of mushrooms becoming toxic as a result of cooking. Do you have a reference for that statement?
Why do you think it's not possible to eat Shiitake mushrooms raw? As long as they're fresh and not dried, you can eat them raw just fine.
The old myth that spinach and mushrooms don't reheat safely, from times when these were often stored unrefrigerated and reheated...
Also, soy sauces with shiitake extract are a common asian ingredient, and while these tend to have some preservatives and need to be stored in the fridge after opening, they last months.
@Catija Dr Weil advises that you should not eat them raw
Shiitake mushrooms are certainly not poisonous, either raw, cooked or as you posit in your question, after being cooked, stored in the refrigerator and consumed later.
If you enjoy eating them cold, go for it. Just keep in mind that like any other cooked food, they can spoil if not stored properly (I have some leftover Chinese mustard greens stir-fried with shiitakes in my fridge right now, and have been eating them for days).
However:
There is a rare allergic reaction in some people called Shiitake Dermatitis which is brought on by eating uncooked or under-cooked Shiitakes. Note that this does not mean it is poisonous, it is a food allergy for all purposes like any other (think shellfish, wheat, soy etc.)
In addition to that,
If you look, you will probably find advice to cook all mushrooms before eating (this probably has more to do with digestibility than anything though).
Although I believe this is really aimed more at wild harvested mushrooms, in his wild mushroom identification book "All that the rain promises and more", David Arora can be quoted as saying:
"With very few exceptions, mushrooms should not be eaten raw. They are
safer, more digestible and more nutritious when cooked..."
Personally, I would not shy away from eating Shiitakes raw for any safety reason, but you then may be robbing yourself of some of the nutritional value.
I guess that you heard about the advice not to reheat mushrooms of any kind and thus, to toss the dish if it is not eaten right after cooking (at least I read this advice in a book along with the advice not to reheat spinach and this advice is/was quite popular in Germany). This statement is true if the food will be stored at a place which is not sufficiently cold (<4°C) or not sufficiently hot (>60°C). Mushrooms basically consist of proteins and water and bahaves food-safety-wise like any other (lightly seasoned*) cooked protein like cooked meat: They spoil pretty fast. If you can cool the mushrooms within 2 hours to 4°C or below and store them at this temperature, they will be fine.
Another bad advice is that spoiled food will be fine aber being reheated. It is not. If the food is spoiled, eating it neither hot nor cold is okay. In the opposite case, if the food is safe to eat, it is (food-safety-wise) okay to eat it both hot and cold.
* not enough salt, sugar, acid, alcohol ... whatever preserves the food
Shiitakes are not poisonous and are fine eaten cooked, uncooked, cold, or as leftovers.
Poison's mushrooms contain toxins which cause their effects. Some of these toxins will break down when cooked, but there is nothing I can find about the opposite happening (toxins activating when cooked)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_poisoning
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.421154 | 2016-01-20T20:18:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65650",
"authors": [
"Adam Warlock",
"Anatoliy Anatoliy",
"Barbara Murray",
"Catija",
"CodeKader",
"Peter Bywater",
"Tim Hamby",
"Trish Lane",
"Zino",
"esmond reid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42659",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"s melika mokhbery"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75892 | Iodized or sea salt
In cooking, should I chose iodized or sea salt? I have no particular health or thyroid concerns, but I'm not particularly sure on what the difference of the flavor can either of the two bring.
Be aware; the fact that you aren't worried about iodine deficiency doesn't mean you won't have an iodine deficiency.
Some people can taste iodine in salt (not pleasant), and for some purposes (like brining), iodized salt is not recommended.
I use non-iodized table salt for some purposes, and kosher salt (which is non-iodized by definition) for others. Kosher salt is just salt with larger crystals than table salt.
There is no culinary reason to use iodized salt for anything.
There might be a health reason, but that is outside the scope of this stack. I don't mind being downvoted, but I do want to point out why I did not bring that up - I made a point to say that there is no culinary reason to use iodized salt.
@Jolenealaska there's no culinary reason not to use iodized salt. Naturally extracted marine salt has iodine, and some of them are considered gourmet products.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.421474 | 2016-11-26T08:02:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75892",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"roetnig"
],
"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
} |
103088 | Pancetta leaking into cheesecloth
I cured my Mangalitsa pancetta for 7 days and it was stiff. Then I rolled it and it got very soft. I double covered it with cheesecloth and now it is leaking into the cheesecloth. Is this good, bad or indifferent. Right now it is in my basement which is very dry, 40%. I am upping the humidity to 65% (all I did was turn the dehumidifier up to 65% and the basement is doing the rest) and the temp is between 65F and 70F. (Right now I'm double checking the top temp because it was reading 75F as the top temp.) BTW, the Mangalitsa belly was very thick and I used prague #1 and prague #2. (I thought I might age the pancetta for longer but it looks like that's not a good idea.) What should I do? BTW, by accident I put 10X the amount of prague #2 and caught it 4 hours later. I washed off the cure and completely redo it with Prague #2 at the appropriate strength.
This is difficult to assess and provide a definitive solution for because you've got several conditions that are not ideal. As you point out, your temp is too high and your humidity is too low, for starters. Given the 7 day cure, I would normally say you are ok from a safety perspective, however, I am concerned by the "leaking", but that may just be the nature of your product. Given that you say this belly was rather "thick", 7 days may not have been enough, but hard to tell from here. Firmness after the cure is what you are going for.
I guess, for starters, I would suggest unrolling and hanging as a flat piece (called tesa). I find that I get more consistent results, faster, making pancetta tesa. In your case, this might also help with excess moisture. You really just want to hang until it loses about 30% of it's pre-hanging weight. For me at about 55F and 70% humidity, that that usually takes in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 weeks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.421588 | 2019-10-26T15:39:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103088",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65784 | Is this canning method safe to use for spaghetti sauce? (Boiling the sauce in the jars in the oven)
This technique has been used by my family for decades but I'm wondering how safe it is to kill Botulism spores.
Step 1, cook the spaghetti sauce in a large pot (tomatoes, meat, fruits, vegetables, sugar, spices, etc). pH unknown.
Step 2, Fill mason jars with water. Bring them to a boil by putting them in the oven.
Step 3, Put the boiling sauce in the jar.
Step 4, Put the mason jar lids on but not fully closed.
Step 5, Put the mason jars in the oven and bring the sauce again to a boil.
Step 6, Close the lids and wait until the lids become sealed.
Step 7, Wait until they cool down before storing them at room temperature.
Thanks in advance!
I don't think that's good for the lids. The lids are going to get cooked at much higher than boiling. Usually you put the mason jars in boiling water or a pressure cooker which yes gets hotter than boiling but not by too much, and fasten the lids with gloves.
No, it is not safe. You need a pressure canner. That's what the USDA says about anything containing meat:
There are no safe options for canning these foods listed below in a boiling water canner.
See http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_04/soups.html for a table of pressures and processing times.
Would the OP method be safe for meatless product?
@Paulb tomato sauces tend to have garlic, and garlic is known as a common entry vector for botulism spores.
@Paulb if you have a new question, you should ask it separately. But in general, in questions of canning, you are better off learning from the source, rather than asking others to interpret guidelines for you. See the link I posted, it is from a whole guide aimed at the home canner.
In general (if it is about random sauce):
Unless the sauce is so heavy in sugar (unlikely - 120°C would mean you are making a tomato syrup that will be as thick as honey when cool), oil or thickeners that it will reach pressure-canning temperatures when heated by an oven - NO.
The cans are at ambient pressure, so any mixture in them that is dominated by water WILL NOT reach much above a 100°C, since heat energy will be used up for boiling off water and not raising the temperature of the sauce.
100°C will kill any practical live bacteria to hell and back, but it will not kill spores.
Fully closing the cans would get you higher internal temperature - DON'T, they will likely explode very violently.
Specific to tomato sauce:
Tomato sauce can be acidic enough that you don't care about botulism spores - but that is tricky, since it depends on the variety of tomatoes used, how well the acid will penetrate other ingredients in the sauce, and other factors.
In this case, research a recipe that uses that technique and which is currently recognized by food safety authorities to be safe.
It is not safe to can anything containing meat without pressure-canning. My work-around is to use shredded zucchini to add protein to my sauce, and then to add ascorbic acid (vitamin C) powder — or, more rarely, citric acid if ascorbic isn't available — to acidify the tomato base, making heat-canning a safe option.
This calls for a more refined answer then yes or no. (and this will no doubt generate some minus votes...but read me out). At the end of this answer you will find a YES, is you use your sauce reheated.
How would you like to answer "is it safe to cross a road?". There is a risk of harm, so: no?
That is the correct answer, but IMHO, not a usefull one.Nothing is 100 percent safe. You want to know the risks.
I have been wrestling with this myself, also because I like to make garlic oil by combining cloves of garlic and oil. Anearobic, alkalic, so ideal for botulism.
These are difficult number to estimate of course, but the incidence of botulism is minute:
In the United States, during 1990–2000, the median number of foodborne botulism cases per year was 23 (range, 17–43 cases) Most cases are sporadic (i.e., they are not part of outbreaks); outbreaks are typically small, involving 2 or 3 persons (see link below).
Now, supposing the ALL these cases come from home canning tomato sauce, and estimating how many americans home can tomatoes, you have an upper range estimate of the risk. I let you do you own estimates. However, the risk is minute, less than 1 in a million is my guess. Your choice.
But there is an even better and hopeful answer. YES, you sauce is perfectly safe to use, if you USE it, that is, reheat it up to minimum 85 degrees. That kills all the TOXINS, not the spores. But spores you will eat when you eat raw food as well, your body can normally easily handle that:
In contrast with the spore, botulinum toxins are temperature sensitive, and all toxins are inactivated by heating to 85°C for 5 min [17].
Conditions in the normal human intestine are not conducive to germination and vegetation of C. botulinum. C. botulinum spores are routinely ingested and excreted by humans without germination, toxin production, or any harm to the person through whom they pass. The exceptions are the small number of infants who develop infant botulism and the handful of adults who develop adult toxemic infectious botulism.
You see, that is why I dont think answers like "NO, because the rules say no and rules are rules" are wrong. Answers like this would deprive you of your sauce thoughtlessly. With my answer you can decide for yourself. Hope this helps.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/8/1167.full
Most people in the US don't can things, and most of the people who do follow the government's recommendations. The current relatively low incidence of botulism here doesn't prove that it's not risky; people just aren't taking the risk. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/66571/1672 for some information about how this actually was a problem back when people were less aware about canning safety.
Of course there is a problem. My point was and is: you have more chance to die crossing the road buying the tomatoes than dying of eating you home-,made and canned tomato sauce.
The evidence you've presented shows that you have more chance of dying crossing the road than dying of botulism as long as you follow the average canning practices (i.e. you don't can a lot and when you do you probably do it safely). That doesn't mean it's safe to do what the OP said here. Your argument is like pointing to a very pedestrian-safe city where very few people get hit by cars (and they're mostly using crosswalks and mostly not walking far) and saying, see, it's safe to jaywalk, because basically no one gets hit by cars.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.421767 | 2016-01-24T16:04:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65784",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl Robert",
"Chris Drnek",
"Escoce",
"Joshua Haman",
"Marc Luxen",
"Paulb",
"Salma Akbar",
"Shari Frankhauser",
"Terri Robinson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"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
} |
68678 | Why does food spoil in the freezer?
Many recipes suggest storing perishable food, such as left-over chicken stock, in the freezer for up to 2-3 months. Why could one not store it frozen for longer, surely bacteria and mould cannot grow in a deep freezer to spoil the food?
Most freezers are frost-free, which means that they occasionally cycle above freezing to prevent formation of frost on the walls of the freezer. This makes them easier to maintain but it shortens the storage longevity of the food.
This makes products stored in them vulnerable to freezer burn, which is a loss of moisture. It can also cause ice and IQF products like frozen fruits or vegetables to solidify into a single mass. If you have ice cube trays, you may even notice them becoming empty after a few months of sitting unused.
Freezer burn is a loss of quality, though, not a health issue. The food isn't spoiling.
If you have a "deep freeze" or a non frost-free freezer that you only access occasionally, you can certainly keep foods for nearly indefinite periods of time without worrying as much about freezer burn.
You can also reduce the likelihood of freezer burn by following better freezer practices.
Resources available here and here and here.
Can I tell this by the freezer not having any frost inside? My fridge always says -18° in the freezer.
If there's no frost, it's a pretty sure bet that it's frost-free. It's going to be really cold most of the time but it will occasionally pop above freezing to prevent frost formation.
Actually, it's a matter of physics. More heat = more energy = all actions and reactions happen more quickly.
Freezing slows down but does not stop chemical processes. Those would not stop unless your freezer could chill things to absolute zero. If your food is in the refrigerator, processes take place in a matter of days, because the food is relatively warm. In the freezer, the processes still take place, but they do so much more slowly. Bases and acids still react; they just do it in slow motion, so to speak. Many bacterial agents are killed by freezing, while others just go dormant; a few even still remain active, but at such a slow rate that they are not considered a risk. Because everything happens slowly, freezing offers a long shelf-life, but on the other hand, because processes still occur, the shelf-life is not indefinite. The processes can result in something as minor as freezer burn or as major as actual spoilage (usually chemical rather than bacterial), if given enough time and the right chemical reactions.
When a limit is given for freezer storage, it is usually based on the chemical composition of the substance, its tendency for ingredients to react to other ingredients within it, its tendency for compounds in the substance to react with outside molecules, and the chemical stability of various compounds (i.e. their ability to remain stable in the freezer environment). Most freezer storage limits assume packaging with a single barrier that is air-tight but not vacuum-sealed, and water content percentages that are such that the food is not noticeably damaged by freezing for a certain length of time. This is why vacuum-sealing or multi-layer wrapping can extend freezer storage limits, and why nuts keep longer than veggies in the freezer without damage.
There are a lot of true things in your answer, but the suggestion that chemical or bacterial spoilage happen in the freezer doesn't seem great. Far and away the primary reason for limited storage lifetime in the freezer is quality loss (mostly freezer burn), not chemical reactions or bacterial spoilage. I know you did mention freezer burn, but it's buried among a lot of other things.
Freezer burn is certainly a chemical (but not microbiological) process?
I was under the impression materials deteriorate due to oxydation. Bacterial and fungal growth stops, but degradation due to oxydation still happens. The reason why vacuum sealing is effective is due to the fact that you remove all oxygen from the package. Afterwards, as oxygen can permeate most packaging, it is hard to prevent the oxydation effect from happening.
This next to the technical limitations ofcourse.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.422411 | 2016-04-30T09:18:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68678",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"rackandboneman",
"user1721135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68314 | White residue emerging while cooking bacon
When I pan-fry bacon I usually see a curdled white residue emerge from the strips as they start to become cooked. This residue forms a sticky film on the pan that burns if not scraped off during cooking. It appears to be a some sticky goo composed of proteins, fat and water.
What exactly is this residue and what causes it/where does it come from? Does it pose any health concerns? Is it common practice in professional kitchens to wash the bacon before cooking in order to reduce this residue?
The only times I have seen the white residue come out of meats that weren't fish were when the meats were from animals raised with substantial amounts of chemical feeds and additives. It appears to be related to the milky juices that sometimes come out of poultry raised in that manner. I can't swear this is the case with your bacon, but that is my experience with the whitish residues.
The answer is related to a similar issue appearing in this question.
Basically, that residue is mostly water, along with denatured proteins from the meat. When meat is cooked and the cells expel moisture, there are a lot of dissolved proteins which sometimes make the liquid light-colored and thick.
People tend to notice it more with certain meats than others. With bacon, it tends to show up a little more because a lot of commercial bacon is now wet-cured by injection. The extra moisture in the bacon flows out quicker during cooking and carries protein with it. This is also more of a problem with thinner cuts of bacon, since the more "damaged" cells, the more this protein leaks out. Thinner cut bacon -- like the ground beef mentioned in the link above -- has a higher ratio of cut and damaged cells than thick-cut bacon. (There are other factors that can add to this too, e.g., freezing, which also damages cells.)
It's safe to eat, though not particularly pleasant textured or tasty. Rinsing the bacon wouldn't help. A few ways to lessen it:
Try a different brand of bacon, perhaps one that adds less moisture
Buy thicker bacon
Cook more slowly: this may not help much with some bacon, but the faster the meat cooks up and shrinks, the faster the liquid flows out
If possible, buy traditional dry-cured bacon with no liquid injected (sometimes hard to find these days)
pork loins produce a lot of protein spuge
Venison too does this too.
This white residue is water that has been added in the curing process. It shouldn't be there if you buy dry cured.
a few years ago there was a documentary that stated that companies ship meat products from the UK, over to Europe where they are thawed, injected with a solution, re-frozen, then re-shipped back to the UK for distribution by the supermarkets. It is illegal to inject this solution in the UK, hence the shipping to Europe. This is used to make the meat heavier and hence the profit.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.422723 | 2016-04-16T13:46:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68314",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Owl",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68305"
],
"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
} |
65793 | Cooling cooked onions before adding to raw mince
In Masterchef The Professionals (season 8 episode 11), Marcus Wareing demonstrates his skills test and cooks a burger. In the process, he rapidly cools the onions after sweating them by placing them on a freezing tray. Would it make a noticeable difference to skip that step? I never did this and my burgers did not fall apart as he suggests. Is there some other reason for doing this?
You can see the episode here (skip to 17:30).
I don't buy his reasoning, though I don't know for sure. So, if someone knows better, I am happy to be corrected. However, I do have two theories: 1. I suppose it is possible that the heat from the onion will start melting the fat in the ground meat...but would that keep it from holding together? I doubt it. Plus, that looked like a fairly lean mixture. 2. I could see cooling the onion as a safety precaution, in the event the burger wasn't going to be cooked right away. I think this is a much more plausible reason to cool burger additions.
I've seen previous series of Masterchef The Professionals, and generally the skills test is in order to test that the cooks can show good industry standards and cooking practices.
In one that I saw, they were asked to roll out dough into several shapes ready for cooking. They were then graded on this, without any cooking involved at all. One of the contestants was praised for forming two balls of dough into the shape for bread rolls simultaneously using both hands.
Obviously when it comes to cooking forming them separately would be fine, but in a busy kitchen being more efficient and performing the tasks quicker would be beneficial, which is what they were looking for the contestants to do from their own skills and knowledge of professional cooking.
Therefore cooking the onions and then cooling them on a freezing tray would be a technique used in professional kitchens, in order to cool the onions as quickly as possible so that the burgers could be formed into shapes before cooking, and the chef could move onto other prep work before the service begins.
As @moscafj points out, the onions would need to be cooled for safety reasons, as the burgers would likely be formed prior to service and then left to be cooked to order later in the day, therefore the onions would need to be cool before being combined with the raw meat to ensure it does not begin cooking prematurely.
As for it falling apart, I haven't tested but perhaps allowing the beef to warm from the cooked onions, then cooling down before the service begins and finally cooking would cause the structural integrity of the burger to be inconsistent, which is something required in professional kitchens.
It has to do with excess moisture coming off the hot onions. Freezing them allows them to contract and stop sweating, releasing water. Too much water will make the burgers fall apart.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.422985 | 2016-01-24T18:59:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65793",
"authors": [
"Alfonso Duran",
"Anessie Patterson",
"Dianne Goin",
"Helga Tibudan",
"Patrick Caudle",
"Susan Brown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157651"
],
"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
} |
66065 | Substitutions for vegetable oil in cornbread
I am out of vegetable oil and need to make cornbread. I think you can substitute peanut oil but want to make sure (only need 1/4 cup). I think you can also use olive oil but I only have extra virgin and I'm afraid the flavor would be weird. Any suggestions? Thank you.
In baking, you can substitute any of the neutral-flavored oils with each other. related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/701/67
And before I get criticized for posting in comments ... I'm fairly certain this is a duplicate, but have a class to get to, so can't look for it.
I wouldn't recommend olive oil, it has a low smoke point and would impart and oil flavor to your corn bread. That might be fine for s Mediterranean bread, but not corn bread. Would you top a corn bread with tapenade? I wouldn't.
Other than greasing the pan, I have left the oil completely out of my cornbread recipe for years. Doing that doesn't seem to make any difference at all in flavor or texture, and it's a lot less calories. You'd probably notice the change if you were used to using bacon fat, but I haven't eaten that tasty mix in decades.
Peanut oil is fine to use for vegetable oil. Since both are neutral with a high smoke point, they can be used interchangeably.
Peanut oil can also help make the bread tastier if you like the peanuty undertones. Peanut oil is on of my favored oils for this reasons
+1 BUT "interchangeably" works in one direction only in some cases - peanut oil will stand its ground at a heat stress that will make some kinds of "vegetable oil" (especially if they are canola based) develop off flavors, off smells or downright smoke. Peanut oil would be the one "all purpose" oil to have in your pantry if it wasn't comparatively expensive 4€/L is the cheapest I can get, for example - cheap compared to flavoring grade oils, expensive compared to "vegetable oil" but well worth it.
I use 4 cups of cornmeal, half cup of self rising flour, half cup of crisco, 3 cups of buttermilk, 2 eggs and grease the cast iron pan with a liberal amount of crisco and bake at 450 for 30 minutes.
For cornbread you can use butter as a substitute. If you are using salted butter reduce the salt in the recipe somewhat to compensate for the salt in the butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.423255 | 2016-01-31T17:03:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66065",
"authors": [
"Brian Witton",
"Bybreen Samuels",
"Escoce",
"Jake Rademaker",
"Joe",
"Kim Merriman",
"Nathan Ward-McClymonds",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
} |
67636 | Benefits for different fats for flour tortillas?
There seems to be no standard fat for making flour tortillas. I've seen recipes using lard, shortening, butter, olive oil, vegetable oil, and canola oil. Is there a reason I would pick one of these over the other, or can I use them interchangeably?
I use lard or butter, because both are solid at room temp and will bind strongly to make a tortilla that can be moved and handled easily. When I use oils (which I prefer), the tortillas turn out too delicate to handle without special care. If I'm just using the tortillas as a layer in an enchillada casserole or the like, I'll make the delicate ones (I use grapeseed or roasted hazelnut oil), but if I'm making wraps or burritos, I stick to fats that are solid at room temperature. I have a pathological dislike of shortening (too many have hydrogenated ingredients), so I can make no guesses as to how that would work, but I'm guessing that with it being solid at room temp, it will make the same sort of wrap as would lard, suet or butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.423474 | 2016-03-21T05:22:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67636",
"authors": [
"Gordon Donaldson",
"John Bramhall",
"Veena V.S.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162531",
"webster black"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66121 | What is the maximum temperature to use when cooking with flavor oils?
I'm using standard LorAnn's flavoring oils, which are supposed to be for 'high temperature' cooking with candy.
So far 275 degrees F works as far as the flavor goes, but it's bad for efficiency, as much of the candy is lost to waste due to cooling and cleaning.
What temperature have you found you can put in oil based flavors into sugar candy without the oil hitting its smoking point?
Welcome Neceros - There are many types of sugar candy, if you could add your recipe and how you make it, someone here may be able to help. I really don't understand the "much of the candy is lost to waste due to cooling and cleaning." If you could explain that, it may also help. You can use the "edit" link below your question to make changes.
There is a huge difference in using oil in a pan to cook something and mixing it into a sugar solution for candy-making. I have been using that brand of oils (and others) for decades when making candy and, depending on the end-product (i.e., soft caramel at 246F and a hard-crack candy like toffee at 300F) have never encountered a "smoke-point" problem.
Hope this helps!
Every oil, whether flavored or not, has a smoke point. Even the same oils with different branding may have slightly different smoke points.
The only way to really tell what a particular oil's smoke point is, is to heat the oil TO that smoke point and determine the temperature that it is at when it starts to smoke. You can use a little oil in a small pan to determine that. The easiest way is to use an Infrared Thermometer to get the reading at the exact moment the oil begins to smoke. Do a search for Infrared Thermometer on Amazon to see what's available. Inexpensive.
There is no hard and fast rule for what temperature a particular type of oil's smoke point is. There are only general guides. Test and record! Bon Appetit!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.423591 | 2016-02-02T08:24:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66121",
"authors": [
"Danger Problem",
"Debbie M.",
"Leo Addinall",
"Linda Bear",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"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
} |
66138 | How do I get rid of plastic smell in rice / pasta?
I bought a number of bags of rice and pasta and stored it in a plastic bin in the basement. I recently grabbed one of those bags of rice and it smells gross, like plastic. Everything in the bin smells like that. I haven't cooked it yet but in the past when I've cooked food that's had a bad/odd plastic smell, it still had it after cooking and due to the smell/taste I threw it away. Currently, I've had the rice sitting out in a bowl for the past few days and the smell hasn't gone away.
What do I do for the food I have to get rid of the smell?
And without getting overly pricey, how should I store things like this for the future?
I really don't want to waste all this food but I can't bring myself to make it as it is right now.
How old was this rice/pasta? Was it stored directly in the bin, or with a liner (including the original store bag)? Have you tried washing it?
Were these food grade plastic storage bins?
How much food do you want to store and for how long?
Joe M - It was approximately 2 years old. It was stored in the original packaging directly in a plastic bin, no liner. No, I haven't tried washing it.
moscafj - No, regular bins
GdD - I can store food up to a couple years. I had gotten a really good deal on rice and just stocked up. I figured putting it in bins would be a good way to keep it dry and safe. Stored in the basement where it's cool.
@StockMom if not food safe plastic, there is the likelihood that off-gassing from the bins is the culprit. Whether or not this is dangerous, I do not know. Perhaps someone who has expertise can weigh in. Safety would be my concern at this point.
Since I saw the suggestion of washing the rice I've had it soaking for the last couple hours and just rinsed and drained it a couple times. It still has the odor.
As for the food safe container comment - Is this relevant since I kept the rice in the original packaging?
Use common sense. Your body is telling you not to eat it. Listen to it. It may not kill you or grow you things, but it's very likely not healthy either.
Conjecture: I guess you could classify containers into "direct contact safe" (non-radioactive/non-lead glass and ceramics, stainless steel, anything with the knife and fork logo), "safe for storing non-airtight packaged things in" ( eg wood untreated or treated with a paint safe for food surfaces, toys, wine barrels; most HDPE or PP containers ), "unsafe anywhere near food that isnt sealed" (plastics or paints that reek of fuel or solvent)...
"Still has the odor" ... more conjecture: These chemicals are DESIGNED to be hard to get out of whatever they are in, because they have a functional role in the plastic and need to not easily vanish out of it. BTW, most plastics aren't as tight as we think - eg in electrical engineering, things that really need to be made hermetically sealed are usually made of metal, glass, ceramics, not plastic materials.
If these were not food-safe/toy-safe bins, it is likely softeners/plasticizers from the plastic materials gassing out and migrating into the ingredients.
These can be phtalates or other petrochemical/organic compounds, and if in doubt, they are as unsafe in food as gasoline would be.
I certainly would not want to give anything that has taken on enough of that to smell of it to children, even if it could be prepared in a way that lost the smell.
If you discard it, you might consider doing so in a manner that makes sure nobody mistakes it for excess but safe packaged goods.
A lot of clear plastic bins you can currently buy ARE either explicitly marked as food safe (look for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol, often engraved into the plastic), or made from the same material as common in these that are explicitly labelled: polypropylene, which, if not labelled, could still have some questionable additives, but plasticizers are generally NOT needed to make household items from that material. I still certainly would not use the non-graded stuff to directly hold unpackaged foods.
HDPE can be safe for similar reasons (questionable mold release agents), any PVC or Polycarbonate container that is not labelled as food safe very likely is not.
Not extending answer because of a completely different context.
Actually, adulterated rice has been found (and might have found its way to non-Asian markets too), which is made with ... plastic.
http://althealthworks.com/7761/plastic-rice-from-china-is-real-and-it-can-cause-serious-health-problemsyelena/
This is less likely to be your problem than an unsuitable container, but might be relevant for other readers finding that question because of similar issues (I would assume that kind of rice to only smell of plastic when accidentally overheated/burned). If you have suspect rice, look at a few grains of rice under a magnifying glass for a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code engraved on them ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.423791 | 2016-02-02T15:43:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66138",
"authors": [
"Arc",
"Cristina Rössler",
"Dawid Bula",
"GdD",
"Joe M",
"Linda LaCoppola",
"StockMom",
"apeksha sharma",
"gail bart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43077",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85740 | Thawing meat: Do the bacteria that make meat bad need temperature or thermal energy to thrive?
Real world example: when I thaw frozen meat in 5L of warm water vs 20L of cold water, it thaws roughly in the same time for me (note, the warm water is not kept warm) - Which I guess means that the same amount of thermal energy is transferred to the meat over an equal time period.
Does it make a difference for the freshness of the meat if I thaw it in warm water vs cold water, if it takes in the same thermal energy over the same time period? And do the bacteria that make it go bad care more about absolute temperature, or thermal energy?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems more about physics or biology (of bacteria) than cooking.
Bugs just care about temperature and time. I would go with the 20L of cold water.
@Erica What's cooking if not biology and physics?
I don't think this is off topic for the forum, but I do believe it is, in essence, a duplicate. We have several questions/answers on thawing. Microbial growth is influenced by temperature, pH, oxygen (or lack thereof), nutrients for the microbes, to name a few significant variables. Temperature is probably the most important.
also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36999/what-are-the-acceptable-methods-to-thaw-food-items
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.424304 | 2017-11-19T12:17:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85740",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"user48884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81757 | Pizza dough didn't rise, maybe yeast cells were killed off
I made a pizza dough and I left it to rise until doubled in bulk. However, it didn't rise at all. After reading here I can just guess that I killed the yeast cells:
Yeast Is Too Hot. Recipes that call for active dry yeast direct you to dissolve that yeast in warm water. Sometimes the recipe calls for the liquid to be heated with fat and then added to the yeast. Either way, if the liquid is too hot it will kill off yeast cells. Yeast is pretty picky. It doesn’t like it too cold and it doesn’t like it too hot.
If this is the case and after waiting more time, it still doesn't rise, is there something I can do with the dough? I wouldn't want to throw it away.
Thanks
can you provide your reciepe?
@Ryan, here is the recipe but used a pizza flour. At the end it did began to rise. Should I delete the question or do I leave it in case it does happen what I described?
yeh, you need to put the dough.. like 45mins to an hour, be patient~
@Ryan Well it passed more than an hour so I was wondering
warm room and covered with damp cloth?
@Ryan with plastic wrap
Very possible your yeast was killed or was dead to begin with. The recipe you linked has no sugar, and sugar usually is used to speed up fermentation. The recipe does call for salt, which tends to inhibit fermentation. The recipe calls for pretty intense mechanical mixing for 2 minutes, which is going to raise the temperature of the dough by the friction generated. A lot of potential things working against you.
I've had pizza making disasters and have managed to salvage some dead doughs and at least get something on the table that can be called a pizza; but you aren't going to get great results unless you cut your losses and start over with new ingredients.
To prevent waste of that flour, you could salvage it and at least cook it as a flat bread or garlic knots, etc.
The way I salvage dead dough is by putting about 10g of yeast in a tablespoon of water with 10g sugar, let it become active to prove you have action happening, then mix into your dead dough, then let rise.
What do you mean by let it become active to prove?
@PichiWuana Some yeast needs to be activated in water and sugar for about 5-10 minutes. You should be able to smell a yeasty smell, and start to see some bubbles.
@Fodder I did start to fell some yeasty smell when I dissolved the yeast in warm water. Does that mean in general that the yeast will work?
@PichiWuana You will smell it a bit when you first add it to water, but I've found it becomes stronger once they're active. But if your water was too hot and you've killed it, I don't think it'll work very well anymore. :(
I see. At the end it did work :)
@PichiWuana That's good news. I guess then the problem might be the salt, and maybe the place where you left the dough wasn't warm enough.
@Fodder Yes I guess that too
From https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/yeast_temp.html:
130° F–140° F (55° C–60° C)
Yeast cells die (thermal death point).
120° F–130° F (49° C–55° C)
Water temperature for activating yeast designed to be mixed with the dry ingredients in a recipe.
105° F–115° F (41° C–46° C)
Temperature of water for dry yeast reconstituted with water and sugar.
100° F (38° C)
or lower When yeast is mixed with water at too low a temperature, an amino acid called glutathione leaks from the cell walls, making doughs sticky and hard to handle.
95° F (35° C)
Temperature for liquids used to dissolve compressed yeasts.
80° F–90° F (27° C–32° C)
Optimum temperature range for yeast to grow and reproduce at dough fermentation stage.
70° F–80° F (21° C–27°C)
Recommended water temperature for bread machines.
40° F (4° C)
Recommended refrigerator temperature. Used directly from the fridge, yeast is too cold to work properly.
Love it. Straight to the point, no beating around the bush. A source would be good, though
Sorry , I thought you could google it https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/yeast_temp.html YEAST IS FUSSY STUFF
A reminder: properly attributing material taken from elsewhere is required. It's also generally best to write your own answer, and use references to supplement, rather than just copy-pasting the whole thing. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/referencing
@Cascabel Your comment applies to experience or opinion.. this is more science
@TonyStewart No, my comment is site policy (and in fact network-wide policy, even if implementation varies), per the help page I linked to.
Assume you are using bread flour.
You could
Refrigerate your dough, buy some new yeast.
When you could source yeast powder again, add them back to make your pizza.
Make no-yeast flatbread.
This link is a reciept to make a flatbread without yeast, where you can dip with any dip sauce you like, or curry. Remember to adjust the portions of different ingredients, like here in this link, milk is used.
A trick ensure that you are using lukewarm water without killing your yeast (and of cause without a thermometer) is just put a drop of the water onto your inner wrist, and see if the temperature of water is similar/ not too hot for your hand.
I guess pizza flour would work as well too
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.424455 | 2017-05-17T16:32:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81757",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fodder",
"Pichi Wuana",
"Ryan",
"Tony Stewart EE75",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57964",
"polynomial_donut"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81554 | How do I cook rice in a steamer?
I'd like to cook rice in my steamer, if possible. It comes with instructions for a bunch of food types, but doesn't mention anything for rice.
The bottom of the steamer looks like this:
I also have two of these to put on top of the previous compartment:
I usually get boil-in-bag rice and cook the rice in a pot on the stove, so I'm not really sure how to cook the rice with a steamer.
It is probably best if you pre-soak the rice before cooking. How long you soak it for will depend strongly on the type of rice and your ambient temperature. Try an hour to begin with. Thai glutinous rice is traditionally steamed rather than boiled. Use a porous container for the rice so that excess water or condensates could drain out and not make the rice soggy. As a hack, you can wrap the pre-soak rice in a towel and put the bundle in the steamer, just be prepared to lose a fair amount to the towel deal with the sticky mess on it afterwards.
I use Thai rice, didn't know it's traditionally steamed. (I tried to add a specific tag to my question, in addition to [tag:rice], but couldn't find any.)
Yes, often steamed in an elongated woven bamboo basket. Thai glutinous rice is very different from Thai long grain or "fragrant" rice though. With normal non-glutinous types, they cook them normally, boiled until all the water is evaporated. I am very curious about whether the same technique works for dried pasta!
Thai glutinous rice != Thai jasmine rice.
@rackandboneman they are different, jasmine rice aka fragrant rice is long grain fluffy type, non-glutinous for sure. Glutinous rice is sometimes called sticky rice. Most glutinous rice are short grain, but Thai sticky rice comes in long grain variety too which makes it confusing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.424866 | 2017-05-10T16:21:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81554",
"authors": [
"Stijn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66369 | Substituting milk with whipping cream
I'm making a corn bake in the crock pot that calls for 1 1/2 cups of milk. How much whipping cream would I use?
Thanks for posting this as a question! Could you include the recipe in your question? You can use the "edit" button to do so.
What is a crock pot? (and a corn bake, but we will get that from the recipe).
The amount of fat is about 5:1, but cream has no sugar in it so you may wish to adjust that. Why aren't you using milk?
@MarcLuxen Crock pot is a brand name for slow cooker, commonly used as a synonym in American English.
@MarcLuxen not exactly. A pot with integrated heating and and often a timer, used for slow cooking / simmering at low temperatures for many hours.
I see. Is there any culinary difference between this and a pan on a hob?
What are you trying to accomplish? Make the dish richer, or are you out of milk?
@MarcLuxen - "Crock Pot" is sort of a proprietary name for a slow cooker. It is generally used to cook things... well... slowly, over low heat. It excels at low temperature, long duration cooking, and isn't very good for anything else. People often use them when they are busy and can't stick around to keep an eye on the hob (stove) while the food is cooking. You can turn them on, go run errands, and come home to a finished dish/meal. You COULD do this with a hob, but it would be somewhat riskier.
Right. Well, I will stick to my cast-iron Creuset. Too many gadgets in my kitchen already!
As the previous answer says, there is an enormous difference between milk and cream.
However, it is possible to reach a rough substitute for milk by mixing your cream with an equal amount of water by volume - in your case, 3/4 cream and 3/4 cup water.
It won't be exactly the same (the fat content will still be substantially higher than it would be if you used milk, and if you do a taste test, comparing the flavor of whole milk to a 50/50 cream/water mix, you'll see that the flavor is also very different), but it should work.
However, there is a chance that the higher fat content will lead to the sauce breaking, so if you want to be 100% sure of success, go get some milk. If you're willing to gamble a bit, try diluting the cream.
Whole milk is 3.5 % fat.
Whipping Cream is 35 % fat.
That's a big difference.
Unless there's a another fat in your recipe that you can reduce, I don't see that you can substitute cream for milk without completely changing the recipe.
The recipe greatly affects whether the substitution is possible... many sauces, for example, will work just fine, they'll simply be much richer... without knowing the recipe, it's not really possible to answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.425029 | 2016-02-09T16:26:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66369",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Fred Bissler",
"GdD",
"Jill Laban",
"Karen Tribble",
"Kelli Elbertsen",
"Marc Luxen",
"Robbin Huddleston",
"Stephie",
"Wad Cheber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66463 | What is the difference between granulated cane sugar and granulated sugar?
I see two types of sugar in the baking aisle that I can't differentiate: "granulated sugar" and "granulated cane sugar". The latter is considerably more expensive. So, what is the difference between granulated cane sugar and this (unspecified) granulated sugar, and why would I want to choose one over the other?
As I understand it, cane sugar is extracted exclusively from sugar cane, while the other kind (the one that is not labeled as cane) can be a mixture of sucrose from several sources. Is this difference enough to make one a better candidate when cooking? baking? sweetening tea/coffee?
Are you in the US? Most sugar in the US is cane sugar... if you're in Europe, it might be more likely to find beet sugar.
This question refers to the sugar in the US
It makes a bigger difference if something made in the US is labelled as being sweetened with cane sugar, because the alternative isn't usually beet sugar it's high fructose corn syrup. That's pretty much a US only thing though, since most of the rest of the world doesn't have corn subsidies pushing down the price of HFCS and sugar quotas pushing up the price of refined sugar (cane or beet).
There is no real difference between types of granulated, white sugar. The options you are likely to see are cane sugar and beet sugar. Granulated sugar from sugarcane is often considered "superior" to beet sugar by Americans, but the idea that cane sugar is in any way superior to beet sugar has no basis. Granulated beet sugar and granulated cane sugar are completely interchangeable and indistinguishable. Swapping them will cause no issue.
By the way - this is sugarcane:
These are sugar beets:
I'd post a picture of the granulated sugar made from each, but it seems kind of pointless as they look the same.
On this question (almost an exact duplicate), some posters see a small difference. I never have. The difference between beet sugar and cane sugar
So, if it's not labeled "cane sugar", then it's beet sugar?
In the US or Europe, most likely, yes. For whatever reason, Americans seem to trust sugar more if it comes from cane, perhaps because we grow it.
@user45957 I'm pretty sure the OP was about white sugar, though, so this all seems fair. ("granulated sugar" refers to white sugar by default; you'd explicitly say "brown" if you meant it)
@Jefromi https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25124655 does show that there are nontrivial sensory differences between beet and cane sugars.
@Jolenealaska "The year 2016 will mark the end of an era in Hawaii. After 180 years in the state, the sugar industry is shutting down. Hawaii's last remaining plantation is phasing out it's sugar operations this year." http://www.kitv.com/story/30905681/the-end-of-the-sugar-cane-era-in-hawaii I think cane sugar comes from the Caribbean now.
In some regions, processing methods for commonly marketed sugar types are known to use or not use refining techniques using animal-derived ingredients. Some vegetarians will prefer the types not using such technique, or even avoid those that do.
Beet sugar is made from sugar beets, which in the US are often treated with pesticide that cane sugar is not.
Traces of said pesticides, minute though they may be are found in cane sugar.
This is why beekeepers will only use Cane Sugar to supplement their bees over the winter. Beet sugar can contaminate the honey.
Additionally, many beets are now GMO crops, while sugar cane is non-modified.
https://www.gardenfork.tv/honeybee-sugar-syrup-why-use-only-cane-sugar/
Hello and welcome! The first paragraph of your answer contradicts itself. Could you please edit to clarify?
Cane sugar does not contain galactose which is in beet sugar. This is of important consequence to people who are galactosemic. Beet sugar has also been processed using sodium bisulfite, and the residue may bother those allergic to sulfites.
This is factually wrong, both cane and beet sugar are pure sucrose.
Yes BUT i do not believe that beet sugar has the same setting property when it comes to jam making.
Hello Pepita, we are pretty strict on what kind of posts we take. Rants about how you hate the products you can get are not accepted, and answers have to directly address the quesiton. The only sentence in your post that qualified was your statement that you think they set differently, so I had to edit everything else out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.425298 | 2016-02-13T01:14:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66463",
"authors": [
"Anna Morada",
"Austin D",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Cindy Buxton",
"Jolenealaska",
"Malcolm Whatmore",
"Miro Mladar",
"Neil Smith",
"Penelope Pick",
"Peter Clemens",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tracey Voogt",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho",
"shueysmissus",
"verbose"
],
"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
} |
66560 | Are areas filled with an oily texture common in jamon serrano
I bought a whole jamon serrano right before christmas and have kept in at approx. 20°C and between 55-65% humidity. I have enjoyed every slice of delicious meat and have now started to cut the last part of it; the punta (end piece). However I suddenly uncovered a canal running under the skin which secretes a substance very similar to cooking oil. The smell is heavily bitter, like nuts gone bad.
Since I don't know the details on how a jamon is prepared, I wonder if this is expected, or is it a sign that the area is somehow contaminated?
In case you were worried about getting sick and want a quick partial answer: the oil has just gone rancid - it's not contamination, just what happens to oil over time. (It happens in nuts too since they contain plenty of oil.)
@Jefromi Thanks for the quick heads-up, that was in fact my initial concern :-)
As I don't have the necessary points to comment I will make one or two assumptions.
Spanish Jamon is a salt cured ham. I suspect, if you got your ham bone-out, then the residue oil is where the meat closest to where the bone was did not cure as well.
Make sure you buy your Jamon ham from a reliable and recognized source (Denominación de Origen). Even if you saved a little on price, with food, it is not the greatest plan.
As I live in the US I only enjoy that delicacy when I travel to Spain. I do not trust any of the US imports.
You just haven't lived until you have tried Jamón de Guijuelo!!!
That is a pretty accurate description - the canal does in fact run very close to the bone. Unfortunately I no longer have the box it came in so I cannot verify where it came from.
This happens from time to time, but is not something to be expected in your jamón. My household goes through 2-3 hams a year, not counting store-bought sliced packs, and I can only recall cutting into rancid fat maybe once.
Like @Randy said, make sure your jamón has a legitimate Denominación de Origen, everything else is a gamble.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.425931 | 2016-02-16T18:55:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66560",
"authors": [
"Bob Hinton",
"Cascabel",
"Jarred Winner",
"Kate Shah",
"Michael Green",
"Namita Reisinger",
"Shaun Hinson",
"Stig Perez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43445"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66897 | Are there any naturally sweet legumes?
I'm just wondering if any legumes are sweet. Preferably, I'd like a sweet bean, but whatever works.
Can I recommend you be more specific? Melons are legumes, but I think you are looking for something more like beans.
@Escoce Legumes are members of the family Fabaceae -- peas, beans, peanuts, and some related plants. Melons are the family Cucurbitaceae. (I know this can be a potential point of confusion because in e.g. French "légume" simply means "vegetable". But in English the usage is much more restricted.)
Browsing Wikipedia's list of edible legumes, there are in fact a lot more candidates than I expected!
Green peas
Young green peas (not the dried split green peas you use in soup) are relatively sweet as far as vegetables go. In particular sugar snap peas (i.e. mangetout) are named for their sweetness. Still not overwhelmingly sweet; their 4g of sugar / 100g is comparable to a carrot.
Adzuki beans
Although not particularly sweet in their own right, these beans are used to make red bean paste, a popular ingredient in East Asian desserts. The beans are fully cooked, sometimes mashed, and often mixed with copious amounts of sugar. Other beans can be prepared in the same manner for use in sweet dishes.
Tamarind
I was surprised to learn tamarind is in fact a legume! Though it doesn't look like the legumes in your garden, growing as a tree reaching 25 meters in height! The fruit grow in a 12-15cm pod that does look distinctly bean-like. Anyhow, these may be the winner when it comes to saccharine concentration: with 57g of sugar / 100g, tamarind pulp is quite sweet.
Detarium senegalense
Another leguminous tree, this one native to West Africa, is again known for its sweet fruit. I don't much about the plant, even the English Wikipedia page was pretty light, but it does appear to be used in sweet culinary applications. Maybe someone from Senegal could chime in.
Ice-cream bean tree
Well this one has a delicious-sounding name. Native to the South America, and known for the sweet and distinctively flavored pulpy fruit, it purportedly tastes like vanilla ice cream. If you had to pick one of these options to consume as dessert in its own right, this seems like your legume!
adzuki beans are quite sweet and used to make various desserts in Asia.
I will note, however, that typically some form of sugar is also added in whatever dish is being prepared with them.
Peas are very sweet, especially when you eat them young. I don't think any others reach them, but I don't think I've tried every legume in the world, so it's possible.
If the natural sweetness of legumes isn't sufficient for you, they take very well to added sugar.
Green peas, chickpeas, maybe fava beans
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.426145 | 2016-02-27T17:34:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66897",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Edwin Chao",
"Escoce",
"S R",
"Salomie Vermaak",
"Susan Stoyer",
"charles knox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993"
],
"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
} |
66900 | How do you make a chocolate chip cookie where the chips remain gooey after baked and cooled?
Just had a chocolate chip cookie at local bakery. Cookie was crunchy with gooey chocolate chips inside, like right out of oven gooey, but cookie was cooled. Any ideas?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Let me point you to our [tour] and our [help] - good places to ge started and for more info on how this site and the whole Stack Exchange network works. Looking forward to more contributions from you!
Two possibilities: a very fresh cookie - the chocolate can stay soft after cooling for a little while; not proper chocolate but something softer.
Naturally, chocolate is solid at room temperature. The only reason that chocolate chips are ever gooey is because they have been warmed recently enough that the chocolate has not yet reached it's solid state.
You may want to consider making your own chocolate chips with a little bit more liquid than normal to get the soft texture.
Some Easy Ways to Warm Them Include:
Throw the cookies up on your car windshield for a while.
Stick them in the oven for a minute (generally dries them out)
Put them in the Microwave for ~10-15 sec
"The only reason they are ever gooey..." - well, not exactly. As you say they could've used some kind of less solid chocolate instead of normal chips, right?
Yes, I mean that chocolate chips are sold at room temperature and they are solid. In order to make normal chocolate chips gooey, you need to warm them. A recipe could be made to be gooey at room temperature.
Oh, I read "they" as referring to the OP's question, not chocolate chips. Tweaked your answer, all good.
We always used to put them in a microwave for ~10-15 seconds... they'd get soft without drying out usually.
I had some cookies that had been left in a warm car ... I don't know what the temperature was, but I was told it had been left while they were at church (so would've been a little more than an hour, I think). They had that fresh-out-of-the-oven goodness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.426407 | 2016-02-27T19:43:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66900",
"authors": [
"Angela Gibson",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Colin Jary",
"Funko UnkO",
"Joe",
"LaRu",
"Margaret Rattray",
"Margaret Williams",
"Paula",
"Sonya Brungardt",
"Stephie",
"That One Actor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"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
} |
66941 | How to cook flatbread without oil?
Here's the thing:
I am currently experimenting with a Oshawa diet #7 and I discovered that I can make these tasty flatbreads in my frying pan.
However, the issue is that after each flatbread is done I have to wash the pan with a wet sponge, as either flour or small parts of the dough will get burnt and stick to the pan.
This means that I have to then wait for the pan to reheat again and this, together with the washing, makes the process a lot longer.
Here's what I tried so far:
I've tried removing any excess flour before frying, but some dough parts still got burned and got stuck.
I put baking paper on top of the frying pan. This worked, but the baking paper got burned after each flatbread and I had to replace it each time.
I also tried baking them in the oven. Although, it did work, the flavor and texture are different.
My final attempt was buying a stone-effect frying pan, hoping that the cleaning process would be almost zero. True, it is far easier to wash than my previous pan, but it still takes a lot.
Now, what I would like to know is if there are other ways cooking these flatbreads (without oil) what would make the process faster and more efficient.
Thanks in advance for the help!
What was your first frying pan surface? I see that "stone-effect" is some new hyped non-stick - never heard of it or seen one in person. A clean smooth PTFE non-stick pan would be my best bet on fry pans I know here, and perhaps lowering the heat a bit if parts are getting burnt. If your "stone effect" pan is smooth, thus, try lowering the heat a bit.
Although you are trying to avoid oil a very small amount of it would really help your process. A light brushing or spray of vegetable oil would produce much better results for a very small amount of calories.
It sounds like your dought might be just a little wet if it's sticking.
Nonstick for roti-like flatbreads is kind of pushing it... just too much heat ... using an old wrought-iron pan and accepting that you will occasionally have to brush ash out (can be done while hot with a grill brush. Don't use your best pan, the seasoning will suffer) might be better in the long run...
My family always made these Chinese flatbread-like pancakes and we cooked them on a cast-iron pan (although it was more like a frying surface or something, it was flat, round, had a handle, but no conceivable border) without using any oil. Now it is true that a little bit of the flour kept sticking to the pan, but we also had a little broom made of spliced bamboo (I think) with which we just swept the excess flour off. This of course is rather messy, but we only had to clean the stove after the cooking was done.
I think this worked so well because the dough was not too wet (but also not too dry) and we covered the surface of every flatbread with a little bit of flour, which helps in making it less sticky.
A wide enamelled dish on top of the stove might work nicely. I've got a le Creuset that I use for all sorts of things, but my excuse for buying it was flatbreads, which it does very nicely. They don't stick at all unless they're much too wet, and any split flour can just be dusted out between breads. As it's cast iron it also has a nice even heat, which reduces burning.
And the enamel doesn't go bad? Interesting. When I fry mekiza and other yeast dough "breads" on stovetop, I get the pan hot enough that the smoking oil triggers the fire alarm. I would expected these temperatures to damage enamel, how are you dealing with that?
@rumtscho one reason for choosing enamel was that it's a good surface for dry-frying this sort of thing. Oil would burn and be interesting to get off. The enamel itself is unaffected -- it's fired at a higher temperature than you could readily achieve in the kitchen. Le Creuset don't give a maximum temperature for the enamelled iron itself, but "Products with integral cast iron handles or stainless steel knobs can be used at any oven temperature" just after specifying a maximum of 250°C for the knobs in some other models.
I make flatbreads on a really hot cast iron griddle -- but I don't cook them all the way through if I'm cooking for multiple people. I cook them until they're charred enough to release, and then I move them to a moderate oven to finish cooking through. This might allow you to speed up your cooking and minimize burning.
If you do need to clean the pan between batches, I'd recommend finding a stiff-bristled brush that can handle high heat. I have one that has wooden bristles that's just labeled 'pot brush'. It allows me to quickly knock off any loose debris that doesn't require much scrubbing without needing to wet down the griddle. I've also been known to take a metal spatula to scrape down the surface if needed. (I've filed down the corners of my spatulas to reduce the chance of gouging the surface).
Another option would be to cook the flatbreads on a grill. (a real grill, just just a grill pan). Any loose flour would just fall into the flames below.
When you tried baking them, did you use a baking stone? How did you bake them, exactly (i.e. time and temperature used, did you preheat, etc.)?
I suspect using a baking stone with sufficient preheating ought to give you the texture you are looking for.
Have you tried putting them in the microwave to heat through and then just putting them either in a bread toaster or toaster oven for that crispness? Or placing the bread on aluminium foil to protect the pan or in a toaster oven?
There's now 'release' aluminum foil, which might work well for this application. I wouldn't advise the microwave for cooking bread, though.
A change in technique might help, at least to keep the dough from sticking. As for random dustings of burnt flour, they can probably be brushed out dry or just left till the cooking's over - even burnt it isn't harmful. Disclaimer, I'm more familiar with chapatis or tortillas, so there might be some other differences with your specific flatbread and its dough, but the basic technique is pretty helpful.
I've found, when making chapatis or tortillas, it helps if the surface is quite dry (like dusted with flour, and brushed off). It helps a lot to hold one side of the dough, and sort of slowly sweep the other half over the hot pan, then do the other half (of the same side) before settling the dough on the pan, that side down, spend a second or so moving it around in the pan, skittering it with my fingers, to make sure it won't stick before leaving it to cook.
What exactly these few seconds do I'm not quite sure, perhaps warm or dry the surface a bit better or form the lightest crust, but it does seem to keep the dough resting lightly on the surface... and if it doesn't stick in the first few seconds, it isn't likely to stick at all.
As I said, if any flour dusts off it can be swept off with a brush, paper towel, etc, or else it can just be left till you're done and cleaned then. It won't encourage sticking, well not any more than the pan's actual surface will, if it won't come off brushing it isn't likely to come off on your flatbread, and it isn't harmful in such small amounts.
Ah, I knew I'd written this out somewhere before - a longer description of the same technique can be found here if that's useful to you.
We made Dutch boys this weekend. It's a sort of baked pancake (quick bread) that includes no oil in the recipe, but it does rely on a heavily buttered cast iron pan, so not sure this is the answer you were looking for, but thought I would offer it.
Search for Dutch baby pancakes on the Google.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.426735 | 2016-02-28T18:55:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66941",
"authors": [
"Andy Leigh",
"Chris H",
"Deanne Metheney",
"Don Prentiss IV",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Glen Fox",
"Joe",
"John Deprez",
"Kate Spencer",
"Kevin Howell",
"Laurie Deatherage",
"Megha",
"Mike Johnson",
"Robert Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66971 | How to make plain white rice less boring?
I'm a college student. I'm poor. Rice is cheap. Therefore, I eat a lot of plain white rice (medium grain).
I was wondering if there are any specifically tasty seasonings I could pick up that would make plain white rice a lot less boring.
Can anyone offer suggestions? I'm currently using Chef Paul Prudhomme's Magic brand seasonings, and they're great, but I would like to make my own seasoning. Is there anything else in particular that tastes great on white rice (preferably something I could make myself from simple ingredients)?
Nothing goes better with rice than beans. Canned beans are very inexpensive, and come in many varieties. They add a lot of flavor, and more importantly, boost the nutrition of your meal significantly, with protein, fiber, and other important nutrients. Ideally, sauté up some onions, peppers, or what-have-you; and toss in a drained, rinsed, can of beans — serve on top of your rice. However, a simple can of drained and rinsed beans will improve plain white rice a manifold. Beyond that: salt, pepper, garlic; a dash of cumin or a soupçon of curry. Experiment with other spices that interest you.
Olive oil, shallots &/or onions &/or garlic, fry a bit, pour in some wine, cover tightly, cook low, call it pilaf. You can add eggs on top in the last 10 minutes or so, add beans, add peas...and try barley instead of rice sometimes.
Have you considered eating more flavorful brown rice instead of white?
I'm pretty sure this was asked before (although that one was closed, too). Almost any herb blend works well with rice -- italian seasoning, za'atar blend, etc. You can also throw in some bullion (chicken, beef, etc.) to make it more interesting. Anyway, another question that may be of interest : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11075/67
Japanese people tend to eat their rice with furikake and/or tsukemono. Another common way is to combine with green tea along with the above mentioned flavorings to make chazuke. I would post links but I'm not too familiar with the UI on the mobile app. However you should be able to find Wikipedia entries for all the words.
Instead of simmering in plain water, try using store bought stock. (Chicken, beef, or vegetable. I have even used tomato juice, full strength or mixed with some water, or any liquid that you like. A little (or big) dash of low sodium soy sauce doesn't hurt!
Dehydrated soup broths work well, as does a bit of ground meat or just a few veggies like fried onions or bean sprouts, which are inexpensive. Tomato is also a surprising match for rice, with or without other ingredients or seasonings. Using some mixed veggies, whisked egg and a few dashes of soya sauce make for a great fried rice. Go crazy, experiment. You'll be amazed how many combinations you can find that work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.427323 | 2016-02-29T18:37:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66971",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"ElmerCat",
"Era",
"Hutchette",
"Jessica Coates",
"Joe",
"Marilyn Chaney",
"Shalryn",
"Steve Broyles",
"Theresa Villanueva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user132278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67092 | Questions on frying Chicken breasts
Is the oil temperature limited to 350 or 375.
How do I Dry Brine chicken?
Is there a rule of thumb for how much seasoning is used?
Do I use more seasoning in the marinade than in the flour mixture?
Welcome to SA! Please use one question for each actual question you have. We can't answer so many questions at the same time. It will also help if you can flesh out each question more to explain what you've tried or why you're asking the question in the first place.
I think you might just have two questions here: (1) what oil temperature do you need and (2) how do you dry brine (including rough reasonable seasoning ratios).
Brining chicken doesn't take more than an hour.Just make sure it is well dried before frying. I use 1 pint of water with 1/8 cup of salt and the breast (which can be very dry when just fried) comes out juicy, Hope this helps.
Seasoning should be coated with seasoning but be careful of the salt. Brining adds some water to the breast but also some salt.
Using water and salt doesn't sound like "dry brining".
And why would you coat seasoning with seasoning?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.427562 | 2016-03-04T21:20:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67092",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Gissel Yanez",
"Gregg Cashmore",
"Michelle",
"Stephie",
"Walter Zubire",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
} |
67096 | How long can you keep yeasted waffle batter (including eggs/buttermilk) in the refrigerator?
How long can you keep yeasted waffle batter (including eggs/buttermilk) in the refrigerator?
First thought... "until it grows out of the bowl"... but that's a joke. I've never used yeast-based waffle batter, only chemically leavened stuff... which has a similar question here, which I'm linking for reference purposes.
Are you asking out of concerns for food safety reasons or the viability of the batter to successfully turn into a pancake when cooked?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.427690 | 2016-03-05T00:15:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67096",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Leslie Slaughter",
"Samantha Heiderscheit",
"William",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160956",
"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
} |
67118 | Would raw soy sauce marinated chicken be more salty when cooked the next day?
If I had unused soy sauce marinated chicken, would it be more salty when cooked the next day?
If you leave it marinating overnight, definitely, as it will absorb more soy sauce. Otherwise, probably only a small amount saltier, if at all as nothing has been added.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.427766 | 2016-03-05T21:07:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67118",
"authors": [
"Damir Armstrong",
"Keziah",
"Shane Doherty",
"Siobhan Lankford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77111 | Does multi-cooker actually bake?
I am confused about how multi-cooker actually works. Frying meat on a skillet is one thing. Baking it in the oven is another. Advertisement says a multi-cooker can both bake and fry. How is that possible? If it bakes does it mean it can replace oven at all? Can I actually bake meat in the multi-cooker as I would in the oven? Or can fry it like I would on a skillet? How can this single device do two things differently?
I have seen many devices which pride themselves of being a "multi-cooker", what is the one you had in mind?
http://redmond.company/us/lp_what_is_multicooker/
Stuff that Redmond sells for instance. Now that it's that specific it looks like an advertisement. They say it litteraly replaces a whole oven.
They all look the same, just a heater with a bowl in there and some led-display.
Advertising frequently lies...
@Ecnerwal, This is not a very useful comment, to put it bluntly.
It doesn't necessarily do any of those things well, but yes, it does (more or less) all of the things it suggests.
Basically all cooking is the application of heat, in different ways, to food. So a multicooker like you mention is something that's capable of producing heat at different levels and different timings.
Baking differs from frying/sauteing/etc. in that some of the heat is not applied through conduction. Some of it is - the pan typically gets hot and directly heats the food where it is in contact - but some of it is either radiation or convection cooking. This probably won't do much for convection, but because it's an enclosed container, it will heat the non-contact parts through radiation if it's constructed properly (i.e., it is properly insulated, and has metal walls that will radiate heat back towards the food rather than plastic that will absorb the heat).
You'll notice it doesn't claim to roast foods (as opposed to some other multicookers); some do, and those have a heating element in the top. A pressure-cooker style multicooker can't have this (easily, anyway) and so doesn't claim any application that requires direct heat - only conduction or radiation.
Frying is cooking in oil (the oil version of boiling). Anything that can produce heat in a pan can fry (and to be good at frying, it just has to be good at maintaining a specific temperature).
Most of the features it claims are related to an ability to precisely control temperature. Yogurt making and sous-vide cooking require specific temperature control, but beyond that most of the features are just things you could do in any pressure cooker or slow cooker managed in the proper way.
The one feature it claims that I'm most dubious about is 'microwave'; it seems unlikely to me that it uses microwaves (it's too small really, for one), so probably it's claiming it can replace your microwave because it can reheat your food (the main reason many people use microwaves). There are microwave/oven combos (If you're in the US, your local Subway restaurant uses one, for example, probably made by Amana), but they're much bigger.
Either way, I don't think this is something that can 'replace' an oven or similar, because an oven is going to be much better at even heating over a period of time, and an oven is much larger (you're not roasting a turkey in here). It probably doesn't get very hot, either, compared to a good oven. The main point of multicookers is that they can do several things in the same device - so for example you can sautee your veggies and then cook a soup directly in them without involving anything else; and they do several things that you might need different devices for (saving kitchen space). They don't do them as well, but if you're in a tiny 40 sq meter apartment, perhaps that's fine.
If I understand correctly what baking is then what you describe is not baking but just grill roasting. Grill uses radiation with its electrical heat source either at the top or on the side. Typical oven has its flames beneath the food thus heating it with ascending hot air by convection. Why would someone confuse between these two different methods of cooking?
Baking is done in pans; you don't have to get food off of the pan to make it baking.
@Cascabel Yes, I didn't explain that quite right. Trying to explain the difference between baking and cooking only with conduction. Will reformulate.
@German Convection can be used in baking but not necessarily. The point of a rack would indeed be to do something like you describe - get some convection also around the food - and you're right that I really mean roasting the way I explain. Will reword.
Reworded that section significantly, thanks for pointing that out.
I am able to bake cookies, bars and even bread in the Ilo multicooker.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.427844 | 2017-01-04T16:59:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77111",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gherman",
"Joe M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67254 | Sous vide - add liquid or no in the bag?
I'm the proud owner of a new-fangled sous vide instrument. So far, I've seen mixed statements about adding extra liquid (brine or some other concoction of my choosing) to the bag. When grilling, I'm a dry rub man. But I wanted to try a marinade and thought my sous vide adventures would be a good place to start.
Is this a bad idea? Are there any recommendations, like avoiding overly acidic due to bag leeching?
How are you sealing your bags? If you use a vacuum sealer, they often don't work with liquid unless you freeze it first.
@Catija
Well, I haven't started yet. I was planning on using the seal-in-the-water method since I'm running out of counter and cupboard space for things. I didn't really want to have to buy a vacuum sealer if I didn't have to.
The seal-in-water method works really well. Just make sure you use freezer bags, not the cheap thinner bags. The thinner ones tend to leak. My personal preference is to add nothing but meat to the bag. Then I season it with a bit of salt and pepper when it's done cooking. (Adding salt before cooking can cause the meat to turn a weird greenish color, but it still tastes good.)
Salty marinades work best, both for altering the flavor profile of the protein and for adding liquid to the cut.
Since sous vide is a technique that works in a vacuum-sealed bag, liquid doesn't evaporate from the cut during the cooking process.
I would say do this:
1. Brinerade the cut for a short period of time (depends on the size of the cut)
2. Dry the meat really well.
3. Sous vide the crap out of that tasty cut!
4. Re-dry the meat, if necessary!
5. Sear the cut (browning adds flavor) in a rippin' hot pan to form a crust.
6. Enjoy!
Generally speaking meat that is cooked sous vide does not have marinating liquid in the bag, though a small amount of fat (oil or butter, for example), might be added to help with air displacement. A lot depends on what you want to achieve and the specific cut or protein you are cooking. There are several ways you can go, but dry-rub or marinate...pat dry or wipe off...quick sear...bag...cook...final grill or final sear...is often a good practice. A vacuum sealer is nice to have for extra long cooks, when you get into the multiple day range, but is not really necessary for most applications. There are many online resources you can check for guidance.
There is only one reason to add liquid into a bag, and that is to displace air.
In short, liquid conducts heat much better than air. Think insulated windows, two layers of glass with one layer of air between to prevent heat transfer. The increased heat conduction is essential if not using a vacuum sealer, as extra liquid can displace packets of air.
However, if you'd like to avoid adding extra liquid to meat in a sous vide cooker, that is fine, as I am sure meat juice will leak out and fill up those cavities.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.428227 | 2016-03-09T01:41:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67254",
"authors": [
"Angie Hansen",
"Catija",
"Dallas Strong",
"Duncan Bray",
"Glenda Culyer",
"Janice King",
"Loretta Hill",
"Tracy Wrench",
"Yvonne Torn-Broers",
"h4ckNinja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44074",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67403 | Chili pepper size vs heat
Does the size of the pepper have any affect on how hot/spicy the pepper will be?
ex. Is a smaller ghost pepper less hot than a ghost pepper twice its size?
Are we talking about total capsaicin per pepper, or scoville ratings (which is normalized by weight, so indirectly by size)?
It sounds like you mean size within the same variety. I grow apache (a common not-very-hot variety). Fruit sizes can easily vary by a factor of 3 on the same plant. Whether the heat in this case is similar per fruit or per unit volume would take an experiment as there are other variables: big chillies from the middle of the season grow and ripen quickly. They seem mild compared to stressed chillies from late in the season.
@ChrisH That sounds like a good answer to me. I have heard the same thing... peppers that are larger from the same plant will likely have more water so the spice/volume ratio is lower.
@Catija my comment is a bit unscientific for me to put it as an answer (IMO).
As an overly broad generalization, yes, smaller peppers tend to be more spicy.
To answer in more detail, the heat in peppers comes from a molecule called capsaicin. The concentration of capsaicin is what determines how spicy peppers are relative to each other.
Incidentally, this is also how spiciness can be measured. The Scoville Scale is a measure of how many times you need to dilute the pepper's capsaicin before it is no longer detectable by taste. While this is subjective, it's a decent point for comparison between different varieties.
Larger peppers like bell peppers or banana peppers are low on the Scoville Scale (0 & up to 500 Scoville Heat Units respectively), while smaller peppers like Serranos (up to 25,000 SHU) and Habaneros (up to 350,000 SHU) are usually much hotter. Thus you have a trend with smaller peppers being hotter.
NB: Scoville units per pepper listed as 'up to xx', as there can be huge variations dependent on things like soil composition and climate. This is why you can get some Jalapenos that aren't terribly spicy, but then get others that are (relatively) really hot. SHU listings from Wikipedia.
I think the question is... if you have two peppers of the same variety, will the smaller of the two likely be hotter. Not comparing between two different varieties.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.428489 | 2016-03-14T01:32:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67403",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Pakk 4tymes",
"W. Barber",
"carol patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user161719"
],
"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.