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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
57560 | Sanitization, disinfection, sterilization of Dishwasher?
How to do more then just clean of dishwasher ? I mean: how to sanitize or even disinfect or sterilize ?
"Many people are misinformed about the difference between clean, sanitized, disinfected, and sterilized." - quote from ANFP
In place I currently rent there is Electrolux GA55LV220 Dishwasher and I am completely puzzled which methods are both: safe for dishwasher (it's not mine, rented...) and will clean bacteria&friends safely to our health after previous unknown users.
I allowed myselfe to post here, as maintenance category of this site feels like good fit, because regular sanitization of dishwasher (e.g. every 1-3 months) is recommended in couple of places like good idea.
So far reseach:
For example, I see in this and other articles, advice to use chlorine bleach, because of it's disinfection properties. However there is always warining to "not use it for dishwasher with a stainless steel interior" as it will erode metal. I tried to find if that applies to Electrolux GA55LV220, but the only note I found in user's manual on page 58, is "There can be water on the sides and on the door of the appliance. Stainless steel becomes cool more quickly then the dishes", so I am not sure if they meant it's stainless steel (IMHO it should be verbatim on other pages, like technical specs) of if they copied this part from other manuals.
Also we've bought "Javel Wasser Plus" substance for desinfection with following description of ingredients: "Inhaltsstoffe: unter 5% Bleichmittel auf Chlorbasis (Natriumhypochlorit)
"(according to Google Translate : Ingredients: less than 5% chlorine-based bleach (sodium hypochlorite)". So it looks to me like recommended in previously mentioned articles, but still I am not sure if it will not erode dishwasher and if there are other good alternatives.
I have never heard of bleach harming stainless steel in any way. However, you may want to clean it with bleach and then run the cycle with nothing or with white vinegar afterward to rinse the bleach off. I would not run the dry cycle after either of these cycles, of course.
Thank you @Anne for answer. I've found during search that there.are.different kinds of bleaches and best for sanitization seems to be chlorine one while also with potential of letting steel to erode. I believe you've meant your knowledge/experience about chlorine bleach. Let me double chceck - maybe other respondents can confirm or deny concerns.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.102992 | 2015-05-17T07:51:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57560",
"authors": [
"Chidinma Duru",
"Christine Hearn",
"Dominique Beech",
"Grzegorz Wierzowiecki",
"Kincaid LESNOWICZ",
"Maureen Howell",
"Tom Hook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9970",
"natalie kemp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42247 | How long can century eggs last refrigerated and unrefrigerated?
How long can century eggs last for refrigerated and unrefrigerated? I have some slightly cracked eggs from a friend who has stored it for months in his refrigerator.
A few comments from this blog have suggested people have eaten unrefrigerated century eggs stored in a pantry for half a year with no ill effects.
Edit: It tasted great.
100 years? :-) ...
As if the picture of the century egg wasn't strange enough, keep reading. Virgin-boy urine egg?
Actually guys, I went ahead and ate them anyway; they tasted great.
@BlessedGeek If you want to talk about whether you like century eggs, try [chat]. Comments aren't really meant for debating whether the OP's taste in food is good, and there's no place on the site that's meant for being rude to people.
Century eggs are a preserved food. Unopened, they can last for a very long time, possibly years, without refrigeration. They are sold at my "local" Asian supermarket in the dry stock aisles. Once opened you can keep them in the refrigerator for a few days. Or make chok or congee and have the left overs for breakfast.
Was the limestone and hay wrapper cracked or the egg shells?
Century eggs are really only a few weeks-months old, actually. Though they do keep for long periods at room temperature. They're also damn tasty and have a lot of ammonia i.e. Very high PH (basic) so unlikely to spoil.
According to a risk assessment conducted by the government of Australia — Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) — advises that the shelf life of pidan (under the modernized processing methodologies for shelf stable production at ambient temperatures) should be about one year from production date stored at ambient conditions per labeling instructions and intact (they cite "USDA, 2006" as their reference).
In an informal context, I have personally been told by relatives (I am an ABC, of Taiwanese descent) that the shelf life is roughly as reported when stored in dry, ambient conditions, and that it can be extended "indefinitely" when refrigerated (with packaging intact).
Additional Reading
Effect of different alkali treatments
on the chemical composition, physical properties,
and microstructure of pidan white (backup)
My friend in Taiwan says they will keep refrigerated for up to 5 months - possibly longer but why risk it?
Hello new user. Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Because we value expert advice on this website, we tend to dismiss hearsay rather quickly. Simply living in Taiwan isn't enough. If your friend has some credentials that validate this claim, we could consider it a good source of information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.103229 | 2014-02-22T08:23:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42247",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Edmar",
"Heather Heath",
"Home choice enterprises ltd",
"Jason",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lis",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SHIBA889 spam",
"Steve Harrison",
"Violet",
"bsplosion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98702"
],
"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
} |
40042 | Is continuously simmering or refrigerating cooked soup a more effective way to prevent spoilage?
I've cooked a large pot of soup for myself. I know it'll take me at least 3+ days to drink it, and I don't like to drink it after 4 days because it sometimes smells funny.
I was wondering which would be a more effective way of preserving the soup: continuously simmering it over a few days or refrigerating it?
I would think that continually simmering it for 3 days would require you to add more water so it doesn't get too thick - and in the worst case, burn and stick to the pot. Not to mention it will also require more energy to run the stove in addition to your fridge which is already on (and which is is more efficient when it has more stuff inside). Why not put half in the fridge and half in the freezer, so you can save it frozen for weeks/months?
So smart. I ended up letting it boil too long and it got stuck to the pot and thicky.
For bacterial spoilage, keeping the soup hot would be more effective. As for "preserving" the soup, refrigeration will be drastically more effective.
The high temperatures of simmering would keep the bacterial level pretty much nil, but the constant heat will ruin your soup on it's own. Anything in the soup will become mush, flavors will become over-concentrated, and some flavors can drastically change from prolonged exposure to such heat.
Prompt chilling and cold storage after cooking will greatly slow down the rate at which bacteria can repopulate the soup, and will also keep everything else in the soup about the way it was when the soup was at it's prime. To really keep textures nice, I'd recommend pulling off the soup that will be stored while vegetables & meat are still a little firmer than you'd like so that they'll finish when you reheat.
After letting it oversimmer for 3 hours, I pretty much had no soup and it tasted strangely strong and almost even bitter. Maybe it was because it was burnt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.103719 | 2013-12-07T03:49:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40042",
"authors": [
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Jason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56629 | Is there a drink that's analogous to coffee but made with cocoa beans?
Is there a drink out there that is made identically to coffee except with cocoa beans?
I would be interested in finding either a drink with the exact roasting process or a drink brewed with ground cocoa beans. I've heard of something called "choffee" - how does that fit in?
I've tried to write an answer, but honestly it's a bit difficult because I'm not really sure exactly what you're trying to find out. You might consider posting questions explicitly asking about how cacao beans or coffee beans are processed if you want to know more about that.
Choffee (choffy) is exactly what you're asking about. It's brewed the same as coffee but it roasts and grinds the cacao bean. I've bought it from a company called Crio Bru. I find it a little bitter on its own, but with a little sweetened creamer (I use hazelnut) it tastes really good. It doesn't have the thickness that hot or drinking chocolate has. It's thinner like coffee, but definitely more bitter than hot chocolate.
What you're asking for is closer to the original Mayan use of the cocoa beans, although they'd mix in other spices (chilies & cinnamon) and sometimes a thickener (cornmeal), and then serve it cold. I think it was cold brewed, but most accounts don't specifically mention that part of it. (they do say it was frothed before serving, either by pouring back and forth between two pitchers, or with a molinillo.
You certainly could brew a drink from pure cocoa powder. It'll be pretty bitter, though; if you don't like unsweetened chocolate you might not like it much, though. So you'll most likely end up adding dairy and sugar, and ending up with hot cocoa.
It won't ever be exactly the same process though. In both cases there's a lot of processing of the beans, and the details differ. But most importantly, while with coffee you can buy and use whole beans, you wouldn't do that with cacao. Cacao beans contain a large amount of fat, so if you want cocoa powder, part of the processing is separating out cocoa solids (which can become cocoa powder) and cocoa butter. If you don't separate them, you end up with a thick paste called chocolate liquor. So you're never going to see whole roasted cacao beans.
But if you're willing to set aside all those differences, I suppose hot cocoa is analogous to coffee, if that means anything.
yea if that "beans" anything.
Koko Samoa is a chocolate drink popular in the Pacific. It seems to involve just simmering ground cocoa beans in water and later adding sugar. Most of the online information is people trying to sell it to you - in Samoa people just buy it at roadside stands or make it for themselves. I did manage to find one article that might be interesting for you.
If I had known before visiting Samoa that this existed, I would have been sure to try some, and then I could report to you what it is like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.103886 | 2015-04-12T21:34:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56629",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Cheryl Holmes",
"Dan Durand",
"Danny Rice",
"Joe",
"John Brooks",
"Kim",
"Mark Mcghee",
"Marva Turner",
"Robert Holz",
"Tom Gullo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"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
} |
9763 | What juicer is best for leafy greens and vegetables (like carrots)?
There are many juicers out there and not any one juicer is best at juicing everything. I am specifically interested in juicing leafy greens and vegetables like carrots.
Hydraulic press juices such as the Norwalk first grind the produce into a pulp, then press the juice out of the pulp. The theory is that malic acid in green apple pulp can release more vitamins and minerals from the other vegetables and fruit. The hydraulic press action squeezes more juice out than other types of juicers. But you're looking at $2500 for a Norwalk.
Macerating juicers would be next, up around the $400+ mark. Gear crushing action, leafy vegetables no problem. Not as much juice extraction as the hydraulic press machines.
Then would come auger style juicers, they easily handle leafy vegetables and wheatgrass, but give a little less juice than the macerating juicers.
Finally the cheapest powered juicers, the centrifugal juicers. I've had trouble using them for leafy greens as there are not solid enough to be forced chopping blades. Usually more solid vegetables are required to follow them to force them through.
Here's a paragraph from the popular Breville centrifugal juicer seen in the movie Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead:
"If you are juicing herbs, sprouts or leafy green
vegetables either wrap then together to form a
bundle or juice them in the middle of a combination
of ingredients to obtain the best extraction.
If juicing herbs or leafy green vegetables on their own, the juice
yield will be low due to the nature of centrifugal juicing, it is
advised to juice them as with a combination of other fruit and
vegetables"
Carrots are fine in all the juicers.
Champion-type macerating juicers work great on carrots; the teeth take them right apart, getting out all the juice and leaving behind a dry pulp. I've seen mixed reports on how well they work on leafy greens.
Quick correction, you will find these more commonly under the name "masticating juicer" (masticate == to chew), not "macerating juicer". They are named this because they "chew" the items with gears or a corkscrew to expel juice. Mascerate means to soften and break down something by soaking it in liquid.
I recommend masticating juicers for juicing such vegetables because of their slow juicing system they will extract most of the juice without loss of quality.
Please have a look at this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion You're welcome to link to sites to help answer questions, but you need to focus on answering the question first and you need to disclose any affiliation you may have.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.104140 | 2010-12-04T01:22:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9763",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"Cascabel",
"Tricia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53187",
"kitty",
"lasoon",
"michelle",
"user20127",
"user64742"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12138 | Kitchen aid pasta roller getting oil on my pasta
I have to avoid letting the pasta get wide enough to touch one of the sides of the roller because if it does, the grease inside gets on the edge of the pasta. The other side doesn't do it at all. I've tried feeding pasta through a bunch to see if it could just pick it all up and eventually stop, but it doesn't. I started to take it apart but I wasn't able to remove the dial, and without that I can't get the plate off on that side.
It would be nice to be able to roll out the pasta to the point where the edge makes it all square. No big deal I guess, but it does make it tough to deal with anything but minimal amounts of dough at a time.
Any ideas for getting it to stop?
My hand-cranked pasta roller came with instructions to make a throw-away batch the first time to "clean" the machine and get rid of the excess oil. It worked as expected and I don't get oily dough. Since trying that hasn't worked for you, I'd say there's something wrong with the machine.
I've almost never seen a pasta roller that doesn't do this at least a little. My 30-year-old hand-cranked one does it, same as my Kitchen Aid. I have always figured it was a side-effect of the plain bearings (essentially one piece of lubricated metal rubbing flat against another), which eventually blackens any oil intended to lubricate them.
I've been left trying to avoid the pasta reaching the edge as this is when it happens (as you've seen). When it does get discolored, my solution has always been to just trim off or discard the edge wherever it gets the black stuff on it.
I don't think you should be using the edge of the pasta roller to square up your dough in any case. If you want to make it more square, run the dough ball through, then fold the resulting sheet in thirds or whatever will make it narrow enough to feed through perpendicular to your first feeding and then run it through again. If you fold it carefully and feed it squarely, your edges will be quite square to each other. I think there may even be an illustration of this in the instructions for the Kitchen Aid pasta roller. It takes practice but it works well.
It shouldn't be doing that. I think you should call KitchenAid and ask for a repair/replacement.
My KitchenAid pasta roller definitely doesn't do this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.104484 | 2011-02-14T18:22:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12138",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"BeachGirl",
"Ellipsis",
"erraid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"justkt",
"mylifeisalie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12368 | Is it safe to keep dried out egg noodles?
I've read a few sites explaining how to dry your noodles, and I know the store bought ones are not made with eggs. I tried experimenting with no-egg noodles though and they just came out too gummy. I've not seen any site explicitly saying it's ok to dry egg noodles. Raw egg is kind of a scary thing; I know they do end up cooked eventually, but in the meantime can they get all nasty so they make you sick and/or taste like ash?
My italian grandma does it, but says to really make sure they dry out.
You can dry them out and then freeze them, if it makes you feel any less hesitant.
I have to say. Yes, it's safe as both Chinese and Italian have been doing that for many years.
The only thing I would say is How are you going to dry your noodles? Usually drying noodles require some device(s) or natural sunlight.
In my opinion, I will make sure the noodles are still fresh and I will dry noodles under the sun. I may leave it under the sun for a longer time which I will make sure all of the moisture in the noodles go away, otherwise, it can go off easily.
GOOD LUCK
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.104689 | 2011-02-19T03:33:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12368",
"authors": [
"Axcor",
"Ma Ming",
"Rick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25469"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12447 | Baker percentages, weights, volumes, and such
So a basic bread recipe might look like (off top of head, not sure if these amounts make any sense)
100 Bread Flour
30 Water
1 oil
....
I know the flour is in weight ounces, but often times in side-by-side recipes I see the water converted into fluid ounces (8 ounces of water equaling 1c). I know sometimes it just so happens that they're the same, but with water that is not so. 1 fl oz water ~= 1.05 av oz water. Close, but off by near 1/2 oz by the time you add 8 of them.
So which do bakers use with fluids? Do they use av or fl? Should I expect to be able to weigh my fluids along with everything else or do I need to convert to fl?
If specific units are not given (i.e. you just have a ratio), then you should always go by weight, not volume.
Everything that happens in baking, every chemical reaction, is based on the actual number of molecules of a particular ingredient, which corresponds to its weight. Volume is simply a rough approximation used in many home cooking/baking recipes.
Note that if using metric measurements (g or mL) then the weight vs. volume measurements actually are the same for water. So consider using metric for baking, if you can, because that way the conversions are much easier and you can measure out your liquids in a measuring cup without having to do any conversion math.
+1 for mentioning the obvious of the metric system, maybe one day the fine inhabitants of the USA can see this. Mixing the two is bad form as NASA well knows. Remember water is gm = ml at sea level, at high altitude it's lighter per volume and it boils faster :-)
@TFD Hardly anyone lives at sea level. Metric not much help there.
@CrazyEddie: My answer wasn't actually meant to be a knock against the imperial system (I've got plenty of recipes using ounces, cups, etc.) but merely some practical advice; although TFD is essentially correct about the sea level thing, it's realy more the boiling point you need to worry about. The actual density of water does change, but the changes are so subtle that you can essentially ignore them. If you're cooking at very high altitude then you've got more important things to worry about, like the effects of leavening agents and moisture loss.
@CrazyEddie, @Aaronut It was a joke, hence the smiley thing :-)
Thanks for clarifying, @TFD - I did get that, and my response was for his benefit because I think he read a little too far into the sea level comment.
Baker's ratios are (a) always given by weight (b) relative to the total amount of flour (which is 100). An example is a “standard” 60-2-2 French loaf: 100% flour (implied), 60% water, 2% salt, 2% (fresh) yeast. To make a 1 lb french loaf, you'd use 1lb / 1.64 = 9¾ oz flour, 9¾ oz × 0.6 = 5⅞ oz water, and slightly less than 9¾ oz × 0.02 = ¼ oz each salt and fresh yeast. Doing the math in Metric is obviously much easier (and how I personally do it).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.104815 | 2011-02-21T20:24:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12447",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caffeinated",
"Edward Strange",
"Sustenance Couture",
"TFD",
"ccuesta",
"haddosm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"katzenversteher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12611 | Devising a first-scratch bread recipe
I have some cracked wheat, some bran flakes, wheat germ, bread flour, and whole wheat flour (among other various things). How could I, using those ingredients and whatever basic principles (what I'm looking for here) apply, invent a new recipe that at least worked reasonably well? What are the principles I could use?
How do I decide how much of the non-flour type grains to add so that the bread both tastes decent (I know first attempts are not going to be perfect) and doesn't collapse or explode?
How do I know approximately how much water I'll need to add short of slowly adding until it feels right, or is that the only way?
If there is no water estimator, how do I soak the cracked wheat without going past the moisture point of the whole bread?
In other words, what are the things I need to know in order to be able to throw together things I have available that seem like they might make a good bread?
I think that first you need to decide on the type of bread you want to achieve, which basically means deciding which leavening agent and which baking method to use.
Leavening.
Common leavening agents are yeast, sourdough, baking powder/baking soda, unleavened bread, and eggs. For creating a new recipe, you should pick a method you are very familiar with. Eggs and unleavened are more likely to fail if the proportions are not optimal, so I'd say you shouldn't create a recipe with them from scratch, it is much safer to alter an existing known-good recipe. Also, experiments with nonsweetened dough using baking soda have taught me that while it is no problem to achieve a good leavening, the taste is often bland and dry. So I'd say to go classic with yeast or sourdough. As I don't have much experience with sourdough, I will describe the yeast case here. If you are a sourdough expert, you'll probably be able to duplicate my reasoning for sourdough.
Baking. As for baking methods, the oven is the traditional one, and a bread-baking machine should be equivalent. There are types of bread made on a stovetop (with or without fat) and also some which require open fire, but oven is the classic one and probably the easiest to work with.
Non-flour grains. Now we have decided on yeast and oven/machine, we want to determine the proportions. The most important variable should be, as you mentioned, the moisture content. I think that the easiest way to ensure that the non-flour solids (cracked wheat, bran) don't soak up too much moisture is to precook them. Then you can also time the baking after the doneness of the crumb and the crust, without worrying if the bran etc. are already done. So just boil them separately (or together if you are sure that their cooking time is similar), until they are al dente (completely done is probably too much, as they will be spending time in the oven). While still hot, put them through a sieve and then spread them on something (e. g. baking sheet) so they can lose the excess moisture while cooling down. This is only for dry grain products; if you decide to use something else too (e.g. sunflower seeds), it doesn't need the precooking.
Water. Now your additional ingredients are rendered more or less moisture inert, you can determine the ratio of water to flour. All bread yeast recipes (and lots of other yeast dough recipes) I've come across require you to add between 35% and 65% of the flour's weight in water (35% for some hard rustic breads, but very uncommon, and 65% for soft airy breads like baguette). (Edit as derobert pointed out, this range is somewhat low, you can have bread which uses much more water than that, though probably not kneaded, and the 35% dough will require additional sources of moisture. So trying to create a recipe from scratch on the lower end of the range would be quite risky). As the additional ingredients still present some risk regarding moisture (and I cannot tell you if they tend to lose the already soaked moisture or start getting more from the dough), you should steer well away from both extremes and stay in the middle, at somewhere like 50-55%. As the whole wheat flour will need slightly less water than the white flour, I'd say go with 50% (and also because of the fat - see below). So if you use 500g flour, add 250ml water. And yes, you have to work with flour by weight. Flour by volume is way too risky for a new recipe, especially if you are mixing two different types.
Fat. A good way to reduce the risk of getting bread which is too dry is to add fat to the dough. For bread, it is more typical to use a fat which is liquid at room temperature, but for some richer breads, butter is also used. For your whole-grain kind of bread, I'd tend to use either a neutral or a nut-tasting oil (canola, refined safflower, walnut, pumpkin seed, maybe even hazelnut if you want to go exotic). But too much fat would be a problem, not only because it hampers yeast leavening, but also because the whole grain stuff cannot soak it up as well as white flour. So a tablespoonful of fat per 500g flour should be enough.
I wouldn't use any liquids other than water and oil the first time, it makes things more complicated. If you make it and notice that you have some leeway in moisture, you can experiment with other stuff.
Yeast. Now about the yeast. Normal bread calls for between 10 and 25g fresh yeast per 500g flour. More yeast results in more leavening, with big air pockets in the crumb, but the bread dries more quickly afterwards. As your dough contains lots of inert mass beside four and liquid, my intuition go for about 20g yeast per 500g flour. (I am assuming here that your so-called "bread flour" is just a white flour and not some premade baking mix already containing a leavening agent. If it is premixed, it is best to leave it out completely and use normal white wheat flour instead. If you don't want to, you have to read the ingredients list very carefully, calculate the proportion of leavening agent, salt, and other stuff it contains, and change the ratios of the things you will be adding). Just remember to put it in a big enough pan for baking, because under perfect conditions, dough with this amount of yeast can increase its volume up to 2.5-3 times while baking. If it turns out well moistened but with too big air pockets in the crumb, either use less yeast, or add an emulgator (lecithine, egg yolk).
Don't forget to use some salt, it is very important for a yeast dough. Typical dosage is one teaspoonful per 500g flour.
Amount of "other" ingredients. As for the ratio of the atypical ingredients, I'd say that mixing too much of them up is too risky. There is bread made completely without flour, but not yeast bread. I think that it is best to add no more than 50% of the flour's weight in inert (=non-flour & non-liquid) ingredients, maybe even as low as 15-30% the first time and then increasing if the initial batches turn out well.
Preparing the dough. For the mixing, the traditional method is time-consuming, but the least risky. Make a predough from some water warmed to 35°C, a flush tablespoonful of sugar, a tablespoonful or two of flour, and the yeast. Mix your flours, the salt and any dried herbs you are using in a bowl, make a hollow in the middle. When the predough becomes foamy, pour some of it in the hollow and mix it with enough flour to make a thick fluid, like pancake batter. Then add some more predough, mix in some more flour, etc, until the predough is used up. Then pour the oil in, stir well, and continue stirring while grabbing some more flour, until it is too thick for stirring. Then start kneading. Continue until you have a dough of the consistency you wish. Then take it out of the flour bowl and knead the wheat, flakes, etc. into it, as well as any non-dry herbs.
This kneading method is much more work than dumping everything into a bowl and using a handheld mixer or the bread machine for quickly kneading it, but it ensures that if you miscalculated your amount of flour, you still end up with a good consistency. Once you have determined the actual amount needed for your recipe, you can start using the easier methods.
Let the kneaded dough rise in a warm place, then re-knead it and shape it into a loaf. Don't make the loaf too thick, 5 cm should be the maximum.
Crust. The only thing left to decide is how you want your crust. For a thick rustic crust, just bake it in the preheated oven. You can even spread flour on it first, then brush it off, leaving a very thin layer clinging to the dough. For a baguette type crust, you must have lots of steam in the oven while baking. Heat water in a wide pan to a rolling boil and put it on a lower rack in the oven while preheating. Leave there while the bread is baking. For a fancy crust, brush melted butter on the bread and shortly before it is done, take it out and brush egg yolk or whole egg on it. For a seed crust, put on the seeds before baking. Or if you like lye-baked goods, bring a strong baking soda solution to boil, and put your small loafs in it for about 30 seconds, then drain before baking. For a soft crust, wrap it in aluminum foil, trying to not leave any air pockets. But for your whole-grain bread, I'd go for the rustic crust or, if you use seeds inside, for the seed-covered (or cover with dry bran flakes if you don't use seeds).
That's about it when baking fairly standard bread. If you want to go fancy (you could add quinoa, ricotta and agave syrup and still get a good bread), you should better start from an existing recipe and try a single new ingredient per batch.
This is a bad ass answer. Thanks. Gave it a few hours before accepting to see if anyone else had anything to add. This is pretty thorough though. Hope you get a butt-load of points for it.
@Crazy Eddie I doubt that many people who don't want to make bread themselves will read enough of this long answer to judge whether it deserves an upvote. But thank you for the accept. I'd be glad to hear how your bread turned out when it's ready.
Your water ratios are a little off, 60% (by weight) is the traditional bread dough. I'd start with that (and learn what that feels like with straight bread flour). 35%, I dare say, would require kneading with a hammer. It's not at all weird to go above 65% for rustic breads; you can actually bake a ~100% poolish and it'll still be bread.
Oh, also, I should add that 'bread flour' is a US (and maybe elsewhere) term for flour with a fairly high gluten content (hard spring wheat). It often has some some additives (like malt) which you'd otherwise want to add yourself.
@derobert At 100%, I would consider it batter. But if you baked it and served it to me, I will probably call it bread, so obviously I have to extend my definition. I guess that the reason for my percentages being lowish is that the bread recipes I prefer often include oil and sometimes also egg yolk or even whole eggs, so the actual liquid content is higher, Another factor is that chunky whole bread flours need less liquid. So you definitely can knead a 35% water dough per hand with these recipes, and a dough above 60% water cannot hold a loaf form but needs to be poured into a pan.
@rumtscho: considering total hydration (including water in other ingredients), going a little above 60% can still be baked on a cookie sheet or baking stone e.g., ciabatta. Even 107% (highest poolish I've made) is not pourable (though definitely needs a container too shape it. Well, at least with high-gluten flour; cake or pastry flour would be a different story.
I've put cracked wheat (maybe it was bulgar wheat?) and wheat bran in bread once, and at actually came out very well, although everyone was scared to try it because it was so heavy for its size.
Unfortunately, I didn't save the recipe, and it was probably 20 years ago, but from what I can remember:
I based it off an existing similar bread recipe so I had something to use as a basis for the ratios; I believe it was a honey whole wheat soda bread.
I pre-cooked the wheat berries as if I were making a wheat cereal, but used half of the recommended water, and then let them cool.
I added a bit of wheat bran, but it wasn't a whole lot... maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 a cup for what was two maybe 9 to 10" boules.
I mixed in the wheat berries as if they were anything else stirred in, and didn't adjust the amount of liquid or flour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.105077 | 2011-02-26T20:44:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12611",
"authors": [
"Edward Strange",
"Satya Kalluri",
"Scott Nash",
"Srikanth Jeeva",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"ibennetch",
"rumtscho",
"schultz",
"whaizo sirius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27974 | Using a wooden spoon to prevent pots from boiling over?
Someone recently told me that placing a wooden spoon across the top of a pot will prevent boilovers.
Could somebody explain to me why this is the case?
I have never heard of this and it kind of sound like BS to me :) but I can think of one reason it might work (maybe not significantly). A well-used wooden spoon could have salts in it which would help break-up bubbles formed during boiling. Again, I can't imagine this being effective.
There is an excellent answer to this question on the Physics SE: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31029/how-can-a-wooden-spoon-be-used-to-prevent-water-from-over-boiling
I will summarise what I think is the most cogent part here.
This does work up to a point. The bubbles formed by boiling water are filled with steam, so if anything colder than the steam (ie <100°C) touches a bubble the steam will immediately condense and the bubble will collapse.
Therefore provided the surface of your spoon is cold, it will help to prevent boiling over. If it's a long boil and the spoon heats up to 100°C it will no longer work. This is why a wooden spoon is recommended: metal would heat up too quickly.
Could be the explanation is related to the chemist's trick of adding rough ceramic chips (boiling stones) to water to induce even boiling. The chips provide a high surface area and release absorbed air bubbles, which helps to nucleate the formation of bubbles of steam. A wooden spoon, being porous, might work the same way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.105955 | 2012-10-24T07:09:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27974",
"authors": [
"Beni Vradman",
"Deb Cooks",
"Jack Krug",
"MartyB",
"MissNerdy",
"Usagi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64325"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23229 | Does adding oil and fats affect bread crust development?
I had recently started baking bread and I have read up a lot on developing a great crust. Generally it involves steam in the oven at the beginning of the baking process, high even heat and etc.
I noticed something that I have not read about and was hoping someone can confirm it.
I noticed that when I added extra virgin olive oil, I developed a much nicer crust then when I made a much leaner bread that did not have any fats in it. Does the oil really affect how my crust develops, or do you think its a different factor that gave my bread a better crust. If it is the EVOO, why does it give my bread a better crust.
Oil definitely changes the crust, and whether or not it's "better" depends on what you're going for. Oil in the dough tends to give a softer and thicker crust, while a lean dough tends to give a crisper and thinner crust. Other dough ingredients that tenderize include milk and eggs, and there are plenty of web pages listing "dough enhancers" that give various effects. Again, it all depends on what type of crust and crumb you want.
The leaner dough yields pale soft crust while the bread with EVOO yielded browned crust. At least for my three experimental breads that I've baked. The first time I baked it without, and it was white and ugly. The second time I added oil and it came out brown and beautiful. And the third time I went for a really high hydration and no oil and it was pale crust again.
What temperature are you baking at? When the loaf is pale, is the crumb fully cooked?
I preheat the oven at 500F, with a steam pan. After preheating, I add 1 cup of water to steam pan and lower temp to 450. The crumb is fully cooked and perfect inside.
If you want the crust to be darker but everything else the same, try raising the temperature by 50F.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.106122 | 2012-04-20T19:24:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23229",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Matt Hinze",
"Wendy Mccuish",
"amcnabb",
"corvec",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9482",
"k959"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23515 | Why is butter incorporated into the dough last when making Brioche?
I made Brioche for the first time tonight using the Rich Man's Brioche recipe from Reinhart's Bread Baker's Apprentice.
The recipe basically leaves out the butter until the very end when the dough is fully mixed and hydrated. Only then does the recipe require the butter to be slowly added into the dough tablespoons at a time using a wooden spoon.
I am usually used to creaming the butter at the very beginning or using melted butter in the wet ingredients and then mixing it with the dry ingredients. Incorporating the butter into the dough at the end using a wooden spoon took quite a while and was a pretty good workout for my arms.
I took a look at other Brioche recipes on the internet and pretty much all of them add the butter into the dough at the very end.
So my question is why is the butter incorporated only after the dough is fully formed?
What would happen if I were to cream the butter with the sugar(small amount of it) and egg at the beginning before adding it to the sponge and dry ingredients?
The reason is that butter can inhibit gluten formation. It 'coats' the proteins that would form gluten. You knead the dough first to get gluten, and then add the butter afterward around the already formed gluten.
You can add it earlier, you just end up with less gluten and a more tender dough.
Creaming isn't usually done with bread, as its purpose is air bubble formation.
when making bread we also add fat after mixing all the other ingredients. fat or butter is added later because it can hinder water absorption if added with the other ingredients at the beginning.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.106305 | 2012-05-02T04:22:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23515",
"authors": [
"Abhas",
"Hawaiigirl",
"M Lydia Torres Bullecer",
"Thomas Ward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53248",
"user53243"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10146 | What kind of knife should I use to slice tomatoes?
Is it better to use a serrated knife, or a regular chef's knife that is really sharp?
A really well-sharpened santoku-style chef's knife is usually my choice. But, it does depend on the type of slicing... such as thick/thin discs, wedges, or dicing.
While I understand that a serrated blade can help with slicing a super-ripe tomato, when I want really thin disc-shaped slices, something very sharp and preferably a thinner spine. The favorite in my kitchen is definitely a Henckel santoku chef blade. Some versions can have a very thick spine, and wouldn't work as well, though. This type of choice is also more utilitarian if you're cutting any other veggies at the same time, or making additional cuts in the tomatoes, such as when you're also going to be halving the discs or full-on dicing.
Things I like the thinnest slices on are a ham and cheese melt, roast beef sammy, a sub for the road, and sometimes for a garnish. (hors d'œuvre, anyone?)
Also, when I'm cutting tomatoes into wedges, I also like to use this same type of sharp, non-serrated blade. Otherwise, I find it harder than necessary to do the smaller divisions after the 1/4-of-a-tomato size. I nearly always do 1/8 or 1/12 sized wedges for salad, so it isn't terribly often I use a "real" tomato knife. When I do, is when it's for a lunch and I don't want to sully a larger blade, or when doing large batches. Getting the core out is certainly easiest with a smaller, serrated blade.
Sharpness is the key. A few swipes with a sharpening steel before you cut is always a good idea.
As zanlok said, I also use a really well-sharpened knife with a thin spine, specifically this one http://goo.gl/k3YTX or my chef's knife if that's what's in hand. I hate serrated blades for tomatoes, they destroy them and, as mentioned, can't slice nearly as thin. I see no reason to ever use a serrated knife for a tomato; even when the tomato is over-ripe, a properly sharpened knife will take care of it with no problem. Take a tomato to Williams-Sonoma and try a Shun or Global blade (seriously, they'll let you) and you'll wonder why anyone ever considered serrated in the first place.
Tip for getting the core: use a grapefruit spoon (thanks, Alton).
Anything this guy sells: http://knifewear.com/
He brings in a bag of ripe tomatoes every morning to show off his blades (and lets customers try them all). The quality of the Japanese steel makes my professional Henkels blades look like toys. He gets all of his blades direct from the masters in Japan. The blades are so sharp, they sort of just fall through the tomatoes...
I use one of these: http://knifewear.com/knife-family.asp?family=5 for most things and have another smaller paring knife to use as well.
But the point is if you use a very sharp knife, you don't need a "tomato" or serrated knife. If your sharp knife doesn't cut through the tomato, it's not sharp.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Knifewear. I just made the mistake of going in one day and buying some knives from him. He has shown me the error of my ways.
While I don't know that brand/guy specifically, +1 from me for Japanese steel. I have a huge Henckels knife block set, and various Wusthof-Trident pieces at home, and the only ones I use are my Global and Shun anymore. Sometimes I use the Henckels to chop through bone and tougher stuff, but for precision, nothing beats Japanese steel (that I've found).
He carries various "brands", but they're all incredible. If you're ever in Calgary, I recommend stopping in for a jaw-dropping visit.
He has a pretty sweet collection there. +1 for the yoshikane
A lot of what that guy sells are carbon steel knives. Carbon steel knives are great. But the combination of tomatoes and carbon steel knives is not great for everyone - a lot of attention is needed, accidentally forgetting the knife wet on a board full of tomato juices for hours is likely to have you cleaning off rust spots and resharpening the edge afterwards. Tomato juice is among the most aggressive substances we dare eating :) Now the stainless styles (in Gin-3, good VG10 etc) from that store will be ideal for the task....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_knife
A tomato knife is a small serrated
kitchen knife designed to slice
through tomatoes. The serrated edge
allows the knife to penetrate the
tomatoes’ skin quickly and with a
minimum of pressure without crushing
the flesh. Many tomato knives have
forked tips that allow the user to
remove the seeds more easily.
Serrations are not required to cut
tomatoes – a sharp straight blade
works – but the serrations allow the
knife to cut tomatoes and other foods
even when dull. Compare bread knife
and steak knife, which are similarly
serrated.
I aways use a aerated knife as it doesn't matter how soft the tomato is, it will still slice it with ease
The best tomato knife I ever had, had a high carbon steel blade about 13cm long, and only 1cm in height. The short height and the rough carbon steel surface meant that the slices didn't stick to the blade as you cut, and fell away cleanly. It broke one day when pushed to hard into soft wood chopping block. Never found another one like it
Coated knives like this should be good
I figure he means height since he mentions that the slice doesn't stick to blade.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.106472 | 2010-12-15T06:10:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10146",
"authors": [
"Geo",
"Hemix",
"Mars",
"Mrs. Garden",
"RolandTumble",
"Shazz",
"Tony Hoang",
"calumbrodie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"johnny",
"rackandboneman",
"stephennmcdonald",
"talon8",
"wisbucky",
"Иван"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10581 | What are the factors that affect the chewiness, softness, moisture of bread based desserts like cinnamon rolls?
I made some cinnamon rolls the other day but the outside of the rolls are firm rather than soft after baking. What are the factors that affect the chewiness, softness, moisture of bread based desserts like cinnamon rolls?
I'll try to be specific without getting into too much detail here:
The chewiness (AKA elasticity) - of dough is due to the formation of gluten. This is affected by:
The amount of flour used (gluten is the result of water and various proteins in flour, specifically glutenin and gliadin);
Type of flour used (high-gluten flour such as bread flour gives means a chewier result);
Fat content (fat insulates the proteins from the water, slowing gluten formation);
Sugar content (in order for gluten to form, it must be dissolved; a high sugar content saturates the water and prevents dissolution of the proteins);
Baking time (up to a certain point, until all of the available proteins have been used up).
The crust (I assume this is what you're referring to by "softness") - is primarily the result of the Maillard reaction, which requires an amino acid and a sugar as well as heat. The longer and more quickly the reaction carries on, the crispier and browner the crust will be. The factors are:
Baking temperature (higher = crispier);
Baking time (longer = crispier);
Moisture (less = crispier). This has an effect because the evaporation temperature of water (100° C / 212° F) is lower than that required for the Maillard reaction (154° C / 310° F), so the reaction can only take place once all water has evaporated or been converted to gluten.
Acidity (pH) also inhibits the Maillard reaction but this is not normally a concern in bread.
Finally, the moistness of the bread is essentially a combination of the first two:
Higher fat content means less gluten is formed and more of the moisture is preserved, as long as it doesn't evaporate. The fat itself also adds a certain amount of moisture as far as mouth-feel is concerned.
Higher sugar content also preserves more of the moisture and using a wetter sugar (i.e. brown or muscovado) provides some moisture of its own - although the latter can easily evaporate with over-baking.
Longer baking times cause more of the water to evaporate, which reduces the final level of moisture in the finished bread.
Higher baking temperatures also cause more water to evaporate. However, it's usually a trade-off between higher temperatures or longer baking. A good recipe tends to be optimized to provide a slightly crispy crust without over-developing gluten or drying out the bread.
If your bread (or similar baked product) ended up too dry, it's probably because you over-baked it or baked at too high a temperature. If it came out too chewy (glutinous), you might have used too strong a flour or not enough fat/sugar.
Aaronut, does having higher fat and sugar content make the bread less chewy? Would adding more gluten to the dough (e.g. by adding Vital Wheat Gluten?) make the bread chewier?
@CookingNewbie: As far as fat and sugar - that's exactly what this answer says. For Vital Wheat Gluten, I've never really tried it but that's their claim. Generally though, bread flour forms more than enough gluten to begin with.
I don't know if I'm being too much of a chemist, but gluten is not starch and water, and dubbing "flour" as "starch" is very iffy. Gluten is a protein that contributes structure and much of the "chewiness" (you correctly point out it's formed with water, but it's water + two other proteins that are found with the starch in wheat). Starch is just a carbohydrate (sugars) that doesn't always have gluten (precursors) in it, e.g. potatoes, rice.
@NickT: No, you're absolutely right. I really don't know what I must have been smoking when I wrote that; I know that gluten is protein-based and have written several other answers here to that effect. I've corrected the bad information.
Some of the most important factors that affect texture in this way are: sugar content (brown), fat content, milk content, and egg content. When you make cinnamon buns, you want to use a sweet dough (never lean), and sweet doughs always have a higher concentration of these ingredients.
Fat, water, cooking temperature and cooking time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.107039 | 2010-12-29T21:00:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10581",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anna",
"Chief Chef",
"CookingNewbie",
"Evan Carroll",
"Nick T",
"Paul Bras",
"gonzalezea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10299 | Is Bar Keeper's friend safe to use on cookware?
My wife and I recently received a set of All-Clad cookware. We loving cooking with it so far, but we're somewhat troubled by the recommendations we keep seeing and hearing to use Bar Keeper's Friend to clean them. So far, we've just been using the nylon scrubbing sponges, which work for the most part, but is already some spotting and bits of cooked on stuff that will likely need something stronger to get them off.
My gut tells me that regardless of what is in the cleaner, given that the cookware is made of steel, it will be rinsed off and won't be an issue. My wife is more skeptical. Are there any health concerns with using this stuff on our cookware?
Yes it is completely safe. It is even recommended by the manufacturer.
• To get rid of stuck-on food or discoloration, and stains from using too high of a heat, we recommend cleaning your All-Clad with a product called Bar Keeper's Friend.
Bar Keeper's Friend even has a cookware specific cleanser, Bar Keeper's Friend Cookware.
I'm not sure of the difference between this and their regular cleanser, since they aren't required to list ingredients, but it is marketed specifically for cookware, and priced equivalently.
Other manufacturers recommend this product as well, as noted on the BKF Recommendations page.
You should also check out this question on how to remove brown stains. The accepted answer there is BKF. If you have something particularly terrible that BKF can't handle, you can always use gun cleaner, though I daresay your wife will say no to this. :-)
I use (the regular) BKF whenever my All-Clad gets some build-up. Works great.
According to BKF's own website, the primary active ingredient is the same between "regular" BKF and the cookware version: oxalic acid. The difference is that the cookware version contains additional surfactants, which in theory should make it easier to wash away the gunk that's been cleaned off (think of it like extra soap).
I know people that swear by this stuff for their chrome car, motorcycle, and bike parts.
I looked at the label on my BKF and it is basically Oxalic Acid. It's a strong acid so you don't want to wash your hands with it, but it's definitely water soluble and used everywhere, including water treatment.
It's definitely safe to use on cookware.
I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from the collective wisdom here that will reassure - almost like an appeal to anti-authority...?
The referenced web site specifically mentions cleaning cookware and more than one high-end company (your All-Clad as well as Calphalon) appear to recommend the product.
I have used many things to clean cookware (or eating utensils) that I would not like to ingest. CLR is one common descaler for hard-water among other things, that I really don't want to swallow, but it makes short work of cleaning up the coffee pot.
When I camped in my younger days as a boy scout, we used a three-bowl washing technique where one was hot well-chlorinated water to kill any residual bacteria. Again - I really would not want to ingest the bleach, but it sure made me happy to be eating from known clean dishes!
Don't know if any of this will help your case or not, but good luck in any case.
The other day I purchased a Pfaltzgraff dinnerware set badly disfigured by what appeared to be decades of gray scratches from stainless silverware. I googled the problem and learned there are at least three substances that successfully remove the scratches: Pfaltzgraff's own cleanser, something called Zud I hadn't heard of, and BKF. At $2 a container, the last was the obvious choice at Walmart. I went back to the kitchen and spent the next three hours scrubbing the 60-piece set until no signs of prior use were evident. BKF polishes as well as cleans, and the dinnerware looked fabulous.
Three hours of exposure of my hands to BKF without gloves did, however, result in flaking of my skin the next day (yesterday), but I suffered no pain or itching and didn't even apply hand lotion, though I considered doing so. Today, the flaking is gone.
The long-term, possibly insidious effects of using BKF are unknown to me, but for now I'm thrilled with its efficacy on Pfaltzgraff and plan to use it again today (wearing gloves) to clean the bottoms of my favorite cookware.
The Servaas family that owns BKF, by the way, is also the publisher of "The Saturday Evening Post". Physician Cory SerVaas has long been the magazine's medical director and guiding light. Joan SerVaas, his daughter, is currently publisher.
BKF would be bad to inhale or to ingest.
Used as directed, in a wet solution, and then rinsed off, its nothing to worry about.
You probably already (and without giving it a thought) use many things that are poisons or would at least make you sick if you drank them on your dishes - dishwasher detergent, liquid dish soap, bleach are all rather nasty things (if ingested) that are commonly used on dishes, and then rinsed off them. In that sense, BKF is not fundamentally different.
Just a small warning. BKF may be fine for some SS cookware but I've managed to take the shine off some high-finish pans, especially the outside. Be careful where you use it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.107380 | 2010-12-19T18:57:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10299",
"authors": [
"Devon",
"Michael Natkin",
"PhasedOut",
"Pops",
"Rajeev",
"SBI",
"Vikki Hume",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63363",
"jacobwil",
"joanie",
"karkarlawawa",
"shammer64"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18278 | Funky taste - Oil or Fat?
I cooked some Turkey sausage out of the casing in about 3/4 a tablespoon of canola oil (recipe called for olive oil). I tried to drain out most of the grease. I added some soft cheese to it and served in a pizza roll. When I bit into it, something tasted a little off. I can't describe it, but I didn't care for it. Was it the oil or the fat I was tasting? I'm hesitant to just lick the canola oil to determine if that was it.
can you attempt to describe it?
baka, I'd love to, but I'm with out words for it. I think I've figured it out. I just tasted the canola oil from the bottle. It didn't match, unless the taste changes when heated. The recipe said it would take 5 minutes to turn the sausage crumbles golden brown. I had to cook it for like 15 minutes, probably because the temperature was too low. Maybe this made the sausage soak up grease?
Is what I said possible?
One hint I've read is to heat the oil and smell it. If it's off, the increased heat will make it more obvious.
Some canola oils change in flavor (and definitely not in a good way) when heated. You could always try, e.g., refined peanut oil next time. Or soy ("vegetable oil" its normally labeled around here). Its also of course possible that the something that was a little off was your sausage.
Oils and other fats can go rancid if old and not properly stored. Cooking oil should be kept in a cool, dry place with minimal exposure to air. In my experience, Canola oil goes rancid faster than many other oils.
One quick way to see -- smell your oil from the bottle. You could also try heating a small amount in a pan, dipping bread in it, and tasting it. It's best to isolate your components when searching for off flavors.
Slight correction -- all fats and oils will go rancid eventually, even if properly stored. Proper storage simply slows the reaction rate. Highly aromatic oils (like extra-virgin olive and sesame) break down faster than neutral ones, and polyunsaturated oils and fats (grapeseed, corn, safflower) break down faster than monounsaturated (olive, avocado, sunflower) and saturated (palm, coconut, butter).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.107850 | 2011-10-09T23:08:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18278",
"authors": [
"Bradford",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"David",
"Jan Boychuk",
"Mark Ransom",
"Slartibartfast",
"baka",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"jen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28203 | Can I cool my toffee in the fridge?
I'm making some treacle toffee for tonight but think I've left it too late to cool naturally - will cooling it In the fridge affect the result too much, or just speed the process up nicely?
Leaving any sort of sugar confection in the fridge (as it will out of the fridge also, but to a lesser extent) will soften the sugar after a prolonged period due to the moisture in the air. However, putting it in the fridge for a short period of time will simply speed up the cooling process as you put in your question.
As it was it hardened nicely in time for the fireworks, so all was well. I shall have to try some more later and out half in the fridge.
@Zhaph-BenDuguid Good, I'm pleased to hear it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.108050 | 2012-11-03T17:26:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28203",
"authors": [
"Anton Xue",
"Barbara Koch McGee",
"Kayla Richter",
"QHarr",
"Sebiddychef",
"Zhaph - Ben Duguid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10608 | Do popovers serves as the starch and the bread in a meal?
I found an interesting recipe for Roquefort popovers and wanted to serve along side of filet mignon and grilled lobster tail, with potatoes and salad. Should I leave out the potatoes?
I think it depends on the rest of your menu. If it is a rich menu with a lot of courses, maybe it is wise to leave out the potatoes for that reason.
If you're gonna have two forms of protein, might as well go whole hog on the starch as well. Symmetry, you know? Though in that case, I'd think about adding a cooked vegetable in addition to the (presumably uncooked) salad.
I like your suggestion. I am going "whole hog" because I always wanted to try popovers and what a great way to start the new year. Thanks. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.108150 | 2010-12-30T20:16:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10608",
"authors": [
"Poncesmom",
"Raquela",
"Roland Ewald",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4036",
"user4036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28074 | How to get flour quesadilla light and crispy?
My homemade quesadillas made with flour tortillas always come out hard, dry and crunchy instead of light and crispy.
I spray the tortillas with a little Pam (spray oil), lay one tortilla oil-side-down in a hot pan, I sprinkle the cheese, meat and sliced peppers, top with the other tortilla, oil-side-up. I flip it when the bottom tortilla is firm and evenly brown-spotted. It's always too dry. I want it to be more like it's a chimichanga crust but of course, that's been fried which can't be done with a quesadilla or all the filling would fall out.
I've looked online but the recipes seem to use the same preparation method that I do.
Any suggestions to make the tortilla lighter and crispier? Thanks everyone!
I want to make a nomination for the on going moderator election. I saw your reviews, edits, votes and other community healthy actions. - Why not do it as a moderator ? :) I will delete this comment. Was not able to find a way to nominate. Let me know if you know how to.
@bonCodigo, thanks bon! I thought about the moderator position myself but until I can access the internet from something bigger than my iphone, I don't think I can do the best job. To access the nomination screen, click on "Stack Exchange" in the upper (left?) corner and click on "Notifications". Thanks again! :-)
I use a liquid oil instead of a spray oil; you're far more likely to get hot spots with a spray, which is bad for any kind of cooking. That stuff works better as a grease than an actual cooking oil.
I also tend to have pretty good success by frying the tortillas up to just a hint of golden-brown (dark brown spots is overdone) and then finishing it off (i.e. to melt the cheese) in a low-heat oven. As an added benefit, if you're making a largish batch then that makes it easy to keep them warm until they're all ready to serve.
YMMV, but I find this to be the case for a whole lot of stovetop cooking; with the direct heat, it's very easy to dry foods out before they're cooked to the stage you want. It's far easier to control the heat in an oven and just use the stove for an initial (or final) fry/sear.
+1 for pan then oven. Thick burgers are a prime example - crust the outside in the pan, then finish in the oven: perfect.
Don't use oil, tortilla's don't need oil to finish. They should have only been lightly cooked to begin with. The tortilla's need to be soft and pliable before cooking, if they have dried out, lightly steam them in the microwave in a closed container or plastic bag
If they stick to the pan use a better finish cast pan (cast iron is good) and lower the heat. Cook them more slowly than you would for example a grilled cheese sandwich. Or you can cook it entirely under a medium grill (broiler)
Thanks for the answer, @TFD. I like the little bit of oiliness to the finished quesadilla so I chose the other answer but I upvoted your answer also.
Lighter and crispier, huh
It sounds like you want more of a fried style exterior, not a toasted one, so using a layer of oil or liquid grease in the pan is probably a good move. A thin smooth layer in the pan will give the tortilla surface a "deep fried" sort of texture (the tortilla only cares if its surface is coated in enough oil, not whether there's extra) - and the extra heat the oil conducts should crisp it up faster, giving it less time to dry out when cooking - the lower and slower method works if you want a softer crust. Remember to move your tortilla around when first putting it into the pan, so it doesn't stick (instead of trying to un-stick it later) - that technique is still useful even when cooking with more oil.
Along those lines, it may be wiser to pre-assemble your quesadillas, possibly separating your cheese into two thin layers (over and under) to encourage quick melting, and settle the whole thing in the pan at the same time instead of layering on once on the heat. Since you're using hot oil, you should end up with a shorter cooking time (a tortilla laid in hot oil can start crisping in a few seconds) - that means less time for your ingredients to heat up inside the tortilla. If your ingredients are room temperature or possibly microwave-zapped if something takes longer to heat, anything is pre-cooked that needs to be, and you only have it in the pan long enough to melt the cheese - you will find it much easier than otherwise.
Alternatively, if you're only making one or two, you can cook the first side crisp, turn the tortilla over (tricky if the cheese hasn't melted yet, but doable with a spatula and plate, or plate and hand), and turn off the heat. The second side will crisp in the initial residual heat, and a minor drizzle of oil around the edges will give it that oily texture if there wasn't enough, but the heat will quickly drop to let the interior warm through and the cheese finish melting without overcooking the exterior...much. It takes practice to get it right, but it works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.108253 | 2012-10-28T19:53:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28074",
"authors": [
"Catherine Anne",
"ElendilTheTall",
"KJYDavis",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Robert Riopel",
"bobnruthagee",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64569",
"randomuser"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23291 | What are the pros and cons of coarse and fine coffee ground?
Coffee can be bought either as whole beans or as coarsely or finely grounded coffee.
What are the pros and cons of the coarse and fine coffee ground? Are there different applications for coarsely and finely grounded coffee?
Mainly the grind types have to do with how long the grounds are going to be in contact with the water during the brewing of the coffee. Finer grinds for espresso (quick brewing) and medium grinds for drip, etc. This chart will give you an idea of what grinds go with which preparations http://www.ineedcoffee.com/03/coffeegrind/
There are necessarily pros and cons of different types of grinds as much as different purposes associated with different types of grinds. The coarseness of the grind will determine what type of brewing method that will be used. The difference in grind will also determine the length of the brewing process.
Also grind coffee just before brewing for the freshest cup of coffee possible. Normal grinders with blades work ok, but burr grinders work best. Regular grinders chop more than grind.
Here is an article that outlines different grinds and what brewing process to use.
http://www.examiner.com/article/different-types-of-coffee-bean-grinds?cid=db_articles
if you want your grinds to have a good-decent flavor(in my experience) get a bag that has a one-way air valve (much like a respirator with no intake) thebeanforge.com sells their ground coffee in such bags. To answer your direct question, I would only assume the courser grains will keep the flavor longer than the finer grains. Finer grains may be able to bleed the flavor at a lower temperature=less brewing time. In my experience you can brew course grains satisfactorily in a regular drip coffee maker, such as the "Mr. Coffee" makers and a run-of-the-mill paper filter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.108662 | 2012-04-24T17:30:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23291",
"authors": [
"Arshad Jamil",
"Edmund Marshall Preston",
"Gayle",
"Marcos Rivera",
"Peter D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67832",
"user52730"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21802 | Does the direction matter in the Stretch and Fold method?
I am currently making Poolish Ciabatta bread from the recipe in Bread Bakers Apprentice. Within the recipe, one of the methods used to shape and work the dough is the "Stretch and Fold" method. Essentially, you stretch the bread until it is a long rectangle and then you fold the two sides down letter style.
My question is, does it matter what direction to fold the dough in. Do I have to continue folding in the same direction so the bread dough begin to "line up" the gluten development?
Stretch and fold should be done in both directions.
One stretch and fold, in most techniques that I read, is stretching like you stay, folding, then rotating 90 degrees and repeating.
You can see an excellent example of stretch and fold in this video and here. Where they do it and then turn it - that's one stretch and fold.
The directions given in BBA are a bit ambiguous - the photos just show folding in one direction. FWIW jay, I folded as per @rfusca's videos and it worked a treat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.108937 | 2012-02-28T00:55:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21802",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Netizen",
"SteffX",
"anejc",
"depperm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48485"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15879 | What is a good brand for teflon pans?
I am going to buy a new teflon pan and seem to run into bad luck with cheaply made ones which flake off too quickly. Also can any good brand teflon pan withstand automatic dishwashers?
More important than a brand recommendation is understanding that Teflon is not designed for certain uses, in particular high temperatures. Before you pick a brand you want to refer back to this entry: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2287/is-teflon-dangerous.
That's right, I only really plan to use it for scrambled eggs.
I use All-Clad professionally in the kitchen. As long as the pan is hot before I add the food, I use the straight stainless steel.
@Zombies- you miss the point, if your pans are flaking and falling apart "too quickly" maybe it is operator error (using them in an a manner not consistent with what the manufacturers recommend) rather than being cheaply made. If you attempt to use a Ferrari for off-roading, it didn't fall apart because it was cheap manufacturing.
It is not a good idea to combine ANY teflon pan with an automatic dishwasher, regardless of what the manufacturer says.
But fortunately for you, I have handy the Cook's Illustrated from October 2010, which did a nonstick skillet (aka frying pan aka saute pan) review. According to them, even the best nonstick coatings won't survive more than a year or two of heavy use. This makes proper care all the more important. Brand also isn't a good indicator of coating quality, because many pan manufacturers buy coatings from the same suppliers. To quote the article:
Most cookware manufacturers don't make their own nonstick coating; they buy it from suppliers offering a menu of options, from basic to premium, and spray it on their pans. It's similar to painting a room; the quality of nonstick coating is determined not only by what's in it but also by how carefully it's applied and cured, and how many coats the manufacturer decides to put on.
They found the Tefal (T-Fal in the States) Professional Total Nonstick Fry Pan ($35) had a nonstick coating that outperformed the other pans by a significant margin, probably due to its 5-layer nonstick coating (most pans use 2-3 layers). The only fly in the ointment was its handle, which had rivets that loosened after abuse. But, for $35 that isn't bad, doubly because it outperformed the $150+ All-Clad nonstick pans they used normally.
If you're looking for something cheaper than that, I'd suggest you look at construction and not brand. Pick a heavy pan (for its size), with either solid, thick-gauge aluminum OR a multi-ply construction. This combination ensures the pan will heat evenly and rapidly (crucial for eggs), and is resistant to warping (important if you use an electric range). If you're cooking eggs, avoid hard-anodized aluminum interiors, as they don't help prevent adhesion of eggs, and just cost more. The nonstick layer should look thick and smooth, not slightly textured.
My most-used frying pan (the default egg pan) is a small T-Fal that cost all of $7. The important thing is that it has the right construction and I treat it correctly; I'm careful not to scratch the surface with utensils, I never use a scouring pad on it, and it can't go near the dishwasher. This makes more of a difference than picking a fancy brand.
A great answer Bob.
Offtopic: Does the brand I know as Tefal sell in the States under T-Fal, or is a competitor able to get away with the name without a trademark lawsuit? Or did you just "shorten" the name as not to discuss brands openly?
@rumtscho: Edited b/c I'd forgotten about that. Tefal sells as T-Fal in the States as a result of a branding conflict with Dupont, who claim it is too similar to "teflon". This makes sense as it is a combination of "TEFlon and ALuminum". Also, if anyone feels the need, I can go into the particular testing methodology Cook's Illustrated used. It is fairly rigorous and objective, I just left out the details for brevity.
+1 for Tefal. I'm lucky to have a factory store near though, otherwise they'd be outside my budget :)
no problem with dishwasher and Tefal for me, but I don't need salt in my dishwasher because of our water type, which makes a difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.109070 | 2011-07-01T15:34:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15879",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"Tommy Larsen",
"Vikram S. Parikh",
"Zombies",
"egwene sedai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho",
"user33805"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15966 | Blender makes burning smell after liquid spilled on (maybe into) it
There is a slight burning like smell when I use my blender now. While making a smoothie, the bottom seal was broken and the drink spilled/poored everywhere. When I use the blender now, I smell this burning type smell. It's a good blender (Osterizer). Should I buy a new one?
Did you let out the magic blue smoke? Appliances don't work when you let out the magic blue smoke.
@BobMcGee: Perhaps there's a genie inside!
See if you can locate the source of the smell. Blenders are generally designed so that a simple spill doesn't cause permanent damage, but if the connection between the cannister and the motor came partially apart when the seal broke, it is possible that the little doodad they use to interface was damaged.
I've had a burning smell before when using a cheap blender with a high-wattage motor; where the drive shaft connected to the canister was rubber or plastic and stripped, producing a burning smell and lots of little black pieces.
Edit: Burning smell common to Oster blenders
A casual Google search shows that a lot of the Oster blenders and immersion blenders will produce burnt-insulation smells in use, some from the first day. In your case, it may be coincidence that it started when it did, or if there was ice in your smoothie that could have been enough strain to jiggle something out of alignment and start problems.
I'd start shopping for a new blender. The burning smell generally means your blender's days are numbered; that smell is the motor or its insulation overheating, and death is soon to follow. Repairing a burned-out motor will cost around the same amount as a new blender.
The osterizer blender I have uses an all metal drive system with I think 450W motor on my model.
edited with more info. 450W is a good deal of power -- unfortunately there is a trend among kitchen appliances of advertising high-wattage motors, but not building the machinery to survive sustained output at that level.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.109418 | 2011-07-05T21:05:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15966",
"authors": [
"Ash",
"BobMcGee",
"Gary Kulkarni",
"Nasim uddin Malik",
"StackOverflowed",
"Zombies",
"hrunar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12179 | cast iron pan rusting on bottom surface
I have a great cast iron skillet that I use frequently and also take superb care of. Until I noticed the bottom is coated in rust. I believe the high heat that I use from the range top cooked off all the seasoning on the bottom + I never re-season this skillet ever since the business end of the skillet is in such fine shape.
What should I do to repair the bottom?
Get the rust off completely (wire wool or even the plastic equivalent will do), and lightly re-season (thin coat of oil, then cook it on the stovetop--you don't need a "real" seasoning, which will just endanger your interior if it's already good).
Then, don't depend on the seasoning to protect the pan. Always dry it thoroughly before storage (towel dry carefully then give it just a few seconds on the heat to be 100% sure) and make sure the place it's sitting is always dry as well. You might consider placing it on a paper towel or other absorbent surface if you feel that the place you store it can't be kept sufficiently dry, or if you're storing it on a metal surface (to eliminate the chance of galvanic action causing the rust).
If you never leave water in contact with your pan and keep it from being in contact with exposed metal, it won't rust in normal use. A little bit of seasoning on it is a little insurance policy, but as you've seen, it's not sufficient by itself.
And it also helps to add to the seasoning on the bottom once in a while; the inside slowly builds up seasoning as you add oil to cook in it, while the bottom never does.
I think I was storing it in a place that wasn't dry (on top of other pans that may have had some liquid in them).
It's not really a problem (in the absence of water, it won't get any worse), but if it bugs you you can scrub it with some steel wool and put some oil on it (be careful if you use something flammable). Generally the bottom of the pan doesn't stay seasoned (about half of mine are enameled on the bottom, so that wouldn't even make sense.) (I appear to be addicted to parentheticals today.)
The most likely cause is it not drying completely: if I have to put water on cast iron cookware, I always put it on the stovetop on low until it's completely dry.
Is there oil that isn't flammable?
@martha: There are degrees.
That makes sense. So which ones are less flammable?
@martha: Here is a list of the smoke points of common cooking oils (http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/50/Smoke-Points-of-Various-Fats). The "flash" point is usually substantially higher, but the smoke point will point you in the correct direction.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.109616 | 2011-02-15T14:40:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12179",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Johannes Pille",
"Martha F.",
"RoboKaren",
"Rodrigo Murillo",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Zombies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user43356",
"user87166"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15047 | How to roast pork shoulder?
I used to cook pork shoulder in a slow cooker, however found that this didn't render any of the fat out of it. I prefer a leaner meat, so I figure roasting this in the oven and letting the fat drip out of it would be good. So I want to know how to properly roast a pork shoulder as well as any helpful tips.
There's an excellent recipe for roasting shoulder for pulled pork at http://homesicktexan.blogspot.com/2010/05/texas-pulled-pork-oven-recipe.html , if you're interested.
Properly?
You throw it in a pit with hard wood coals for at least 8 hours. Of course we don't refer to that as roasting. :)
Oven roasting is easier. Turn the oven on to 250F or so. Put something flavorful on the roast. Stick in a probe thermometer and put it in the oven.
Remove when the thermometer reads 150F. Let it rest for a few minutes before carving.
For more color and fat rendering you can roast at 450F for 10 minutes before dropping the oven to 250F and putting in the thermometer.
Flavorings are varied of course. Apple works well.
When oven roasting, what are some good choices of equipment to use? I'm guessing a dutch oven is pretty typical but I do not own one.
@Zombies- Basic roasting like what I described above only requires a deep roasting pan to catch juices, a wire rack to hold the meat off the pan, and a probe thermometer. Some recipes use foil to keep in moisture. There are many ways to go about this including a dutch oven. You should pick a method and try it or ask a separate question specifically about your chosen method.
I like to simmer it with spices, cabbage and potatoes. (add the veg later or it will go soggy). Skim the fat off the top fairly frequently.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.110193 | 2011-05-25T20:48:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15047",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Sobachatina",
"Zombies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16195 | Marshmallows are wet on the bottom as they set
I tried to follow this recipe: http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2011/07/marshmallow-recipe-candymaking/
Deviations from the recipe:
- I used icing sugar instead of the marshmallow mix.
- I could not find corn syrup. I wasn't sure if I could keep the sugar syrup from crystallising and for some reason I thought a bit of xanthan gum might help.
- My measurements for the gelatine are probably a bit rough since my scale is not so good for strange numbers like 17g.
I set the mixture in 2 pans, one pyrex, one steel after coating the bottoms with icing sugar. After about 3 hours I checked on them and tried a bit. The texture is good but maybe a bit firm. It is really more like a floppy meringue than store marshmallows.
What worries me the most is that the bottoms are wet. I have turned them out in the meantime to let them dry out a bit. Is this normal? Can I prevent it?
It's exactly your deviation which caused the problem. Stiff meringue weeps - the foam slowly loses the egg white moisture. When you mix cornstarch in it, the cornstarch absorbs the water droplets before they have the chance to make a big wet spot. So if you use the marshmallow mix, you won't have this problem.
As for crystallization, I am not sure that xanthan gum helps. It prevents crystallization in ice cream, but there you have too much water between the dispersed particles of the other ingredients, and this water forms ice crystals. Xanthan thickens the water and makes the water droplets smaller, so they don't freeze to big, crunchy crystals. In a sugar syrup, you have it the other way round. Sugar is better soluble in hot than in cold water, so once the syrup cools down, there is too little water and too much sugar. I don't think that xanthan is capable of doing for the sugar what it does for the water. But even if it helps, it will make your result firmer than you want it, you'd have to reduce the gelatin, risking to end up with marshmallows either too firm or too soft.
The usual way to prevent sugar syrup from crystallization is to add an acid to it. This splits the sucrose molecules into glucose and fructose, which don't crystallize at the saturation sugar does. Be careful what you add, you don't want your marshmallows to smell of vinegar. Cream of tartar is the neutral smelling choice, and citric acid has a smell, but it doesn't feel out of place in most sweets.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.110368 | 2011-07-16T10:38:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16195",
"authors": [
"George Philip",
"Mast",
"Thomas Eding",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34481",
"user12083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62364 | What is the best variety of rice or preparation of rice to use in soup?
I've made chicken rice soup several times in the past and I've always ran into an issue of the soup coming out too starchy/thick because of the rice. Or in the worst case scenario when I added too much rice, the soup ending up looking like rice porridge.
Usually it isn't too much of a problem right after it's cooked. But after its been sitting in the fridge for a couple of hours, the issue becomes much more pronounced.
I recently had chicken rice soup at my work cafeteria and the rice grains seems fully in tact and the soup isn't overly starchy.
Is there a variety of rice that hold up better in soup where it doesn't disintegrate into a starchy mess? Or is there a preparation to help preserve the integrity of the rice grains?
I've found that the most consistent way is to use short grain rice that is prepared much like it is in Indian cuisine. I was taught to rinse it repeatedly until the standing rinse water runs clear. That seems to remove most of the starch that causes that sticky breakdown.
Also, I've found that making rice soups in a slow cooker can be made less sticky by adding the rinsed rice after the other ingredients have settled in and become well heated. I've only dealt with this a couple times, so I definitely recommend experimenting if you prepare your soup in a slow cooker. Good luck!
Can you expand more on how short grain rice is prepared in Indian Cuisine. I thought long grain rice was the primary staple in Indian Cuisine.
Also I was always led to believe short grain rice released much more starch than long grain rice.
@Jay - there are several different kinds of rice used in Indian cooking. While long grained basmati is often preferred and might be considered the highest quality, it is not really the staple. There are many shorter grained rices used (sona masoori is a popular medium grained one). Also, there are multiple different cooking methods for rice, but it's true that usually in Indian rice preparation you do want to remove any excess starch that you can before cooking so that the grains will be separate and fluffy instead of clumping and sticky.
My apologies, I wasn't very clear. I meant that it is useful to use the technique commonly used in Indian cooking for preparing rice. As NadjaCS suggests, the rice is rinsed repeatedly until the rinse water runs clear, to remove much of the starch. Doing this with short grained rice is quite helpful if the rice is going to be in soup.
The way I do it is to put the rice in a strainer resting in a larger pot. Run water over the rice until it is submerged, swirling my fingers through it. When the water becomes cloudy, lift the strainer and pour out the water. Repeat until the water stays clear.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.110587 | 2015-10-07T16:12:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62364",
"authors": [
"Andy Baker",
"Courtney Cathey",
"IntrepidSuccess",
"Jay",
"NadjaCS",
"Rihet Oosthuizen",
"Victor Aghedo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20326 | Optimal shape to cut apples for apple pie
I have always enjoyed a slice of apple pie... in the morning... afternoon... and after dinner. Or anytime actually. And as such, I had to learn to bake my own apple pie to satisfy my deep affinity with them.
When I bake apple pies, I make sure to use the best apples I can find. I typically always go for Honey Crisp for its sweetness/slight tang and firmness to stand up to the baking. For the longest time, I have been cutting the apple by first peeling the apple, cutting the apple into 4 pieces down the middle and coring each piece. I then cut the apple pieces into slices in the shape of the apple so I get crescent shaped slices.
I have alway had success with my pie and I'm actually quite proud of it. Recently however, I shared a slice with one of my roommates. He enjoyed it but he made a passing comment about how strange it was that I cut the apple in crescent slices(that ungrate... haha jk). That bruised my ego a bit.
So now I want know how other people cut their apples when they bake their apple pie?
And has anyone tried the crescent shaped method and a different method and found that one worked better?
I've eaten plenty of apple pies with crescent slices. Nothing wrong with it at all. If you don't have any special tools, it's probably the best way to get slices that are the full length of the apple. It's probably what I'd do if I made a pie tonight.
A lot of people probably slice differently, though. In particular, if you have a corer (which doesn't also slice) you can peel, core, and halve the apple, then cut thin slices perpendicular to where the core was. It's easier to get thin slices this way, since you're making parallel vertical cuts. Of course, it's a pain to core a whole or half apple without a special tool.
Perhaps some people out there, especially if using very large apples, peel, quarter, core, and then slice, getting quarter-circle slices. Some people prefer small pieces; they might use a corer/slicer to get get 8 wedges, then slice those further.
People who make a lot of apple pies might have a device like this peeler/corer/slicer. It does all three simultaneously, rotating the apple to peel it, pulling it across the corer, and slicing in a spiral as the apple rotates and moves horizontally. Theoretically you end up with a peeled, cored apple that's thinly spiral-sliced the whole way through. At that point you can just cut it straight down the middle, and end up with half-circle slices.
I expect your friend was simply used to one of those methods. But any kind of apple pie you can think of is being made out there. Slice them how you like!
Slice them how I want? Cool, time to make some star-shaped apple pie. Haha
This is what I do.
BTW that peeler/corer/slicer looks really intense. I would probably end up slicing off a finger.
@Jay- the blade isn't that sharp and your hand doesn't have to go anywhere near it.
@Sobachatina: They say one is more prone to have accidents with dull blades. Plus you don't know me. I am such a klutz haha I'm just glad I still own all my fingers. Also I like this answer but i typically refrain from accepting an answer until I give at least 24 hours for anyone else to add anything. If noone else has a better answer, then I'm taking this as the accepted answer.
@Jay: That's when the dull blade is on a knife, in which case you're more likely to cut in a direction you didn't mean to, and get your hand. With this, the blade doesn't move, it's almost all buried in the apple (the exposed apart is under the apple), and you're cranking at the opposite end of the thing. And I'm pretty sure it's not even sharp enough to cut if you bump against it.
The peeler/corer/slicer is WONDERFUL! It is easy to use, and if you have more than a couple of apples, it makes it so much quicker and easier. It's not dangerous at all. However, it doesn't work so well on damaged apples (spots, worms, etc), and it is a bit annoying to clean. So you need at least a couple of apples to make it worth more than just using a knife.
Take an unpeeled and un-cored apple, and cut in half down the central core line
Place cut side down and slice thinly perpendicular to the central core line
Any seed parts will fall out if not desired
On a good variety apple the the core (the actual fruit) is perfectly edible. Especially when cooked it seems the same as the surrounding flesh (false fruit)
Coring and peeling? There is no need to waste perfectly healthy, tasty, and flavoursome parts of the fruit. Just make sure you buy good quality fruit in the first place. Peel and trim bruised fruit, and only core old apples
This method is very fast, and provides a much more interesting slice shape. If you can hang onto the apple without the initial halving you will get the nice five pointed star profile when cut this way (for extra pixie points!)
This type of slice also cook more evenly as each slice is the same thickness all the way through, and is therefore much softer to the bite
Even cooking with a nice texture to bite, not too chunky, and not sloppy, The skin parts slim too, so they are easy to easy, and don't need to be peeled. If you overcook then they go mushy
I peel my apples by hand (with a paring knife), cut them in half, use a melon-baller to pop out the cores and then slice them, cut side down with a mandolin, the thinner the better.
One interesting option if you want the filling to be somewhat denser is to use staggered dice - say, 4 apples cut to 1/2" dice, 1 to 1/4", one to 1/8" or 1/16". This way, voids between the big chunks will be filled well without needing to create a lot of thickened liquid in the filling.
About the coring problem: For baking, just cutting 2 large and 2 small blocks off, leaving a square core (maybe cutting it octagonal if there is too much usable apple left), usually is perfectly adequate :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.110848 | 2012-01-10T19:01:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20326",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Cascabel",
"Gustavo Straube",
"J.G.",
"Jay",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"bzm3r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23061 | What types of snails are made into Escargot?
I am aware that not all snails are edible. Generally speaking, what types of snails are used to make Escargot?
What qualities of the snail makes it a good candidate for Escargot.
In addition, what makes a dish Escargot? Is Escargot snail prepared in a specific way or is it any dish that contains snail?
@zanlok, I thought it was related enough to be in the same question. And the followup question is hardly worth its own question.
For escargots, land snails are used. Most common are the species Helix pomatia, Helix aspersa and Helix lucorum*.
There are two restrictions: it should be edible (problem solved if you work with one of those three) and it should be large. Larger snails have more flesh to work with. You have to be a bit lucky for this. There's quite some variation. I think - for the dish that you mean - the snails should still have their house as well. However, I wouldn't advice you to go into the 'wild' and pick your own. Just buy them at the supermarket. It's safer, since snails can have digested toxins that take some time to leave their bodies.
The word "escargot" is French for "snail". You can find different preparations for snails, they would be called "escargots à la ..." with ... being the name of the sauce or preparation. The standard (at least here) drops the last part, since it's the basic preparation (herb butter with garlic).
There are other types of snails/slugs that are edible, for instance common whelks are also sold and eaten here, they live in the sea, not on land, but it's a whole different preparation.
*Source
You can pick them wild, and some french do, but you need to then keep them for a while to ensure they are clean and healthy. This link pretty much matches what french do with wild snails to prepair them for eatting: http://thrivingadmistcollapse.wordpress.com/article/how-to-capture-and-safely-eat-wild-md0xfscu2k1u-5/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.111330 | 2012-04-16T00:36:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23061",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Paul C",
"Sankalp Kotewar",
"Strawberry",
"Thomas Schneiter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"vwiggins",
"xtal supports Monica"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19661 | Best spices to use on minced quorn in spaghetti sauce and other recipes
As a vegetarian, whenever I have to use minced meat I use minced quorn.
But quorn does not add any flavour to dishes, only texture. What are the best "base spices" to add to the quorn when using it in any dish, for example spaghetti sauce?
Do you want to narrow down the question so that it is not so overly broad? Basically, the question can be answered with any number of spices or herbs and there's no particularly right, or wrong, answer. It appears you are concerned that, whereas meat adds its own flavor, quorn adds none and somehow displaces or dilutes existing flavors?
Are you trying to make your dishes taste like they have meat in them? If not, there's no harm in having ingredients for texture only.
For tips on improving this question and getting it reopened, please refer to our "What can I add to X" meta discussion which explains the appropriate level of detail expected.
To add depth of flavour to Quorn mince, I fry the Quorn mince for a few minutes or until browned, and then add small quantities of vegetable stock, allowing it the stock to be absorbed or boil off between each addition. This bulks up the mince somewhat and flavours the mince before continuing to add other ingredients as per whatever recipe you're attempting.
I do this for quorn mince when making spaghetti sauce and lasagne.
Simple answer: I would recommend using whatever herbs or spices you would use if you made the same dish with meat. So, for a Bolognese sauce, I would pick thyme and bay, for an "alla vodka" sauce, basil and garlic, and for Marinara, oregano and peppercorn. Given that the underlying product (quorn) has virtually no flavor of its own -- or, to the extent it does, it is not a flavor I personally would seek to highlight -- I would not worry about which herb or spice best complements it.
I have found liquid smoke great for enhancing the "meaty" flavors of various vegetarian dishes that would normally contain meat. Perhaps add some shiitake mushrooms, as well, to provide more umami flavor.
Beyond that, I'd probably go for garlic and oregano in a spaghetti sauce.
In a more general sense, as Bruce said, try to use herbs or spices that would normally go into a traditional version of the particular thing that you're making.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.111623 | 2011-12-14T17:48:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19661",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"a spaghetto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42882",
"john",
"mfg",
"user42843"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22335 | Why do short pie bases require chilling before baking?
I understand why the dough should be chilled before forming it into the pie dish/pan, but often I see recipes wanting the formed base covered with wrap and put in the fridge for 20 minutes before blind baking.
The Good Eats episode on pies suggested this too. Alton Brown refrigerated the dough before forming, formed it, then re-refrigerated it.
He explained that taking it out of the fridge to form the base would be enough time for some of the butter in the dough to soften and potentially melt. This would undo all the work put in previously to keep the butter intact within the dough.
Sure, it softens while forming. But why is that a problem? Why is it better to chill it again then bake it, rather than just hurrying it into the oven?
It has to do with the final texture of the crust. The small pockets of butter steam and create a light flaky texture as the crust bakes, whereas melted and integrated butter creates a denser effect. Refrigerating the crust after its formed allows the half-melted butter to re-firm rather than melt, creating a more delicate flaky result.
Sounds good, but why is it a comment instead of an answer?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.111842 | 2012-03-17T00:36:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22335",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Marshall Davis",
"Rachael Lynn",
"Sean",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21471 | Is hot tap water safe for cooking?
I'll typically bring hot water from the tap to the boil instead of waiting longer for cold water. This hot water comes from water heater with a large storage tank. Is this considered safe?
For example, are heater storage tanks known for festering nasties not killed by boiling? Is different piping used for hot water or different soldering on pipe fittings? Do hot pipes cooling down go through a temperature more conducive to bacteria growth?
If your goal is fast boiling water, a good electric kettle might be better.
Which country do you live in?
Australia. Just spent 5 days in hospital from E-coli, returned to hear local water supply had a E-coli outbreak, so I'm a bit paranoid about all nasties now.
Not related to safety, but one reason that freshly-drawn cold water is recommended for tea and coffee is that it has higher dissolved oxygen content (cold liquids dissolve gasses easier than hot liquids), and this extra oxygen that remains in the water when boiled (it takes time to drive off) aids in the extraction of flavors.
Very interesting. I wonder if boiling hot tap water would be then ideal to cook foods, minimizing removal of flavors?
Related, though not identical question here.
My father installs, removes, and takes apart hot water tanks as part of his job.
He says to never consider it food safe. On Demand systems are probably fine.
I'm with @Jonathon - added an answer in support.
Unless your hot water tank is very close to your hot water tap, this is a very energy inefficient. As Cascabel notes it would be faster to boil water in a electric kettle first, and then pour it into the pan. Put the pan on the heat at the same time if you are really in a hurry
Hot water systems are normally hot enough (above 55°C, 130°F) to keep water borne nasties at bay, plus if you are on town supply water it will be chlorinated etc
Normally on the first few meters of hot water pipe are copper, then it switched to normal crimped plastic plumbing. This will vary depending on your local building codes
The rate at which pipes lose their heat would ensure it never sits in the danger area for long, not that I think this is a big issue for clean plain water
In general, modern copper pipes are not soldered, they are crimped using special hand tools
Old or non-renovated houses may still be 100% copper pipes that have been soldered. This poses no extra safety risks with just clean water in the pipes
Worth adding that older pipes can have lead solder, hence the old advice about not using hot water for cooking. But if the plies aren't old, it's perfectly safe.
Whether copper pipes are soldered or crimped depends on location, age and type of construction, and probably the plumber doing the work. For example, in my area there's very little new construction, and there's probably not a crimped pipe to be found for miles. New work in old houses, at least in my area, is usually soldered.
Good answer - just wanted to add a detail. Legionella is the dude normally associated with hot water heater disease. They are fully killed above 140F, and have trouble living above 120F. If you have people in the home who would be particularly susceptible to disease, you should set your tank closer to 140F (though that increases the danger of scalding). Legionella spreads when people turn their heaters way down (under 115F) for efficiency (a better way is to get a more efficient unit and insulate piping).
Nice addition Sam, could have stood as an answer. You've got me know thinking to put the hot water tank up at 140F and remove piping insulation so I don't get scalded :)
@SamLey, if you put a thermostatic valve after the boiler, it can be at 60ºC (?) without scalding anybody and without legionella risk.
@BaffledCook Thermostatic mixing valves have been mandatory for years in most parts of the world. Legionellosis is not often caught from home environments
@Caleb "soldered" does not always imply "soldered with a solder that leaches lead".
To answer this question in general, it's important to note that hot tap water systems are not always considered potable in many parts of the world. In some places they don't attain or maintain a high enough temperature, and older systems (even in places like the UK) can occasionally use hot water reservoirs which are more open to contamination than cold water from the tap. So, in general, be sure that your hot tap water is actually intended to be potable and has the necessary safeguards.
TFD's answer discussed one obvious safety concern raised in the question regarding temperature. Given environmental concerns about wasting heat and energy, as well as warnings not to have scalding hot water from taps, many people tend to lower water heater temperatures as low as possible. But it's important to keep temperatures always at least above 120F (50C) to avoid conditions which can allow bad bacteria like Legionella to propagate. (Sam Ley mentioned this in comments, but to be clear -- any temperatures above 120F will cause Legionella to die off, but the question is how much time it will take if you have a contaminated water source: at 125F it could take hours; at 140F it only takes a few seconds.)
However, assuming a well-functioning water heater that is not set to an inappropriate low temperature, the major safety issue with using hot tap water for cooking or drinking is not bacteria, but other dissolved substances. Hot water will absorb any contaminants in pipelines much faster than cold water.
The main concern here is lead. Government agencies are generally in very strong agreement that one should NOT use hot tap water for cooking or drinking for this reason.
From the CDC: "In all situations, drink or cook only with water that comes out of the tap cold. Water that comes out of the tap warm or hot can contain much higher levels of lead. Boiling this water will NOT reduce the amount of lead in your water."
From the EPA: "Only Use Cold Water for Consumption: Use only water from the cold-water tap for drinking, cooking, and especially for making baby formula. Hot water is likely to contain higher levels of lead. The two actions recommended above [i.e., "flushing" water lines with fresh water and using only cold water] are very important to the health of your family. They will probably be effective in reducing lead levels because most of the lead in household water usually comes from the plumbing in your house, not from the local water supply."
From a New York Times article on the subject: "Lead is rarely found in source water, but can enter it through corroded plumbing. The Environmental Protection Agency says that older homes are more likely to have lead pipes and fixtures, but that even newer plumbing advertised as “lead-free” can still contain as much as 8 percent lead. A study published in The Journal of Environmental Health in 2002 found that tap water represented 14 to 20 percent of total lead exposure."
The links have more information, but in general be aware that one does NOT need to have an old house with lead pipes for this to be a concern. Soldering in newer pipes can also contain lead which will leach into hot water much faster than cold. I think the CDC and EPA are probably being a little overly cautious here, but unless you've actually tested the water from your faucets for contaminant levels, it may be best to err on the side of caution and let the water run cold first from the tap before getting water for drinking or cooking (particularly when small children or pregnant women are involved).
For myself, I've always followed this practice and was taught it when I was very young. I also remember being told to do this for flavor reasons, which would also be very relevant for drinking and cooking. A few years ago when I had a discussion with a person who had never heard of this practice, I said we should both get glasses of hot water from the tap, allow it to cool, and compare drinking it to water drawn from tap cold. We both agreed that the hot water had more "off" tastes to it when it had cooled.
I can't say that this would be true everywhere. (I've since moved myself, and I haven't tried it again.) But if your hot tap water actually tastes different, it's clear that something is changing in it, which could involve more rapid absorption of some contaminants somewhere in your plumbing. Is this dangerous for most healthy adults? Probably not (unless you still have actual lead pipes), though again you'd need to do actual testing to know. But if my water tastes better from the tap cold, why would I use hot top water for cooking? As others have noted, it's likely not going to save you energy, and in some cases could actually be harmful.
After the whole DC lead issue, we found out that the 'official' procedure for testing in lead in drinking water is to run the water for a minute before you test it, because if you test it after it's been sitting it'll be higher. So every water fountain and sink (excetpt for bathrooms) at my work has a sign about 'run the overnight water for a minimum of a minute before consumption'.
I come from a family of plumbers. When I was very young, my father demonstrated why you should never drink from a tanked hot supply.
He took me up to the tank in the attic & got me to put my hand to the bottom of it. The inch of gritty, oozy mud in the bottom of the tank put me off for life.
You can only drink hot water if it comes directly from the main supply through an instant heat type of system.
I'm guessing you live in the UK? In the US hot water is always potable and you won't find a tank in the attic nor anything you can reach into
May not be a direct answer, but too long to be a comment. In short, there is really no need to use hot tap water for cooking.
Unless the temperature of your hot tap water is near boiling point high, it does not necessarily boil significantly faster than room temperature or cold water. I am not saying hot water does not boil faster than cold water, just not to a meaningful extend.
See the following excerpt from Scientific America
"..cold water will be absorbing heat faster while it is still cold;
once it gets up to the temperature of hot water, the heating rate
slows down and from there it takes just as long to bring it to a boil
as the water that was hot to begin with.."
The reverse is even more interesting: hot water may freeze faster than warm water:
..It all depends on how fast the cooling occurs, and it turns out that
hot water will not freeze before cold water but will freeze before
lukewarm water. Water at 100 degrees C, for example, will freeze
before water warmer than 60 degrees C but not before water cooler than
60 degrees C..
In addition to heath and energy/money concern, I do not see any reason to use hot tap water for cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.112016 | 2012-02-18T01:58:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21471",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"BaffledCook",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Colin",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Jonathon",
"Leslie Clark-Hipps",
"Mien",
"Navin",
"Sam Ley",
"TFD",
"Tetsujin",
"Yun Ching",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"jontyc",
"rackandboneman",
"user15536",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
24451 | Keeping crushed ice from melting, without it joining back together
You've got a cocktail party and need a supply of crushed ice through the night without having to continually bring out the blender.
Leave it out and it melts quickly.
Put it in the freezer and it joins back together.
Is there some cheap way of keeping it crushed like those super-expensive, super-unreliable Iced-Coke/Slurpee machines do?
I like how this question reads like a choose your own adventure novel. "Leave it out..." (Turn to page 86), "Put it in the freezer..." (Turn to page 107)
:) Gamification?
Drop the pieces of crushed iced one by one into a dewar of liquid nitrogen. When done, filter off the excess N2 and quickly bag the ice to put in a freezer. It might prove quicker, and foggier, to simply drizzle a slow stream of cool water into the N2 with stirring. The cheapness of this approach depends on your definition of cheap.
As far as I know: No, there isn't. Because is some cases that is the purpose of crushed ice: Melting faster than an ice cube.
I don't know how many guest you have, but I would just keep ice cubes in the freezer. When making a drink, just take some out, hold it in your hand and hit it hard with the back of your bar spoon. Voila, crushed ice.
Please note that this only works with heavy bar spoons, so not every spoon available is made for this purpose.
On another note: You can also buy crushed ice. It comes in large bags. Of course the pieces also join a bit together, but here is a trick. Just throw the closed bag on the floor so the pieces separate. Then take a champagne cooler or something and put your ice in there. Put it in the freezer. It will join a bit of course, but somehow you can still take some out with an ice shovel. This how some bartenders I know do it all summer long during outdoor-events.
Use an ice cream scoop. Should be heavy enough.
They have ice crushers, hand and hand-cranked. https://www.etsy.com/listing/96064126/ice-cube-crusher-1950s-hammered-aluminum -
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31LTth%2B3xNL.jpg
Maintaining a source of regular agitation will disrupt the crushed ice from joining while preventing refreezing, however constant agitation will also cause it to melt faster. I would recommend filling a small cooler/ice box/ice chest, optionally with a bed of ice packs (the solid plastic kind, covered with a clean, no-lint towel), and a metal serving spoon to agitate them when serving. This should minimize both melting (by insulating) and refreezing (by the raised bed draining melted water) as much as one could reasonably expect.
Don't pay too attention to the previous answers.... I've got this one!
I've had a severe crushed ice addiction for about 5 years and I've figured out a few ways to help keep crushed ice fluffy and dry. And believe me when i say I've tried damn near everything.
First and foremost, you MUST blend/crush the ice in a FROZEN BLENDER! (keep in freezer for at least 2 hours prior to crushing the ice (I keep my blender in there 24/7 because crush at whole lot, and often).
2nd, when blending don't waste anymore than 45-60 seconds getting ice into blender, crushing it then back into the freezer.
Most importantly, make sure the container you store any crushed ice in is FROZEN solid... I have found that a stainless steel bowl is very good at helping the fluffy and dry cause....
And....lthough you don't have to the following, it does make a huge difference if you don't have a sub zero freezer... and that's putting a couple of blocks of DRY ICE in the freezer near/under your crushed ice.
(Do a Google search and find a local dry ice supplier and get a click or two the day of your party).
I keep a metal potato masher in the freezer. .I use it to mash up the ice if it isn't totally fluffy and dry.
*Bonus Tip for carrying fluffy ice in a personal/small cooler...
The night before put whatever size cup(s) you're going to be transporting inside the cooler and fill it with regular ice, then put the whole cooler in the freezer....the next morning when you remove frozen cups you'll have a perfectly 'fitted' spot for the cup you're gonna carry/transport.
Fill your cup(s) with your crushed ice and immediately put it/them back into the freezer until you're ready to walk out the door. When you're ready, get the cooler out, and ADD SALT! And i don't mean a pinch... I'm talking like a 1/4-1/2 cup per 5 pounds of ice. Salt decreases the temperature of ice significantly and I guarantee, if you use an aluminum cup/mug for your crushed ice and put it immediately into the empty space in the cooler (where those empty cups were) and cover it/close the lid, you'll have 8 straight hours before that fluffy ice begins to melt.
I know.....I know, it's actually pretty damn sad that I know this shit.
BTW, a sub zero freezer is your best bet.
The reason it joins back together is because it has begun to melt, then re-freezes. To avoid this, you need to keep the ice cold and dry, so there's nothing else to re-freeze.
This can be accomplished by crushing your ice in the freezer. Probably not practical for most people, though, unless you have a walk-in freezer, or an in-freezer ice crusher.
I tried to keep mine dry by using a hair dryer, but that didn't work out for me. :D
Very simple answer.
Crush your ice in advance, put it into a strong bag (like a large zip-lock bag). Put it in the freezer overnight, it'll freeze into a large, lumpy block.
The following morning, take the bag out and drop it on the floor a few times until the ice has broken apart. Put it back in the freezer.
Success!
This also works for ice cubes, I carve my own from a block of clear ice so have to use this technique.
I have a serious addiction to eating crushed ice and all I do is the following to keep from melting or re-freezing.
-Get large insulated (52 or 64 oz) cups.
-Fill the cups with the crushed ice, put the lids on and store in the refrigerator on the second-to-coldest or coldest setting.
There is very minimal melting, even when stored overnight. You may have to play around with the temperature setting on your fridge as I'm sure it varies from model to model. I have a mini fridge at work that I use and it will actually rejoin the ice on the coldest setting. Since this is for a party, you could probably do this using large, covered bowls instead of large cups. Hope this helps!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.112834 | 2012-06-14T09:56:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24451",
"authors": [
"Alene",
"Chris Cudmore",
"DavePhD",
"JGallardo",
"Kanika",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Resol",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"emeralddragon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"mfg",
"user12344567"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24450 | How do packet cake mixes get their lightness without creaming butter and sugar?
I don't get it. Do they have some chemical leaveners in them or something?
I just had a slice tonight and upon complementing the chef on its lightness, was told it was a packet mix—just add egg and water.
Making a cake before around 1910 always required at least an hour of work beating sugar into butter: this incorporated air bubbles into the mixture. But since then, there have been a number of remarkable changes to the process.
The first was the arrival of modern cake shortening, which has smaller fat crystals that trap small air bubbles, which stay in the batter. They also have a much wider temperature range at which it has the right solidity, and these days manufacturers fill shortening with preformed bubbles of nitrogen (around 10% of the volume) and up to 3% of the shortening weight is replaced by bubble-stabilizing emulsifiers.
The second major innovation was the arrival of cake flour: a soft flour low in gluten that is very finely milled; in the US it is strongly bleached with chlorine, which also lightens the end result by various means, but the EU and UK disallow the bleaching step, so manufacturers there use different processes such as heat treatment.
These two improvements, together of course with mechanical mixers, have lead to not only less work when making cakes but also lighter, more fluffy end results, and the ability to use more sugar without the batter becoming to heavy.
Finally, because the mixing process fills the batter with bubbles, cake recipes typically either for no chemical leavening or for less than other batter recipes do.
(All of this information is extracted from pages 555-557 of the excellent On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee.)
So the answer to your question seems to be: mass-produced cake mixes use the incredible advances in food technology of the twentieth century in general, not so much chemical leavening specifically.
I hate it when people tell me information from books that I have on my shelf. :)
Cakes pretty much always have chemical leaveners in them, whether you're making them from a mix or from scratch. So yes, there are chemical leaveners, and that's plenty to get it that light. I'm not even sure if it takes significantly more leavening than you'd need if you'd creamed butter and sugar, since cake batters are wet, so sugar will generally dissolve more and not provide a structural component. Some cake recipes don't even bother with a creaming step. In any case, it obviously works. Creaming butter and sugar is perhaps more of a factor in cookies, as mentioned in this question, for example.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.113356 | 2012-06-14T09:49:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24450",
"authors": [
"Artonde",
"Jessica",
"Lady Fickle",
"Michele C",
"Ojo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49752 | Can dough be knead with a rolling pin?
Can dough be kneaded with a rolling pin instead of by hand?
If not, what are the mechanic differences that make it so? How is the process of repeatedly flattening and stretching the dough different when done by hand or with a rolling pin?
I have found recommendations that kneading should not be done with a rolling pin, there is never a justification of why. Upon simple inspection, what is done to the dough seems similar enough in both cases.
I remember seeing some cooking shows where the chef used a rolling pin to hit the dough to beat it into shape, but they weren't actually rolling it ... but I don't remember the full context. It might've been cold pastry/pie dough, and they were beating it to soften it before rolling it out. (and using the rolling pin would avoid warm hands that could melt the butter in the dough)
You didn't say what kind of dough you are thinking about, so I'll try to give a bit of an overview first:
With most doughs, the way you handle it will influence the development of gluten. Roughly stated: more handling/stretching equals more/longer strands and more density.
Type 1: Pie crust, shortbread, bisquits etc.
You want to avoid excessive development of gluten as it would make the result tough instead of light and flaky. So we aim for as little handling as possible, "cut" or "rub" the fat into the flour and add liquids at the end with only a quick stir. Use of a rolling pin would counteract this approach, so no use here. Some people will even avoid re-rolling this type of dough whenever possible.
Type 2: Bread etc.
Here, the gluten strands will trap the co2 developed by the yeast, thus enabling the bread to rise. The type of strands can be influenced by the method of kneading. If you go "round and round", either in a mixer or by hand, you'll get lots of small bubbles, giving your bread a uniform texture inside. If you do a "stretch and fold" (usually repeated a few times during the first rise) you get longer, aligned strands and large bubbles. With each method, the dough will be way to sticky to use a rolling pin, at least at the beginning. Most doughs will become less sticky when the gluten strands have started to form. (My great-aunt always said "it's ready when it cleans the bowl and your hands".) That's the point where the rolling pin could be used theoretically. Usually that's after the first rise, when you knead gently again, then shape. I'd strongly advise against the use of a rolling pin here because a few things are likely to happen: a) you might "burst" too many co2 bubbles, b) you are likely to work too much extra flour into the dough, because your hands "feel" when it starts to stick, the pin doesn't, c) you actually aren't supposed "flatten" the dough, rather gently stretch it somewhat, then fold over to the middle and just press to make it stick onto itself again (to quote my great-aunt again: "Handle it roughly first, gently later."). And you will use your hands anyway to move the dough, so why clean the pin, too?
Type 3: Pasta dough
This is actually one type of dough where the use of a rolling pin might be an option. Based on flour and very little liquid, pasta dough needs to be kneaded rather firmly and longer, because the development of gluten strands is somewhat inhibited due to the "dryness" of the dough. The pin could give you the leverage your hands don't. Some people roll the dough a few times through the pasta machine on the wide setting before shaping it, too.
Sorry that I missed the kind of dough, it was for bread dough. Still with all this details the answer is terrifically more helpful. Thanks!
Edit: I assumed bread dough here, during initial kneading. Seeing Stephie's answer made me remember that "kneading" applies to many more contexts. But please keep my assumption in mind when reading the answer here.
Yes, you can knead it with a rolling pin if you want to. You'll have to repeatedly roll it into a flat shape, fold it once or a few times into a thicker shape, than roll again. This is similar to a stretch-and-fold hand kneading method, and will produce a very well aligned gluten structure with distinct gluten "layers".
But in practice, you will run into a few problems. First, some of the most interesting types of bread, where you worry the most about kneading quality, are made with a very high hydration dough, 80% and above. This dough will stick to a rolling pin terribly. You don't want to add flour until it stops sticking (this will ruin the dough), so you'll spend more time scraping dough off the rolling pin than kneading.
Second, the rolling pin is unwieldy. With a bit of exercise, it is easy to develop the correct kneading movements for kneading by hand and execute them efficiently. A rolling pin will slow a good kneader down. It will also prevent you from feeling the dough, making it harder to judge how much to knead.
Bottom line: Experienced bakers find their hands to be the most convenient instrument. If you for some reason find the rolling pin more convenient, use it.
See also Why stretch and fold vs traditional kneading of bread dough? and Does the direction matter in the Stretch and Fold method? for more info on what you are trying to emulate with the rolling pin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.113611 | 2014-11-13T23:49:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49752",
"authors": [
"Ashok Kesarwani",
"Edvins Veits",
"Janeta Montalbo",
"Joe",
"Jotorious",
"Maic López Sáenz",
"Ruth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user118918"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25143 | Cooling and diluting over-reduced stock down with cold water
I've just had a brown chicken stock on the simmer for the last 8 hours, not planning for that long but got called out. Nonetheless, the liquid has reduced by about 1/2 - 2/3.
Would taking it off the heat now and adding cold water to both bring the liquid quantity back up and cool the stock for refrigerating be an appropriate rescue?
For storage purposes, you don't want to bring the liquid quantity back up now. You want to bring it up later when you use it, or even use it in its concentrated form (demiglace). Even as stock, it is supposed to lose lots of liquid by evaporation, you shouldn't get 1l of stock out of 1 l of water+flavor ingredients. I can tell you the exact amount later when I'm at home where my books are. For cooling, just use shallow containers.
Also, if you were going to cool + dilute in one step, ice is a far better option.
You shouldn't cool+dilute as you're adding bacteria to your broth. That's a big no-no. Leave it concentrated, and dilute when used, as rumtscho suggests.
I have to ask, why would you want to add water? Chicken stock should simmer 8 hours. That is the optimal time to extract all flavours. What you have there is (probably) perfect. However, if you don't want as much flavour, add the water later, not now. Also, to cool, the best way to do it is in an ice bath or a cold water bath (one where there is a constant slow source of running cold water).
I purely wanted to add water as when I came home, there was hardly any liquid left. But after straining through cloth, I got about 500mL (1/2 quart) from the remains of a small roast chicken, so I'm thinking all is good.
Nice.... I wasn't trying to be a dick or seem 'elitist', I was just curious... I usually make 8 or 10 + litres of stock at a time... Your reason makes perfect sense...
You didn't come across as a dick or elitist, at least to me anyway. I appreciated your response.
I have cooked about 4 quarts/liters of stock down to about 20-25% of it's volume (after cooking and removing fat). I did the math so that I could freeze it in an ice-cube tray, and each cube would make a cup of stock. It turned out very well; it was interesting seeing how rubbery the concentrate was when frozen. So figure out how much stock you expected, and concentrate it so it takes less space. You can add water during prep to make up the difference, or just toss a bit into a sauce.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.114150 | 2012-07-20T13:21:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25143",
"authors": [
"Annette Merkley",
"BaffledCook",
"Carl Angelo Nievarez",
"JSM",
"Noah",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho",
"user57468"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19636 | Why grease the pan, then line with greaseproof/parchment paper?
Many recipes I've seen request this.
Is it just to stick the paper to the pan to make it easier to work with?
I've never seen a recipe advise this. Reference?
Many recipes advise this actually - a bit of a stretch to give hundreds of references. Every cake recipe in Baked: New Frontiers in Baking suggests this, for starters.
Greasing and lining with paper is something of a belt-and-braces approach to simply ensure the cake doesn't stick to the bottom of the tin. I have several recipes that go one step further and suggest greasing the paper as well afterwards. As you suggest, greasing the tin first also stops it from curling up.
The paper is non-permeable so ideally no batter should ever get between it and the pan. Or do people go to the trouble of eliminating folds in the paper by cutting out overlapping sections?
As ElendilTheTall already pointed out, this is to prevent the paper from curling up. I have recipes with tin foil (that's aluminum) and grease. It goes like this: grease the tin, put the aluminum then grease the aluminum and flour...
But, I have great success (no cake sticking to the aluminum) without all this. I put the aluminum in the tin, pour the batter and bake. No problem. OK, doesn't answer your question...
This is required when using grease proof paper.
Grease proof paper and parchment paper are different things.
Parchment paper is neither fat nor water permeable so is non-stick in itself and doesn't require further greasing (although it's an option).
Grease proof paper isn't non-stick because while it isn't fat-permeable, it is water-permeable. By adding a lining of fat, it becomes impermeable to water and properly non-stick. I.e. it must be lined with fat to help release - like in your recipe.
The terms are often confused. Actual grease-proof paper was standard but has now been mostly replaced with parchment paper. The name and often the method persists though. Many don't realise there's a difference and have probably never actually seen grease-proof paper.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.114382 | 2011-12-13T22:50:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19636",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jrg",
"Yannick Dannies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"steelersquirrel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27580 | Can avocado act as an egg replacement for vegan bread
Can avocado be used to replace the eggs to make a bread vegan. I have seen very little information regard avocado as an egg replacement and was hoping to find advice from anyone who has tried baking with avocados before.
I think you should really try it out and then place the answer here. I am very interested in knowing the answer.
Most breads don't need eggs. As eggs are really hard to replace, I don't see why you would try it in the first place in a dish where there are perfectly good recipes without them.
Please specify what bread recipe you would start with.
"Yes, but not very effectively."
@rumtscho, take it from a vegan, eggs are not hard to replace, you just have to find the right tool for the job... unless you want to eat a hard boiled egg or something, in which case, don't go vegan. :)
I think this is not possible.
Avocado is a great source of high quality fat, but does not contain any protein. Egg contains copious amount of protein which enables it as 'binding' agent. When protein coagulates it 'binds' the ingredients together, giving them a different texture.
So, avocado - having a completely different taste, texture and macro nutrient composition could not act as egg substitute anywhere.
On a side note - egg is not a vital ingredient in bread. Bread gets it's elastic consistency from wheat protein, while the CO2 bubbles from yeast make it spongy and airy. If anything, adding the avocado would be like adding potato and oil to your bread. It would have a harder time rising and the texture would be moister. Don't know about the taste, though...
It really depends on the kind of bread you're making, and what the eggs are used for (leavening, binding, etc). For example, a pizza dough or baguette doesn't need egg. A quick bread such as banana bread might call for eggs in the recipe, and may or may not need an egg replacer (the bananas themselves are actually are a great egg replacer in that case). A bread recipe calling for an egg wash can just have that step skipped. Other recipes might have have eggs serving another function. This website and this website both have lists of egg replacements and their function.
Egg replacers I've used include: silken tofu, applesauce, bananas (usually in baked goods like muffins or quick breads); flax seeds, commercial egg replacer (Ener-G), and tapioca starch.
That site only lists one thing other than commercial replacements for non-quick breads : ground flax seed + water, which I've used for cookies for years.
Well, you can use applesauce, bananas, commercial egg replacer, flax, silken tofu and tapioca starch. I know of a much better infographic that I've seen showing where to use each one, I just can't recall at the moment where I saw it. When I find it I'll edit my post.
@Joe, edited with more info and better websites. Thx.
The best egg replacement is ground flax seed. Mix one tsp of ground flax with three tsp of water. Let sit for 5-10 minutes. You'll get the consistency you need and will still be vegan.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.114595 | 2012-10-04T07:00:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27580",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Deb S. B.",
"Heidi Hatcher",
"Jacob Cook",
"Joe",
"Karen Hansen",
"KatieK",
"Marek Židek",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user62209",
"user66473"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27723 | Lots of liquid in bottom of wok when stir frying
When making stir fry, I use chicken, onion, bell peppers, green onions, bean sprouts, water chestnuts and bamboo shoots. When doing this, I use just enough peanut oil to coat the bottom of the wok, and heat the wok up on high until the oil just starts to smoke, then start with the meat, then water chestnuts/bamboo, then peppers, then onions and finally the bean sprouts and green onions.
When doing this, I have a large quantity of water/liquid that accumulates in the wok, to the point where the cooking seems to devolve to boiling instead of stir frying. I often drain some of this off into the sink. I estimate that between what is drained off, and what is left, somewhere in the range of 3/4 to 1 cup of liquid forms.
I assume this is liquid released from the veggies when they're heated up. Is there anything I can do to reduce/limit the amount of liquid forming, which seems to greatly slow down the cooking, and doesn't leave the veggies as crisp?
Don't crowd the wok; steam has to escape.
Frying off meat separately then no more than a cup of veg at a time for an average/lg wok, should prevent steam from condensing to soup.
Some veg will always produce liquid unless cooking stops at the warm-but-raw stage: ie spinach.
Adding salty ingredients only in the last few seconds helps.
If you prefer quite tender veg then a parboil first is better than longer wok cooking.
I am guessing sprouts are your soggiest culprit. A blanching and pat dry might do the trick.
Salt will pull out the liquid from the vegetables. Avoid using salt when stir frying, add when it's finished cooking.
Better idea - don't use a wok at all. Unless you are blessed with a wok burner which crawls up the side of the wok and makes the whole thing (sides and all) hot. The key here is to get as much surface heat as possible to prevent steaming and get searing. Think about a wok and your stove - very small "HOT" area right on the bottom - the sides are cold in comparison. Now try a larger sauté pan... Very hot all over the bottom and plenty of space to "play with" - the key to stir fry is to evaporate, yet not steam. That's the "stir" part. The Fry part is very high heat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.114872 | 2012-10-10T22:36:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27723",
"authors": [
"Christina Lovette",
"Coomie",
"Denise",
"Gary Martin",
"Lilikoian",
"frogwell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7695"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44710 | Crock Pot to Enameled Cast Iron Pot Cooking Times and Temperatures
I have an enameled cast iron pot, but no 'crockpot' slow cooker.
I am reading A LOT of conflicting information online about how to adjust electric crock pot slow cooker recipe cooking times (and 'low', 'medium', 'high' temperature settings) to a cast iron pot.
I prefer to cook something closer to the 'low' setting of a crockpot. A lot of conversions (but not nearly all) just throw everything to 325 and cook in 1/4 or less the time. I really would prefer to cook it slower in the oven.
I am planning on cooking a 4 lb chuck roast. (Recipe 'Charley's Slow Cooker Mexican Style Meat') and hope to cook it as slow as possible in my cast iron dutch oven in the oven, but don't want to overcook it.
Does anyone have experience with this?
200F-220F Works great. You can go a looooooong time at that temp.
You don't need to convert, because you can't overcook it.
Very briefly, because it has been discussed in many other places: there are types of meat which can be overcooked and types which can't. All recipes for crockpots are made from the type of meat which can't be overcooked. So you don't have to worry about cooking it too long. You just cook it for as many hours as you have time to wait for it. If you want to, you can leave it in for the same time as in the crock pot.
As for the temperature, you choose one which will allow for a slight simmer. It will be different depending on your oven (they are never accurate) and the amount and shape of the thermal mass inside (dutch oven + food). The first time, set it rather high (maybe try the 325 you saw in recommendations), and check on it every 20-30 minutes. Once it has reached 80 Celsius internal or above (or look for a slight simmer if you don't have a thermometer), turn the heat down by 50 F. Continue until simmer has stopped, then go back up 50 F. Next time set this temp from the beginning. You might want to heat the stew quickly on the stove first, then put it in the oven at the optimum temperature, else it will take ages just warming up in the oven.
Very useful. Thank you. (Caution for those reading this - temperatures sometimes switching between Fahrenheit and Celsius in this message)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.115095 | 2014-06-07T18:13:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44710",
"authors": [
"Cat Food Savvy",
"Dave ",
"JHubbard80",
"Jolenealaska",
"Poppy",
"Soosh98",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14003",
"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
} |
28040 | Can you beat eggs inside their own shell?
A random thought: can you shake an egg vigorously enough to beat it inside its own shell?
Aside from this patent I can find nothing about this. Any thoughts, recipes?
Since the usual way to beat an egg is with a whisk, rather than a spoon, I would imagine the shaking method would lack the necessary dynamics for a proper beating.
I know I've seen someone somewhere make boiled eggs that are scrambled in their shell first, so they come out the colour of scrambled eggs... it involved putting the egg in a stocking and spinning it around very quickly... i'll see if i can hunt it down.
Someone made an instructable on how to make what they call a Japanese Golden Egg (although a search for that just gave me lots of hits on Angry Birds); they spin the egg quickly, breaking up the internal structure, and then boil it to get a scrambled-egg-colored boiled egg.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Scrambled-Eggs-still-in-the-Shell-/
That's it! That's what I wanted!
That's crazy. I'll have to try it.
It is unlikely that simply shaking by hand will beat an egg. Eggs have inner anchors called chalazae that affix the yolk to the membrane. It is also cushioned by the membranes and an air pocket.
Anatomy of an egg:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/eggs/eggcomposition.html
Agree - I have tried!
@tentonipete: If it were possible to generate enough velocity just shaking the egg by hand, men would probably have better success than women just from, er, prior, similar actions... ;^)
There are a few devices out there. Most involve poking a tiny hole in the shell to insert some sort of needle on the device which breaks the yolk. That seems to be the main challenge, rather than creating the speed necessary to mix the white and yolk components.
The infamous Ronco offers a $25 item that doesn't seem to have a needle, but its reviews are rather poor.
You might try the paint-shaker machine at a home improvement store; it'd be a fun experiment if you didn't mind cleaning up a few messes. :^D
Yes you can! This video shows how to securely attach a raw egg to a power drill, then use the drill to scramble the egg inside the shell.
The egg is secured (with the long axis of the egg perpendicular to the drill) with tissue paper and wire inside a cut-off soda bottle, and a bolt is put through the bottle cap to be held by the drill chuck. The drill is run alternately in both directions.
A summary of the method would improve the quality of this answer, in case the link goes down.
I just vigorously shook an egg (by hand) and when I cracked it, it came out like nothing had even happened.
You can, you have to shake it real hard and along different axis. It works, I do it all the time (usually exhausting process to do)
If you want w video, ask me, happy to share on YouTube :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.115318 | 2012-10-26T20:29:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28040",
"authors": [
"Ashlynn Rae",
"Eric",
"MargeGunderson",
"Markus Köhler",
"Mary Burns",
"Megasaur",
"Roy Fox",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"Steven Bowers",
"Tara",
"TheFoss",
"bswinnerton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78924",
"pseudosudo",
"tentonipete",
"user64519"
],
"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
} |
32587 | Kobe beef in the U.S?
Recently moved to the bay area, and it seems that everyone is advertising "Kobe beef burgers" on their menus. As someone who has been in Japan and tasted the real thing, it's quite clear to me that this isn't in any way related to Wagyū cattle especially considering the low pricing (<15$ per burger).
So, does anyone here know why Americans are calling this meat "Kobe"?
For what it's worth, I think you've got better odds with "wagyu" than "kobe", because "kobe" is a more well-known word, so as long as you're going to have a misleading label, it might as well be the one that'll appeal to more people.
It's for the same reason that all sparkling wine is in America is called 'champagne'. We don't participate in PDO / PGI / DOP / etc. agreements with most foreign countries. We do have requirements for specifically American-made items to have similar tules, such as Bourbon (so Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey, not Bourbon). But just as America doesn't recognize the European protection for parmesean, champagne, etc, European countries don't recognize the American protections.
I've talked to a local Wagyu farmer, and he said that true Kobe has to be processed in Japan (and he said it in an ambigous enough way suggesting that it might be possible for American-raised cattle to be shipped back to Japan for processing), and they're given a specific diet and treatment that doesn't happen in the US. (I also tried to talk him into selling me 1/2 a cow, and at the time (3-4 years ago?) he said it was in such high demand that all of his cows were sold before he even started raising them. At that time, Wagyu was still pretty rare in the US, and it was being sold as Wagyu ... it only seems to be more recently (last 1-2 years) that I've people selling it in the US as 'Kobe'.
Most of the "American Wagyu" has also been cross-bred with an American cattle. (The story I've heard is that the sperm was brought over, not live cattle, so they had to start with American heffers). So it's going to have some percentage of Longhorn or Angus in it.
+1 for "it might be possible for American-raised cattle to be shipped back to Japan for processing" I also saw several references to this while researching this question. "Kobe" products need to be slaughtered in Kobe to earn their name.
Minor nitpick: Jack Daniels is bourbon. Tennessee whiskey legally is just bourbon distilled in Tennessee. It tastes different from regular bourbon due to the additional filtration through maple charcoal.
Nitpick correction: jackdaniels.com says "Jack Daniel's is not bourbon". jimbeam.com says "Tennessee Whiskey is not bourbon". I think I trust those two sources.
@ChefBrooksie : no, I meant that we can call it champagne over here, because the name isn't protected in the US. If you want to sell it in France, you have to call it 'sparkling wine'. For the same reason we can produce American 'parmesan'.
The rules for "Kobe Beef" labeling in final food products (like a burger) are lax. For the burger to cost $13-$15, it´s only possible using "Kobe-style" beef. These are Wagyu cattle raised by ranchers in the USA, typically bread with Angus cattle. The other option is Wagyu cattle raised in the "Kobe Style" in any other area that is not Kobe, Japan.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-barrett/chicagoburgerbiblecom-kob_b_875658.html
To sum it up succinctly, it's false. They are exploiting a foreign brand to make their product seem exclusive and high-end. They can get away with it because the brand has little legal validity in the States.
While Kobe may be imported legally at the moment, it is most certainly not available at the prices you mentioned.
Some reading on the subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/09/28/kobe-beef-is-back-new-rules-allow-some-japanese-beef-in-u-s/
But it must mean something, right? Is it perhaps a Wagyū like cattle imported to the U.S?
That happens. Additionally, there are Wagyū cattle raised in Japan outside of the Kobe region as well as Wagyū raised in the US (as Jamison mentions in his answer). Either way, it's either Champagne or it isn't if you follow my meaning.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.115618 | 2013-03-11T02:54:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32587",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Phil M Jones",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23576 | Vacuum sealing with a submerged ziplock vs home machine vs professional machine
Typically I'll seal food for storage or sous-vide in a Ziplock bag, submerging it in water whilst closing the final inch to remove air.
How close to a machine seal is this, and is it worth worrying about both for storage and sous-vide?
Can salts be dissolved in the water or some other process to both increase the pressure of sealing and maintain a vat of water for longer without nasties growing in it?
With a ziplock under water, I feel goods without concavities seal perfectly and definitely don't crush the food. Plus of course liquids easily seal. Sealing soup bones however will have the plastic somewhat conform to the concave contours, but bridges are seen. Does the plastic somewhat stretch or bunch perfectly to the inner contours with a pro sealer?
This method isn't really anywhere near what a machine would produce (and by machine i'm talking about a chamber vac not a foodsaver). You are just removing a significant amount of air from the bag by forcing it out through the pressure of the water but a true vac chamber can pull close to 1bar of pressure and remove nearly all of the air from the package. For storage the ziplock can be used for short periods if you take it directly from the bath to an ice bath and then to the fridge without opening the package.
For storage, the biggest issue is whether you have a high-quality thick plastic bag that will prevent oxygen incursion. Have a few small bubbles inside isn't a big deal, whether you use the water method or a vacuum. But cheaper/thinner bags will allow oxygen in over time, and your bag will start to separate from the food, and you'll start to see ice crystals.
For sous-vide, I'm not an expert, but I think the biggest issue is that air insulates the food and prevents it from attaining temperature quickly and evenly. I think people who do home low-temp cooking recommending having a sauce or fat in the bag along with your protein to reduce the issues with bubbles. I do know that professional chefs will use the ziploc-in-water technique at home, with good results.
I don't think adding anything to water will affect the density/pressure enough to matter.
And yes, professional vac machines don't have this problem.
Interesting point about the bag thickness. Do you think it's the plastic that has a porosity, or the seal on Ziplocks just isn't as tight? I was thinking the thinness of the Ziplocks was ideal was it allowed the plastic to conform easier.
jontyc: According the the blog "Cooking Issues", the type of plastic used (polyethylene) forms a poor vapor barrier. Plastic wrap is worst, ziplocks are a little better, and freezer ziplocks are better than normal ziplocks.
if you have to go ziplock go with the freezer bags, they're thicker and deal with the heat better.
Air also expand with heath, making the bag buoyant in the sous vide, which is bad. Vacuum machines are a must.
I answered a similar question in another post. What can I do to prolong vegetable and meat freshness in the freezer?
I store meat and seafood in the freezer for up to a year using a combination of really good plastic wrap and/or Freezer Ziplocs (Glad). I will even buy sandwich bags without zip locks for individual chicken breasts, and then put in a bigger freezer Zip Lock removing air again. Kind of like the commercial now. I helped my Mother do this when I was 8.
In late spring I try to do a major clean out and not buy anything until the frozen food is all used. It's easy to throw single chops or mix types of meat on the BBQ to rid yourself of the extras and make room for the summer fruits and new bargains. I even had something frozen for 2 years without any freezer burn or any bad effect on meat. I either stack flat and deep and/or double bag to give a buffer zone from the defrost cycle.
I leave the vegetable to the food market, and freeze where I can. Good plastic wrap will generally work for the odd shaped pieces. Read my post on the how to. I really like your idea to submerge in water for the concaved items.
If you are considering longer storage, then maybe purchasing professional machine is worth it. I just can’t deal with or have the room for another appliance and their supplies.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.115960 | 2012-05-04T06:16:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23576",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Candid Moe",
"Ethan",
"J4ckalope",
"Jorge",
"Ken",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"jontyc",
"user53422"
],
"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
} |
19714 | Boiled sugar disaster?
I attempted to make some hard sugar to use as windows for gingerbread houses. I thought I could do it without a candy thermometer as I have before, but obviously not. I tested it in ice water and it went straight from soft ball stage to a dry crumbly mess in a matter of 20 seconds. What did I do wrong?
It sounds like a stray sugar crystal fell into the mix--that's all it takes to kick off the crystallization you noticed. Ensure there is no undissolved sugar on the sides of the pan by wiping with a wet paper towel. Do so early though so you don't risk knocking them in at a susceptible point.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.116658 | 2011-12-17T05:30:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19714",
"authors": [
"Samantha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42982"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28664 | Pork shoulder discoloured in the freezer to a greenish grey colour. What happened?
Yesterday I took a pork shoulder, removed some of the fat and sinew and skin, cut it up into smaller parts, and put them into the freezer in freezer bags. It took me just under half an hour to remove the bits I didn't want.
This morning I took a piece out to defrost to cook later in the week and I noticed that some of the fat that I had left on, had discoloured into a greyish-green colour.
Out of the 5 pieces I put in the fridge, 2 have fat that looks like this. The other 3 piece look alright.
Only the fat and sinew covered area was effected.
It was pretty warm yesterday when I did this. Maybe 32 degrees Celsius. The meat was still a bit cool when it went into the freezer.
What's happened?
Freezer burn, maybe? Was it smelly/slimy to the touch, or just discolored? You don't happen to have a picture, do you?
Picture didn't come out! The fatty parts looks OK in the picture, definitely not OK in real life.
Unless the pork is a major economic investment--and believe me, I understand that--remember: "when in doubt, throw it out."
It is very difficult to diagnose what this is based on the description. I am hoping it is something innocuous like a reaction from acid and a pot's materials, or a trick of the light.
I don't know what I did wrong, so can't expand further for a real diagnosis. So, this is probably the only safe course of action.
Is it a cured ham or a straight uncured pork shoulder? Nitrates in the curing process can cause the meat to have a greenish nearly rainbow kind of sheen to it as they can undergo pigment changes when exposed to light and air due to a chemical reaction.
If you got air in the freezer bag, my guess is the meat probably just oxidized. When meat is exposed to oxygen it turns a grayish color. The meat is not bad. You can still use it and you won't even be able to tell that it was gray at one point.
Except the description was "greyish-green" color--for the fat--which is more scary.
Yep, I cut away the discoloured fat and the meat looks OK everywhere. Just the fat is weird.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.116754 | 2012-11-26T03:02:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28664",
"authors": [
"Ashley ",
"EnterTheRobot",
"Joe Filippone",
"Mary Joy Sinfuego",
"Megasaur",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saeed Falsafin",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67850",
"user67848"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75599 | Is it ok to pre-mix dry ingredients a few days before baking?
I've been asked to bake at someone else's house that I'm traveling to. I thought it might be easier to measure all the dry ingredients at home and combine them in airtight plastic bags until ready to use - like a store-bought mix. Is there any reason this might not work? For example, are any ingredients problematic: cocoa powder, corn flour, or leavening like baking soda/powder (just throwing those out as examples)?
If it matters, I'll be making cornbread and chocolate cake.
I don't see any problem, as long as humidity stay low.
@Max If you'd like to answer, please post an answer. See http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2157/what-should-we-do-with-answers-in-comments-on-questions
Related/possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64162/1672
The cornbread is probably uncritical, but double-check your recipe for the chocolate cake:
If it is a "mix-all-dry-ingredients / mix-wet-ingredients / combine-and-bake" type of cake (like for muffins), you are ok. But if the cake requires creaming butter and/or eggs with sugar and folding in cocoa and flour at the end, you are in trouble if you dump everything in one bag. (Two or three bags might work, depending on the recipe steps.)
Apart from that, your dry ingredients stay safe if they stay dry. Any humidity can lead to lumps or the baking powder activating prematurely and thus flat cakes.
So keep your mixes in airtight containers and you are good to go.
A few practical tips:
You might want to take a few extra materials with you - like flour or cocoa to dust your pan or extra flour if you need to shape or roll the dough. Confectioners sugar or cocoa can come handy for a quick dusting should you need to hide a few, ahem, cosmetic flaws.
Not all ovens are callibrated well, so if you have a separate oven thermometer, take it with you. Also, keep an eye on your product while it is baking, you might have to adjust baking time or temperature (elevation!) a bit.
Your dry ingredients may settle during transport, aerating them helps a lot for better results. Either sift them or stir with a wire whisk.
All good advice. My cake recipe calls for blooming the cocoa for instance so I'll make sure I keep separate what needs to be separate.
If the recipe calls for mixing the dry ingredients together, than it won't be a problem. However, if the ingredients get wet, it could mess up your baking soda or powder, causing them to react prematurely. Moisture could also rot your flour, if you leave it for too long.
As long as the container is water and vermin-proof, I don't see any problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.116966 | 2016-11-17T17:58:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75599",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DaveBurns",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8494"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43882 | How much yeast is in a "package"?
Our Better Homes and Gardens cookbook calls for "1 package active dry yeast" in its pizza recipe, which is less than helpful, since we keep a container of bulk yeast in the freezer. What is the standard volume (e.g. in teaspoons) of yeast in a package?
According to Red Star, a very common yeast brand in the US:
The strip contains three packets; each packet in the strip is considered one package. Each package contains 1/4 oz. or 2 1/4 teaspoons of yeast.
This is approximately 7 grams, or 11 ml.
This is representative of all of the US brands.
7g a sachet is standard in the UK, so it would seem to be somewhat standard
For dry yeast 1/4 oz seems to be the "standard", which is 7 g
Measuring by volume is unusual for dry substances in the metric system. In most countries using metric, the sachet will be labelled by grams, not milliliters.
@TFD: More like metric enemies, grrr... by the way, my sachets say 7g too.
7g sachets are standard in Aus too.
TFD: Measuring by ml is unusual for dry substances, but tsp/dsp/tblsp common - not strictly metric of course, but commonplace within an otherwise metric recipe, and frankly more convenient (for small or fractional numbers) than 5/10/15ml.
As far as measuring yeast, I use instant yeast, rather than packets. I have a Tupperware tub of year that's been in my freezer for about 15 years! It shouldn't be viable, but it is. The equivalent of 1 packet of yeast is 2 1/4 tsp. Since my yeast is so old, I use 1 1/2 tbsp (sometimes more) and I get wonderful bread out of my almost 25-year-old bread machine. I hope this helps.
I just made cinnamon rolls and measured it out myself: 1 Packet of Yeast = 1 1/2 Tsp
This is Red Star instant yeast that I'm using.
I wonder why your measurement of 1¼ t differs so much from the 2¼ t that Red Star states.
@Colin -- Tsp = teaspoons or tablespoons?
My best guess is it means tablespoons (capital T often means that) but I guess it's hard to say for sure.
In US, T = [Tt]bsp = tablespoons, and t = [Tt]sp = teaspoons.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117195 | 2014-05-04T19:58:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43882",
"authors": [
"Brenda Carlson",
"Capital Equipment",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Dannie Keane",
"Dracs",
"Edward Brey",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Erica",
"John Neuhaus",
"Kinley Namgay",
"OJFord",
"RememberME",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8569"
],
"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
} |
23881 | how to make indian chilly chicken
how to prepare Chilly Chicken. Its basically an indian recepie. Its my favourite dishes too. Please help me to make chilly chicken.
I ever prefer home based food. So please tell the masala preparation too. Thanks in advance.
Sorry, but recipe requests are off topic, see the [faq]. If you have specific problems following a recipe you already have, you are free to ask a concrete question about them.
chicken 500gram(prefer boneless chicken)
Gram flour 100 gram
corn flour 50gram
garlic ginger paste 1 tbsp
salt
water
curd 1/2cup
lemon 1 tbsp
turmeric powder 1/2 tbsp
combine altogether as above mentioned and make paste apply in the chicken. Make wet for half an hour. Heat the oil in tawa and make a deep fry then chilly chicken is ready serve with sliced onion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117404 | 2012-05-21T10:14:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23881",
"authors": [
"Leliel",
"Rob Elliott",
"Rose",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54194",
"piccarina93",
"pjenk213",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19844 | How to cook cubed fish for a fish taco (tortilla)
Today someone at work described eating a delicious halibut taco. I've never had one before but it sounds awesome, so I'm going to try to make one some time this week (but since I have a lot of salmon in stock, I'm going to make it with salmon instead of halibut). I'd rather not grind the fish - ground fish does not sound like something that's too interesting to eat. So, I was thinking I'll just cut the fish into cubes, and fry them up, then throw the cooked cubes into a tortilla, roll up with some sauce, and serve (to myself). If it turns out good it would be a great recipe to share with friends and family.
However this is not something I've done before. I know fish breaks apart quite easily when cut into small bits, so is it even possible to preserve "fish-cubes" in a frying pan or will all the little cubes break into a flaky mess? Or, maybe it would be better to cook the whole fish first and then dice it afterwards?
If anyone has any advice or suggestions on how to create awesome fish-cubes (or just any general advice about how to prepare a salmon for a fish taco) please let me know.
Don't cut it up before cooking, do it after cooking. This is a common issue with many Mexican style recipes
Coat the fish with your spice mix, and cook as desired. When done, cut into cubes/chunks or flake onto your tortilla
Usually thinner fillets work best for this style in regards to surface area exposed to spices etc
Do the same for beef tortilla, spice and cook a steak, then slice it up thin and add it to your tortilla
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117504 | 2011-12-21T02:30:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19844",
"authors": [
"Christie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43263"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49819 | are the larger snails in Hawaii edible?
We live in Hawaii and their are lots of larger (really big) land snails. I don't know if I can eat one but I was wondering if it can be eaten.
If it can be eaten, how would it be best to prepare them, or what can I pair them with?
The name of the snail in Hawaii Achatina fulica. It's is edible but must be prepared properly according to Wikipedia. Here's a video on the subject of preparing them linked to in the Wiki article.
Interesting. One of the worlds worst invasive species. Almost always a good reason to eat something! –
And there's also the warning in wikipedia : "In the wild, this species often harbors the parasitic nematode Angiostrongylus cantonensis, which can cause a very serious meningitis in humans. Human cases of this meningitis usually result from a person having eaten the raw or undercooked snail, but even handling live wild snails of this species can infect a person with the nematode and thus cause a life-threatening infection."
In my country of origin (Cuba) we are always told not to touch those snails with our bare hands...
Pipipi snails are small black ones found at the ocean shoreline. We ate them whenever we had a party.
The larger land snails were called ‘African snails.’ They invaded the yard and gardens of Hawaii. We poured salt on it to kill them. Never heard of anyone eating it though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117653 | 2014-11-16T19:53:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49819",
"authors": [
"B Magic",
"Deborah Vareha",
"Harry",
"Helen Worley",
"Jeff Blakey",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Maricela Perez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yms"
],
"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
} |
54628 | Using Unused Pickling Juice
2 weeks ago I made 10 gallons of pickling juice for vegetables and only used 7 gallons. Today I decided to use the 3 remaining gallons of juice. I boiled the juice I made which was water, white vinegar, salt and sugar, and left it in the porcellan(spelling) pot that I originally boiled it in. The juice will cool down, and I will pour it into the glass containers with the vegetables. Is this juice still safe since it has sat out for 2 weeks (covered), even though I have boiled it for 5 minutes or should I just throw it out and start all over again. As a footnote, the pot is in great condition, no rust marks, it is all white, and the taste of the juice was fine before boiling.
tenderize your meat in it! or make adobo chicken/pork/beef :)
This may guide you a bit.
Tl;dr - It recommends reusing brines only for fridge pickles. Since you have already heated up yours to make your original batch, heating it again (and processing it) may change the acidity and make it not shelf-stable. Since there were no vegetables placed in it, it may not have changed the acidity that much, but better safe than sorry. FWIW, I made a batch of fridge pickles with leftover/misshapen scraps, and I liked them better than the pantry pickles.
I can't imagine it has enough sugar in it to counter the acidity/salinity, but if you aren't sure, toss it.
better safe than sorry, so how do I give you 50 points?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117821 | 2015-02-12T03:19:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54628",
"authors": [
"Leo",
"Soft Stripping Ltd",
"cheryl markosky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"itsmekarenlee",
"jenna niemi",
"jsanc623",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87414 | Creating some flakiness inside a Belgian Liege waffle
I have a pretty good basic recipe for Belgian Liege waffles. Its as follows: 1 egg, 40g butter, 5g salt, 20g sugar, 250g flour, 6g dry yeast, 90ml milk, once the ingredients are combined and the dough doubles in size, add pearl sugar and divide into waffle sized balls and let rest 45min before pressing in waffle iron.
This recipe is pretty good, however from my recent trip to Belgium and the various waffles I ate, one stood out more than the rest where the inside of the waffle was slightly more yellow and the dough was more like flakey/stringy bread on the inside (like challah bread / croissant hybrid). Any idea how I can adjust my recipe to achieve a result that is more like this?
I am thinking along the lines of changing the butter ratio and perhaps adding some egg yolks, but not sure if this will accomplish this.
Also, would substituting milk for water help with this? and lastly, swapping the 20g sugar for honey?
I appreciate any advice.
Are you melting the butter? You could try using cold butter and doing the same thing as when making pie-dough. Croissants are a hybrid between phillo dough and yeast dough; so this might have the desired result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.117978 | 2018-01-31T02:35:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87414",
"authors": [
"caconyrn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65470"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
116375 | When are cornichons ready to be pickled?
For the first time, I'm growing my own cornichon for pickling, but don't know the best time to pick them. Most recipes suggest they are ready when the fruit is about the size of your little finger - fair enough, but the fruit seems to go through two stages - small with a downy covering, then as they ripen they get a hard prickly skin. Both stages happen at the 'little finger' size - so which do I want...soft & fuzzy or hard & prickly?
Since most folks like to pickle these whole, harvesting these before the skin becomes too prickly seems like the best course. I read a number of seed instructions and some recipes as well and that seems to match up with their advice. The pickled cornichons will turn out crisper with more tartness if they're harvested before full maturity.
They can still the harvested and used as slicers if they get larger. The thick and prickly skin is less bothersome once they are cut up.
thank you for your response. Both skin types are present at 2 inches which is well below the mature size which is about eight or 9 inches. I'm noticing the "fuzzy skinned "gherkins dehydrate faster in the refrigerator which makes me suspect the harder more prickly skin is what should be used, but i'd still like to hear from anyone who is more familiar than i am for a more definitive answer. (as an aside, I find a few large gherkins in the garden now and then, I tried one and they are terribly bitter - the small ones are not)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.118096 | 2021-07-09T19:12:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116375",
"authors": [
"Jos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11208"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
114119 | How to prepare and use fresh herbs with woody stems (thyme, oregano)
For quite a while I have wanted to grow a selection of fresh herbs in my kitchen. I have managed to set up that works wonderfully growing my most used herbs but now I’m running into questions about how to use them, particularly herbs like thyme that have small leaves and woody or fibrous stems.
I prefer to include the herbs into whatever I’m cooking rather than use a bouquet garni. But picking individual leaves from a plant such as thyme is incredibly work intensive and not really worth the time involved. Is there a more efficient way to harvest these sorts of leaves?
This question has been linked to a similar question, which is fine, but I believe that Stephie’s answer here is more complete & helpful than any given for the linked question about oregano.
There are two ways to deal with herbs like thyme.
First, you can strip the leaves by pinching the stem with two or three fingers and pulling up towards the tips. Nails can be helpful, too. That should dislodge pretty much all leaves and when some of the tips tear off as well, it’ll be the soft bits that can be used just like the leaves.
For some herbs, you can also tear in the opposite direction, e.g. for savory.
Second, if you are planning to cook the leaves anyway, note that they will detach from the stems during cooking. After a while, you can simply fish out the woody stems and discard them. You will end up with the whole individual leaves, which is great for thyme, but may be a bit large for rosemary - I don’t worry too much about that in most of my dishes and if it is an issue, choose the first option.
I'm sure I could make a comic video for youtube, watching my efforts to chop the leaves off fresh rosemary rather than dump the whole stalk in ;) One day, I'll get round to buying a re-usable bouquet garni bag
You could make a Bouquet Garni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouquet_garni
https://www.hgtv.com/outdoors/flowers-and-plants/herbs/diy-bouquet-garni
You can tie the woody herbs together with a piece of string then find them and fish them out when you are done. I usually make a sack of cheesecloth with the herbs inside. It seems to me like some could wiggle loose from the string or fall apart but they are not getting out of the bag.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.118252 | 2021-02-05T21:27:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114119",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123849 | Using Butter in Enriched Bread Dough - any differences between soft vs melted?
I live in northern NY and my kitchen is cold a great deal of the year - so mixing butter into bread dough takes much longer and typically leaves large chunks of butter in the dough. I often have to take it out of the mixer and kneed out the butter chunks by hand.
The last few times I've made an enriched dough (in this case brioche and rum baba) I've added the butter to the milk and warmed them together until the butter melted and used this in the dough instead.
I did not notice a difference - it kneaded and baked the same as before. (The baba's were my best batch yet - beautiful crumb, delicious). But just because I didn't notice a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. So my question is - am I missing something?
Can anyone elaborate on what difference using melted butter makes in the finished bread? (Does it change the structure, taste, texture etc?)
The only relevant comment I've found on using melted vs softened butter was from ATK testing it in a doughnut recipe; they said it made the dough feel greasy - but I did not find this to be the case.
Edit:
I found a comment in another post, here, explaining how fat inhibits gluten development - this suggests a difference in the dough depending on when the butter is added, but not between solid or melted butter. Nevertheless, it does seem relevant so I linked it.
This Youtube video compares adding softened or cold (but flattened with a rolling pin) butter to a white dough that had already been kneaded for 3 minutes. The amount of butter was 24% the amount of flour, both by weight. The dough was then kneaded for another 7 minutes. For melted butter the butter was added at the start and the dough kneaded for 10 minutes. In all cases a strong dough developed after 10 minutes.
After baking the three loaves looked very similar. The presenter said he would be happy with any of them. No comment on the taste.
The presenter points out that usually butter is added with other enrichments, such as eggs or sugar. In this case, he found that the dough made with melted butter required at least 5 minutes more kneading than the other two. This seems reasonable because, while all fat hinders gluten development, melted butter will coat the flour most quickly. More kneading time is obviously inefficient and risks over-fermentation.
I càn tell the difference. Kneading is supposed to work the butter in, if you practice a lot then you know what's happened to the dough by heart and it's not a worry anymore.
Can you please explain what the difference is? If you say you can tell the difference, please describe it for our users, thanks.
I suppose it tastes like the bread has grown a bit more and has more character and richness.
Which version has “more character and richness”, with melted or with soft butter?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.118443 | 2023-04-08T20:15:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123849",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"turtledna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110238 | How to get rid of the bitterness in home-made mustard
BASE FOR Q:
I took 2:1 yellow, black mustard ratio, i dry-grounded only yellow part. Mixed all together. Made brine 1:1 apple cider vinegar/water. Added sugar and salt to taste a poured this liquid over the above metioned mustard mix. Let it soak.
It tasted bitter. I read billion of opinions. After week I got upset and just spread the entire batch in 1cm layer over big tray and let it breathe for 3 days. It did mellow big time. I put it into glass and it did mellow further over next months.
I wanted hot mustard so no cooking. Cooking makes mustard not hot.
Q:
Is it just time and air, or is there anything else and better scientific with explanations, what mellows and finally removes bitterness in homemade mustard?
How are theese super hot mustards made wiyhout being bitter at all?
EDIT: Superhot is when you dont cook the mustard at all, or for just a short time.
I solved the trouble by getting better mustard seed. It varies quite a bit. Not knowing the parameters, I threw money at the problem, and that worked. Someone will probably be along to tell you how to gauge seed quality before buying.
The difference between bitter quinoa and tasty quinoa is whether you rinse the quinoa first, presumably removing some bitter coating on the outside of the seed. This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but have you considered rinsing the mustard seed before processing it?
I made mine only from yellow seeds, not soaked, with vinegar and salt, not knowing about the bitterness. I thought I'd have to throw it out, it was that bitter. Just kept it in a jar in the fridge, not having any plan to eat it, but because I am a mustard addict and had no other in the house, I opened it few weeks later and voila, not bitter!! I am very happy :)
I made an experiment, with tottaly different method and same ingredients.
The biggest change in bitterness is when seeds ground or whole, are soked in water. And there is no acid present.
1.) In bitter scenario I poured mixture of vinegar/water brine also all spices, sugar and salt over and made it ready mixture. It stayed bitter for long time.
2.) Not bitter ready to age scenario was that I added to the mix of seeds water from the recipe first and let it sit 24h. Than I added the rest of ingredients.
It would be great if someone can elaborate on this chemicaly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.118775 | 2020-08-16T19:35:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110238",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45902 | Why do doughnuts have holes?
We're all familiar with the ring doughnut as an American confection. One thing I've always been curious about is why they have holes in them (or are toroidal in shape). What advantages, if any, does this shape have in the preparation process, and are there any other historical reasons for this shape?
Legend has it that the inventor of the ring shaped donut with a hole came up with the idea because he was dissatisfied with the raw centre of regular donuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut#History_in_the_U.S.
Having done quite a few doughnut experiments recently, it's true that having shapes where the distance from the centre to the surface is smaller increases your chances of properly cooked doughnuts. So toroids make sense, but then so would thin cylinders.
You can however, fry up donuts will no hole, that are cooked all the way through. Look at Berliners or jam-filled doughnuts.
"But then so would thin cylinders" - and there are thin fried dough cylinders too, for example toulumbas and churros. It just so happens that whoever made the doughnut hole chose one of many possible solutions to the problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.118965 | 2014-07-27T04:52:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45902",
"authors": [
"David",
"Gennifer",
"Kamil",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"sunil nambiar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29325 | Can onion based recipes such as bolognese be cooked in slow cooker?
Slow cookers seem like an easy way to cook a meal if you are prepared to wait the 8 hours or so for the meal to cook.
Can you simply put all the ingredients, including onion, for something like bolognese in a slow cooker and expect it cook properly? Will the onion soften like it does when fried with oil?
I had no idea that would be an issue with a slow cooker.
With regard to your comment, "what can you cook in a slow cooker", I cook almost everything in the slow cooker!
With regard to onions, I suggest that you precook the onions so that they obtain the texture that you want and then add them to the slow cooker. For example, when I cook stew, I caramelise the onions before placing them in the slow cooker, for the cooking temperature is too low for Maillard reactions.
What do you see as the main advantage of the slow cooker?
@Paul Lassiter: One can make very tasty dishes with a minimum of effort as well as using cheaper cuts of meat. One uses less electricity and one doesn't heat the house in the summer (by not using the oven). Your mileage may vary, of course. But a slow cooker is not a panacea: certain cooking techniques will not work in a slow cooker.
The problem's not in the slow cooking -- the problem's in the putting all of the ingredients together. The acid of the tomatoes will prevent the onions from softening, so you'll not get the same texture that you'd get from cooking the onions first, then adding the tomatoes.
You might be able to solve that problem by not chopping the onions -- use a grater to effectively turn it into onion juice, and you won't have to worry about the chunkiness problems.
So if onions are effectively out, what can you cook in a slow-cooker?
@PaulLassiter : you can cook them, you just won't get the same texture; just like how you won't get any browning. (although there are some newer devices on the markets that are combined slow cookers / steam oven / electric skillet, which get hot enough to brown things first, then switch it over to slow cooking) (although, I'm still waiting for the slow cooker / deep fryer / rice cooker combo ... all just bulky things that heat up)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.119108 | 2012-12-20T01:48:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29325",
"authors": [
"Bobbbbbbb",
"Cynthia",
"Emma",
"Ian MacDonald",
"Joe",
"Maria Smith",
"No'am Newman",
"Paul Lassiter",
"Tilly Upton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68106",
"user68089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120668 | Does this tool where a knife edge is dragged between two angled abrasive pieces hone or sharpen?
A few weeks ago I bought an awesome Global knife. I ordered this tool from Amazon:
My question: Does this tool hone the knife, or does it sharpen it?
Can you explain what difference you see between "hone" and "sharpen"? I thought, and so do Google and the WWW, that those terms are virtually synonymous, and not only interchangeable but very-much defined in terms each of the other. Are you suggesting that "sharpening" is the basic operation and "honing" some kind of refinement thereof, or what?
@RobbieGoodwin sharpening is removing material from the blade. Honing is shaping it into a straight edge. Both are essential parts of making a sharp edge.
@Preston Don't you think "shaping it into a straight edge" is achieved by "removing material from the blade"? Who doubts there are books of smithcraft explaining all that's worth knowing, and more… which you easily quote instead Posting unsupported and contentious assertion?
If you know better sources, cite them! Else why not recognise that if not most, still many sources see "hone" and "sharpen" as synonymous; interchangeable and so much defined each in terms of the other that prolly any barber with a straight razor will show you the lack of difference every day?
@RobbieGoodwin - those really are the definitions of each. Honing does not remove metal, it 'bends' it back into alignment. See https://www.masterclass.com/articles/honing-vs-sharpening#how-to-hone-a-knife [& many others] Honing & sharpening are absolutely not synonymous. That people confuse the two does not change the actual definition of each term.
@Unlisted Thanks and are there clues in the name? That tool is called a "Kitchen IQ Edge Grip 2 Stage Knife Sharpener"? Sometimes a "Kitchen IQ Edge Grip 2 Stage 'Pull Through' Knife Sharpener", as seen in search engines such as your own…
Where is your view written? With a doctorate in metallurgy, I might take your word and why would you, Preston or anyone Post what might be wholly true, as unsupported assertion?
Linking in Gordon Ramsay helps a bit and don't you think "Honing" and "Sharpening" belong to metallurgy and smithcraft in general and Gordon's work is more specialised?
@RobbieGoodwin - I think the onus is now on you to find a plausible conflicting reference if you still think you need one. Simply searching 'honing vs sharpening' gives plenty of data to back up my assertion. Presumably the majority of manufacturers of this equipment must count a metallurgist among their number.
@Unlisted Please stop trying to avoid the issue. All my and none of your statements - including this last - have been backed up or clearly capable of checking. You might be right but please, stop asserting and start citing
The onus has always been on you to find any reference as SE in particular scientific enquiry generally, have always said.
Please don't shriek "search." You search, then present a summary of your results with the links to back that.
Since we're sure to be shut down for arguing in Comments, why not either do that, or just go to Chat?
I'm not avoiding any issue. In any matter like this, there are 3 potential definitions. 1) scientific paper 2) use of the term within the industry to which it applies & 3) usage by the general population. I am using definition 2). If you want any greater detail, then its up to you to do your own research amidst scientific papers relating to the subject. It is not my research task. I've provided sufficient evidence for definition 2). I will not engage you further on this.
Adding to the subject: it's pretty easy to feel by touching the blade - distinguish a dull blade vs sharpened vs honed. Sharpened blade has a specific rough feel, as if minuscule serrations; it's easy to cut yourself with it accidentally if you move your finger along it. A honed blade feels absolutely smooth, very similar to a dull blade - except it will dig into skin at even minimal pressure without need for any length-wise motion. The difference is striking - a sharpened blade is already okay for most kitchen applications, but honed is a whole level above that.
Thanks Guys. It might be true that the two are necessarily separate processes, and that sharpening must go before honing but that stopped being the issue with Preston's first Post, "sharpening is removing material from the blade. Honing is shaping it into a straight edge. Both are essential parts of making a sharp edge".
Why is hard to see that even if that is, was and always will be true, it was presented here as an assertion wholly unsupported… and also confusing in its own terms?
Who doubts "sharpening is (anything and)… both are essential parts of making a sharp edge" is confusing?
This is a sharpener. Everything that pinches the blade is. It's good for returning a dull knife to reasonable sharpness, to a point where it can be honed. If you put a sharp knife in it, it will make it less sharp.
This is the type for honing.
Those come in two flavours, though - honing & sharpening. Watch out you get the right one.
@unlisted I have yet to see the sharpening type alone though; what I see is either a set of 2, one for sharpening one for honing, or honing only.
As already pointed out, it's a sharpener - worse, it's probably a 20° sharpener & a Global will be a 15° blade.
When you get into good knives, be aware that you will also be paying proper money for a sharpening system, unless you want to spend 10 years of your life learning to do it manually. Don't put good knives anywhere near drag-through sharpeners of that type. See How to maintain my knife? What am I missing, and what am I doing wrong?
Füri used to make a 'TechEdge' system [very hard to find now] & whilst you can throw away the drag through sharpener, I've ever seen as good a honer as that. I've had mine 25 years & it's still in use, even though I now have a foolproof electric sharpener, the Füri is my daily honer. The bendy finger structure makes sure you just can't get the wrong angle or pressure.
[I actually went back to it a few months after my answer on the linked question above. It's more gentle than the honer in my electric system & doesn't need setting up & putting away every time.]
I have a steel, either it's rubbish or I am [I would bet on the latter].
If you do decide to go with a traditional steel, make sure you get a honing steel - they also make sharpening steels.
disagree about the 10 years. I think most people can do a decent job with an hour or two of practice and a youtube tutorial.
Everybody says that. I disagree. If you get it, you get it, if you don't you won't.
Love my Spyderco sharpmaker.
@ScottSeidman - that's included in my range of wobbly, hand-operated failures in the linked answer [not that specific make, but one very similar.]
how would we verify that someone with two hours of practice is honing to the same quality as someone with a decade of experience? it's opinion on both sides here...
@jcollum - It's opinion on both sides, but one side has 30 years of trying & failing, the other side has "I'm sure you could do that if you tried". Well… I tried, & failed, with a dozen different systems. I base my 'opinion' in that, though I'm pretty handy in many other respects, after 30 years of various hand-held systems I got a better edge after 5 minutes on a serious electric sharpener than I'd ever got in my life before. Personally, I need no further convincing.
I found this article interesting. https://www.kitchenknifeguru.com/honesandsteels/whats-a-honing-steel/#tab-2 -- still looking for an EM comparison of sharpened vs honed
@jcollum - what's an 'EM comparison'? Sharpening takes metal off the surface, honing merely points it in the right direction.
EM = electron microscope -- and really it would need to compare expert honing vs trained honing
@jcollum - seems a bit extreme when you can just cut a tomato to see if it's sharp. By the time you've made dinner you've cut enough things to know if it worked or not.
I like evidence and "it cuts a tomato well" doesn't seem like much in the way of evidence to me. Lots of things cut a tomato well, how do you compare well vs well to figure out which is more well?
@jcollum does it really matter which is "more well" when "it cuts a tomato" is most definitely good enough for most people?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.119338 | 2022-05-24T13:27:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120668",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Esther",
"Preston",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"SF.",
"Scott Seidman",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"jcollum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115959 | Can I use a rectangular ceramic pan instead of enameled cast iron to bake bread without losing the nice crust?
My wife has been baking sourdough bread in an enameled cast iron Dutch oven and has been getting a very nice crust.
She preheats the pan and oven to 500 °F (260 °C), then puts the dough in the pan, cooks a while at 480 °F (250 °C) covered, then at 450 °F (230 °C) uncovered. Dutch ovens are round and our main use case is sandwiches, so it would be nice to cook in a rectangular pan. When I search for them, it appears they are all ceramic. Does the lower heat conductivity of ceramic make it not form as nice a crust?
I searched Amazon for "cast iron casserole rectangular" and found several immediately.
Does this answer your question? What are the differences between a Dutch oven and ceramic casserole?
@2cents: No, it does not. It does not address the effect of the material on bread crust. Thank you for the reference.
Do you really want crusty bread for sandwiches? Usually recipes and loaves marketed for sandwiches have a soft crust.
@aswine: yes, we do like crusty bread for sandwiches.
@RossMillikan The question linked specifically asks about the effect of the material on the bread crust and many of the answers address that part of the question under "browning" but if the answers are not sufficient to your needs, hopefully someone here will have a better answer.
@2cents: yes, the answers here are quite helpfu.
Doesn't matter; you cannot use a ceramic pan with that baking technique.
If you heat the ceramic pan to 500F and then add the wet dough, it is likely to crack, and possibly even explode. Same goes for glass. Ceramic pan maker Emile Henry says:
Never preheat your ceramic baking dish dry, always add cooking oil or some type of liquid to the dish.
You should, instead, find a covered cast-iron loaf pan, such as the one by Staub, or a different baking technique, such as the traditional cold-oven cloche technique.
This might be true for generic casseroles, but there are many ceramic bread cloche's on the market. I would guess that they are fired and cooled in production in such a way to release internal tension that could lead to cracking. In any case, they are designed for this use.
Hmm, I think that, just on general principles, I wouldn't buy a bread pan that's so expensive that the seller offers to finance the purchase.
2cents: that's incorrect. You do not bake with a cloche by heating it to 500F dry and empty; the instructions, such as the ones I quote in my answer, specifically warn against that. Bread goes in the cloche at room temp.
Also, relevantly, I'm a potter so I know a little bit about ceramic ovenware and what you can and can't do.
Pete: for sure! I sure wouldn't spend that much on a bread pan, either.
@PeteBecker neither would I. OTOH unless you need a lid "cast iron loaf pan"s are available for about 1/10th that on Amazon; and ones with lids can be found for prices midway between that and what Staub wants.
The technique described in the question requires a lid.
Buy 2 for 20% of the cost and use one as the lid? Or use foil as a lid?
In a very similar position to you, I switched to an old-fashioned sheet steel loaf tin. The method is a little different
I line the tin with reusable non stick liner, and prove the dough in the tin (overnight in the fridge, taking it out an hour before baking, though 2-3 hours would be better). I bake uncovered, and when I put the loaf into the oven I add boiling water to a preheated pan on the oven floor.
The side crust is a bit easier for slicing this way, and overall the loaf is better for sandwiches. Proving in another container and preheating the loaf tin didn't work for me - shaping the loaf and placing it in the tin was the problem.
Reusable non-stick liner can't be heated to more than 230C usually, right? Just asking because OP mentioned higher temperatures.
@Nobody mine says 260°C. I heat the oven to 240, but because I don't preheat the pan and liner, it never gets that hot. It's optional anyway; oiling or flouring the pan can be enough (with different effects on the crust) but mine sits cold in there for near enough 24 hours and tended to stick in the corner seams otherwise. I've cut the liner so the corners are protected.
There are two good answers here at this point, but I'll just add a little more about why your wife's method works. It is not just heat conductivity. First, cast iron does store a ton a energy as it is being pre-heated in the oven. When the bread is first placed in the pan, that stored heat is transferred to the dough, helping to create the bottom crust.
Secondly, however, you cover the pan, creating a very moist environment, as moisture from the dough is turned to steam and trapped. In a way, this recreates the effect of a steam injection oven found in artisan bakeries. This steam generation and capture is difficult to recreate in a home oven, even with various hacks that home bakers uses.
That said, a sandwich loaf is usually baked differently, as pointed out by @FuzzyChef. As a follow-up to his answer, you might also search "cast iron bread cloche" to find other options. Most are not rectangular, but a more elongated shape might be more to your liking.
While the pan material does have an impact, when using this method, the cover on the Dutch oven is critical. That is hard to reproduce. I have seen success, baking a boule, with a sheet pan and a stainless steel prep bowl as an alternate. That might work as an experiment, if you have a large enough prep bowl that you can place over a loaf pan. Alternately, why not try a heavy loaf pan with some of the more common moisture hacks (spray bottle...water pan in bottom of oven...etc.)? As @Chris H points out, the crust won't be as thick, but maybe you will enjoy the texture for sandwiches.
Thank you. Many of the ceramic pans we were seeing have covers as well. We are happy with the crust we are getting, even for sandwich use.
I also added a link to traditional cloche technique in my answer; that's what those ceramic pans are intended for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.119952 | 2021-06-07T03:02:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115959",
"authors": [
"2cents",
"Chris H",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"Nobody",
"Pete Becker",
"RedSonja",
"Ross Millikan",
"aswine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85963 | Why are Italian sausages so different from those in the UK?
I've just returned to London from a holiday in Puglia, Italy. The sausages (not salami) are so completely different to the sausages here. Their colours are pink/white or red/white and much more bright/bold, whereas here the colours are pretty drab. Here when I cut open the casing to crumble out the sausage meat to use in something else, I get a sticky and pretty disgusting texture. The meat in their sausages is much more like actual meat. When cooked I find the Italian ones taste so much better as well.
Basically I hate the sausages here and love the Italian ones. What's the difference between the two (aside from aromatics etc) and how can I get more "real meat" sausages in my life? Obviously I could buy from some of the specialist online retailers who stock them, and I probably will, but I want to understand why the sausages here are so completely different. For example, why is the sausage "meat" here basically a sticky paste?
Images illustrating the difference:
Italian sausages
UK sausages
Technique and ingredients vary widely among cuisines that include sausages. Why not make your own? It's not that difficult, and you would be able to better approximate the sausage you are looking for.
@moscafj Eventually that's something I'll look into.
Have you tried visiting a local butcher shop that makes their own sausages? I find the sausages available in the local grocery store to be similar to what you describe - but fresh made sausages from a butcher are usually much better quality.
@SnakeDoc I am in fact trying to do just that. Doesn't help that every local butchers here is muslim-run so won't sell pork.
Have you looked for an online presence for any of the makers of the sausages you like? Will they/Can they ship? If you can't get them from local butchers can you maybe see if a local grocer can import them for you? (not certain what regulations might apply to the international shipment of sausages)
@eurotrash Have you tried a proper Italian store/butcher instead of a english store or supermarket industrial sausages ?
@Max The only store in my area that sells Italian products doesn't sell fresh sausages or fresh meat of any kind. But I can order it online from e.g. www.delicatezza.co.uk
I am Italian but I really speak honestly here. There is nothing like Italian sausages and charcuterie. I really think so and I have been in several European countries. I am commenting just because I have the same question in mind. Is fascinating how combining few basic steps one get such a variety. The same is with cheeses. I will check if you get a satisfactory answer.
For instance your UK link mention breadcumb as filler
I agree with your assessment of the sausages between the UK and Italy, getting decent sausages in the UK is harder, but not impossible. Commercial sausages in the UK tend to be very finely ground, and have rusk or some sort of meal to act as a filler and absorb juices as they are cooked. UK sausages tend to be flavored by herbs, or have apple in them. Italian sausages are generally more coarsely ground so you see distinct pieces of meat and fat throughout, they also have less fillers so they shed more fat when cooked.
In the UK you get what you pay for with sausages, if you get the cheap store brand stuff you'll get sad tubes of grey paste which will split the second they experience direct heat and spray so much fat the entire barbecue starts on fire. If you shell out a bit more you will get a better product. My advice is to find a good butcher, many make their own sausages in store and they usually have good variety. My local one has quite a few and one is an actual authentic Italian style sausage which is excellent, you mileage may vary but it's worth shopping around.
Not true answer, but long for a comment:
In US, most sausages tend to be ground multiple times and a course grind in the US is what many others might call a fine grind, and I think most UK sausage techniques are close to US. Spices and varieties vary, but techniques are similar. What you want is probably more of a chopped meat rather than a ground meat. Biggest issue there might be getting that quality and still getting a reasonably even distribution of fat for fairly uniform cooking.
A question, the sausages you liked in Italy, was the meat possibly cured or smoked before stuffing the sausage? This might well be an option to reach a chunkier, more meat consistency along with chopping rather than grinding. Most "Italian" sausage I have seen tends to be fresh, while in Italy there may be more of a tendency towards curing as well. Curing salts and such often have the tendency to firm up the meat. A selection of the source meat can also effect. US sausage tends to often use lean meat with added fat, but if a more marbled meat with less added fat is used you may be able to grind/mix less and reach closer to your target.
I would suggest researching both sausage making and charcuterie techniques and experimenting. For books you may need to stray from US or UK published and try for translations from French, Italian, maybe Spanish. As for pork, sounds like may need a weekend drive to the country with an ice chest.
ETA, yes, from your picture, I would class your UK sausage as a fine grind, probably through the grinder twice and a third time for stuffing. The pictured Italian ones are more of a chop and mix, or single very course grind and then stuffed with a press stuffer, not with another trip through the grinder.
Can't comment on the state of sausage in the UK in particular. However, I can comment on sausage in general.
The term sausage if very broad. There are many different kinds of meat that can go into the sausage. They can be finally-ground, coarsely ground, or even cut into chunks with a knife. Sausage can vary in how much fat, offal, or non-meat fillers are added.
Please consider visiting a Polish deli or butcher in the UK. Polish people love meat. There is a huge variety of sausage in Poland. It's not all great and you can find poor-quality stuff as well. However, the spectrum of quality is big and you are bound to find something that will satisfy your tastes if you check out Polish sausages.
I have a large polish deli near me, I will check it out. Thanks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.120469 | 2017-11-27T19:55:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85963",
"authors": [
"404",
"Alchimista",
"Cos Callis",
"Max",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120309 | Name of the alcoholic products of fermenting sugar and distilling mead, analogous to fermenting grapes to get wine and distilling wine to get brandy?
As I understand it
Ferment grains and you get beer. Distill that beer and you get whiskey.
Ferment grapes and you get wine. Distill that wine and you get brandy.
Ferment sugar you get ???. Distill that and you get rum.
Ferment honey and you get mead. Distill that and you get ???.
What are the names of the ??? pieces above? If they don't exist, why not?
See this related question on Home Brewing Stack Exchange What do you get if you distill mead - it seems there is no one-word name for this in English, but it exists in some cultures, all with different names.
The name in french is hydromel, and I am almost certain that this name is more or less shared with other languages.
Interesting. The word "mead" is an obvious cognate to the slavonic word for honey ("med")
Beer and whiskey are both made from wort, not one from the other.
@JeanMarieBecker hydromel comes from ancient Greek ὑδρόμελι (hydromeli) - the ancient Greek word for "mead". hydro=water meli=honey
In Spanish it also is Hidromiel! @JeanMarieBecker
The interim step in rum making is called 'Wash', which unlike beer or wine isn't sold separately. I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it's because it doesn't taste good. The same is true of just about every spirit, including brandy and whiskey, you don't want to drink the first stage product.
To be a little bit technical, the first stage of whiskey making is an ale, or very similar to an ale. However, the fermented product that is made in whiskey making isn't a product you'd bottle and drink, again because it doesn't taste very good. Whiskey makers use different yeasts and encourage bacterial growth to add character to the end product after it's distilled, I'm told it's sour, unpleasant and very strong.
Brandy is made from wine (not always grapes, you have apple brandy, apricot brandy and others), however what makes a good table wine doesn't make good brandy. Special wine is produced for brandy that isn't bottled for consumption because it's acidic and not sweet.
Is there a distinction between "ale" and "beer" in regards to the intermediate stage of whiskey making? That is, is it technically incorrect to say "whiskey is distilled beer" (as micoh123 does), and if so, why?
Ale and lager are specific types of beers with technical distinctions, and while you could make a whiskey out of either, few distillers use finished beers, so I'd called it technically inaccurate to say whiskey is made from them. Both beer and whiskey come from a "mash" of water and malted grains, but while beer turns that porridge into the liquid "wort" and hops it to produce a beer, whiskey would produce their mash a little differently and distill.
Saying that whiskey is made from beer is a little like saying cake is made from bread. They're both made from dough, but there's more to it.
fermented sugar water is produced and drunk directly in some places, it just isn't common in most of the world. Finnish kilju is an example
@Tristan well... "hard seltzer" is incredibly common in the US right now. It's just fermented sugar water, the only extra step is carbonating it :)
@Patrick And beer you would always make with barley or sometimes wheat, but whiskey is often also made with rye or corn. I guess the Germans occasionally make beer with a mix of rye and barley, but a corn mash puts you pretty firmly into chicha territory... and is that "beer"?
Budweiser is 30% rice @J... , and that's beer, at least to some people.
@rob is hard seltzer made from fermented sugar water? I'd assumed it was made by adding a neutral spirit to a more typically-produced seltzer
@Tristan they're made in both ways, it really depends on the manufacturer. Ones coming out of breweries are usually fermented dextrose because they have the means to do so. Contract brewed ones are usually just neutral spirit watered down and carbonated. IMO the "better" ones are fermented dextrose...but they're all pretty terrible so that's not a huge mark.
Since when has 'doesn't taste very good' stopped people from drinking alcohol?
You have to ferment sugarcane molasses (which is just concentrated boiled
sugarcane juice) to distill into rum, so I'm not sure fermented molasses has any other name.
The second question was already asked and answered here, and it's simply 'distilled mead'.
Ferment sugar you get ???. Distill that and you get rum.
Distilled Sugar Cane is also called Cachaça. Rum is made with fermented molasses, while Cachaça is made from fermented (fresh) cane sugar.
According to here, the interim product you are looking for is called Wine Cane, though it looks like it's more commonly called Sugar Cane Wine:
Once the sugarcane juice has been filtered, yeast is added for the conversion of the sugar into alcohol. During fermentation, the yeast converts sugars into alcohol in less than 24 hours, producing a beverage of approximately lighter ABV also known as wine cane.
In the Canary Islands (Spanish), you can buy Ron Miel. In Madeira (Portuguese), you can buy Ron Mel. Both names translate as Honey Rum, but they are made by fermenting sugar cane (mel de cana in Portuguese).
The attached photograph was taken in a sugar cane museum in Calheta, Madeira.
Sugar cane is 'cana de açúcar' in Portuguese, it's just the plant itself. Mel de cana / melado / melaço is molasses, which is actually the product that is fermented for making rum.
Your photo shows the portuguese Aguardente, which is definitely a different product than Rum / it's not what rum is made of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguardiente
Fermented sugar gives you all alcohol. Boiling grain gives off sugars. Rums get made from cane sugars and you get vodka that is nothing more than fermented sugar water.
Brewers yeast is a micro organism that takes sugar of varying sort consumes it and produces alcohol and co2 as a by product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.121072 | 2022-04-12T09:00:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120309",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Brady Gilg",
"GdD",
"J...",
"Jean Marie Becker",
"Luciano",
"M.K",
"OrangeDog",
"Patrick",
"R.M.",
"Tristan",
"fraxinus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98736",
"rob"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27605 | Keeping left-over pan sauces longer?
Am getting sick of adding the wine, then waiting for it to reduce, then adding the broth and waiting for it to reduce, and then adding the butter and waiting for it to do its job thickening...
Actually instead of wine I'm using vermouth because it lasts longer in the fridge. And I'm using a whole milk/corn starch slurry instead of butter because it's lower in fat. But above is the general idea.
So, noticing a bottle of barbecue sauce in my fridge and how easy that is to use, I'm now looking for guidelines on how long I can keep pan sauces I make this way, any tips on how to prepare them so they last longer in the fridge?
Barbecue sauce has vinegar in it, that because of it's acidity, is supposed to make that sauce last longer. But my pan sauces have wine in them that should help longevity?
I know Wikipedia is no expert on cooking, but I noticed on the demi-glace page they claim that stuff lasts 6 months in the fridge or almost indefinitely frozen. It can't possibly last that long, can it?
Set a timer and find a good book to read
First thing to try is freezing, possibly in ice cube trays (once frozen, transfer to freezer bag). Freezing has the advantage that you can be confident the food is still safe to consume.
Unfortunately, cornstarch-thickened sauces often don't hold up to freezing. A couple of approaches:
Thicken only after thawing. Takes more time reheating, but not much.
Try arrowroot or tapioca starch. You'll get a different look and slightly different texture than you're used to.
Use "modernist" ingredients for thickening, such as guar gum and/or xanthan gum. The texture is probably going to be different than what you're used to.
Your BBQ sauce is not only low-pH it is also high-sugar. Both reduce microbial growth. It'd be difficult to know how long your pan sauce would last in the fridge without measuring those, and possibly doing lab work.
Wow, great answer derobert! Thanks. Only question I got. If I freeze in ice cubes, can I just pop a cube or two in the pan after I saute the chicken or pork chop? And defrost that way, while the meat is rest?
@Levander yep, that's the reason for using ice cubes, so you can defrost it a little at a time. You may have to let the pan cool some before putting in the ice cubes (or add some liquid first, as you'd be further reducing it), or of course just defrost in the microwave.
Had to think about it a little, but I guess the reason you're talking about lowering the pan heat is because as the ice melts, the water that's melting off would hit the hot pan an evaporate pretty quickly... Damn you are good at this. I'll play with heats and various more freezer friendly approaches towards thickening. Thanks for all the ideas!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.121538 | 2012-10-04T22:03:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27605",
"authors": [
"Ankh2054",
"C Shaub",
"Davood",
"HASAN",
"John Hartwig",
"Levander",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
127863 | Is it safe to use the eggs leftover from egg wash (from dredging raw chicken) to make scrambled eggs?
As in, is it safe to consume the leftover beaten eggs in an egg wash (in contact with raw chicken) to make scrambled eggs?
Today I made buttermilk fried chicken. In the process of prepping, I overestimated the amount of eggs needed for the egg wash and ended up with a relatively large amount of egg wash left after dredging all of the raw chicken. To prevent the egg wash from going to waste, I ended up making scrambled eggs out of it.
But then I remembered something about cross contamination and something about how raw chicken with raw egg was a no-no. I did cook the egg wash mixture immediately after dredging the chicken wings, but I also haven't eaten the scrambled eggs. Is it safe to consume?
Interesting question - I'd assume (on no basis) that this is no different than the egg binding the breading - which is eaten happily, though it should reach a higher temp being fried and in a thin layer rather than a mass like the egg wash would be.
If you mix the egg, breadcrumbs, and possibly a bit of flour together until it holds together, you can fry those up as a sort of breadcrumb latke. (Do a test one, then adjust seasoning)
My family have always made french toast with the left over egg wash.
I understand your concern, but I think there is little risk. To avoid all rish, you could make the egg wash in one bowl, and pour some of it into another bowl as needed. Use the second bowl to treat your chicken or baked goods, and the eggs in the first bowl will remain perfectly safe.
@scotty3785 To clarify, is that leftover egg wash from the process of dredging chicken in it? Or merely as a batter for the bread (which wouldn't have the risks that raw chicken poses)?
@yuritsuki Using the leftover egg wash. The bread/egg is then cooked and killing the bacteria. I do live in the UK however where we have high food hygiene standards and salmonella is rarely found in chickens or eggs.
It's safe next time, but as a matter of good taste the scrambled eggs that you've made and then left while you ask about them on the internet are no longer fit for consumption!
A web search on the sterilisation time and temperature for Salmonella produces some surprisingly varied results.
There is indeed a cross-contamination risk. The pathogen of concern is salmonella from the chicken, but salmonella can also be present in the eggs. However, cooking dramatically reduces the risk of salmonella. In this case, making scrambled eggs, as long as they are cooked well (the temperature has be at least above 145F (63C), but better if it gets to 165F (74C), should make the eggs much less risky. Hard scrambled eggs should be relatively safe. This assumes that you were working clean and this all happened within a relatively short time frame. I might avoid this practice if I were health compromised (older, pregnant, immunocompromised), just to be on the safe side...but I don't see a huge issue. The chicken, which has the egg on it, is going to be cooked and assumed safe at that point. The egg alone is not different (as a commenter above pointed out).
It certainly seems like the key is to go for fairly well done scrambled eggs rather than the runny sort some people prefer. It is a slightly different situation to the egg wash: Because the egg on the outside of the chicken is a thin layer through which the heat has to pass to cook the meat, it's guaranteed to be properly cooked if the meat is. That just means taking a bit of care to ensure all the egg gets up to temperature
would the safety be significantly different than just the eggs alone? Like does the chicken introduce a significant contaminant load in the eggs to make it unsafe in the egg wash, but safe "enough" if i were to use those same eggs fresh?
@ChrisH I agree.
@bracco23 that depends where you are. Here in the UK commercial eggs are from hens vaccinated against salmonella, and OK for anyone to eat raw. But raw chicken isn't so safe. The risk isn't salmonella but campylobacter, which needs very little contamination to cause food poisoning. So yes, contact with raw chicken makes a big difference. Even if both meat and eggs had a risk of salmonella, the extra risk from campylobacter is still a problem
I ended up throwing out the scrambled eggs just to be on the safe side. Thank you to all who posted advice on what to do!
@ChrisH that makes sense, thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.121802 | 2024-03-13T18:11:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127863",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"OJFord",
"Russell McMahon",
"Wastrel",
"bob1",
"bracco23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99393",
"moscafj",
"scotty3785",
"yuritsuki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54535 | Do quality adjectives have a standard?
So some cheese products I buy have nutritional information on the outside that say things like "Good source of Calcium", or "Excellent source of Calcium", or "Great source of Calcium".
Are these just buzzwords, or is there a standard for these words (ie, Excellent = ^20% calcium, Great = ^10% Calcium, Good = ^5% Calcium)?
From Googling Nutritional Claims Excellent:
YES! These terms are highly regulated in the United States.
In the US, the FDA sets the following standards for food products:
"High," "Rich In," or "Excellent Source Of" - Contains 20% or more of the DV per RACC. May be used on meals or main dishes to indicate that the product contains a food that meets the definition, but may not be used to describe the meal.
"Good Source," "Contains," or "Provides" - 10%-19% of the DV per RACC. These terms may be used on meals or main dishes to indicate that the product contains a food that meets the definition but may not be used to describe the meal.
"More," "Fortified," "Enriched," "Added," "Extra," or "Plus" - 10% or more of the DV per RACC than an appropriate reference food. May only be used for vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, and potassium.
Note: DV = Daily Value, RACC = Reference Amount Customarily Consumed
This is a really helpful page!
DVs are mostly derived directly from RDAs, which vary by age and gender. RDAs are calculated to be sufficient intake for 97-98% of people who fall within the specified age and gender group. For most vitamins and minerals, the DVs exceed the standard RDAs, so they should also be adequate for at least 97-98% of the population in most cases.
I think the discussion here is pretty well settled: there is variability in individual dietary needs, and those numbers are calibrated for "most" people. If you happen to know that for some reason you need twice that much iron, compensate accordingly. Plenty of extra discussion ensued largely because of fake examples with kind of nonsensical numbers and imprecise/changing language; I've cleaned it all up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.122181 | 2015-02-08T20:24:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54535",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"George Burrell",
"Hanna Rickberg",
"Lacey Meredith",
"Milan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"synemarke legal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47304 | Do I have to peel red potatoes before baking them?
I recently made some potato wedges in the oven. I shared this recipe with my relative, who admonished me for not properly peeling the red potatoes before baking them.
She claims that there are disease and viruses that lie on the skin, so peeling it will get rid of it. I bake it, so I assume that even the high heat in the oven would kill bacteria and germs. And besides that, I make sure to wash potatoes thoroughly before cooking them.
Am I in the wrong here? Should I have properly peeled the potato wedges before baking them? Personally I feel they add more flavor, and from all the pictures on the recipes online, it seems they also do not peel it.
What sort of bacteria can survive an oven at temperatures high enough to bake a potato? Anyway, the skin is delicious.
I can't imagine peeling red potatoes. What a chore. I peel large white potatoes such as russets because their skin is coarse, thick, and IMO adds nothing to flavor or texture. But red potato skins are thin and tasty. No reason to peel them.
Your relative is a kook (no, I didn't misspell "cook"). Just scrub them, being sure to scrub off or scrape off (or cut off with the tip of a knife) any eyelets that have started to grow. The skin is often the most flavorful and textured part of any potato.
If you need more than the word of some people on the internet to convince your relative, I would point out that many restaurants serve red potatoes skin on. If there were really a health concern that wouldn't be allowed, or wouldn't happen because you don't get repeat business through food poisoning.
IMHO the only way to enjoy potato wedges is with the skin on. Clean the potatoes adequately beforehand, and between that and the cooking, you will have healthier and more delicious potato wedges. My mom was surprised when I taught her to make red mashed potatoes with the skin on -- she won't have it any other way now.
There are people who peel everything imaginable, and those who peel nothing (me included). It's just personal preference.
No peeling is needed.
A good wash and proper cooking will handle all of your food safety needs.
Good answer. Thorough washing of produce is most important whether it is to be peeled or not.
Horrific Tales of Potatoes That Caused Mass Sickness and Even Death
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/horrific-tales-of-potatoes-that-caused-mass-sickness-and-even-death-3162870/#aEVDTQx66TLXq5ch.99 High solanine cultivars pretty much disappeared from the market by the 90's, so it's generally safe to eat potatoes with the skins on nowdays, despite the advice of the older generations.
@WayfaringStranger If I understand correctly, high concentrations of solanine are typically in sprouting eyes, are parts of the potato that turn green.
@Izam That's true, but there are also huge cultivar to cultivar differences, for example: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html
I prefer red (and gold) potatoes with skin on, but definitely need to wash and/or scrub them first.
FYI, SIGNIFICANT solanine production also requires potatoes to be stored in direct sunlight. Sunlight exposure speeds up the production. They'll gain a green hue as it develops.
Absolutely no peeling necessary.
In addition to the above advice, if you (or anyone else) is overly concerned about 'germs' and the like on the skin, use a small plastic-bristled scrub brush to clean the potatoes properly under running water. I usually don't, unless they are really gritty from the field or have huge divots on the surface where water may not easily reach.
The peel improves the taste as well as the healthful perks.
Not only is peeling not needed for potatoes, but in my educated opinion peeling potatoes is not recommended.
As long as you follow proper food etiquette like washing your hands and properly washing the foods before you cook them, as well as cooking at the proper temperature, then you do not need to worry about bacteria.
Make sure to wash the potato well, under water, and preferably with a vegetable brush.
Further, it is unlikely that any bacteria could survive the high temperatures inside an oven anyway.
My last point is that, in my opinion, the skin is the most flavorful part of the potato.
On the other hand, beware of green sprouts on potatoes specifically. Make sure to remove any green sprouts, because they contain a dangerous and potentially deadly toxin called solanine. See this post for more details on the green sprouts: Is it safe to eat potatoes that have sprouted?
History Sidenote:
It's true that in the former USSR it was embedded into the culture to peel potatoes before eating them. However, this was not due to any nutritional danger, because the peels were still used and consumed separately. According to the book "Potato Ontology: Surviving Postsocialism in Russia" by Nancy Ries, on Page 195:
"Family narratives powerfully transmit potato-peeling morality. When I told
her I was writing about potatoes, Marina, an erudite older friend, a Doctor of
Social Sciences, plunged into a war story. She and her mother were evacuated to
Kazakhstan, while her aunts remained in Moscow. When she returned after the
war, the aunts told her their food stories. Always on the verge of starvation, her
aunts did not waste even those dirty, unappetizing peels but saved and mashed them
into pancakes." [Emphasis added.]
So, as you see, even the Soviet USSR, who emphatically peeled potatoes, still ate the potato skins (even the "dirty, unappetizing" ones), so the potato skins were not peeled because they were unhealthy, but rather merely out of tradition.
The question did include a food safety aspect (is it actually unsafe to eat potato skins) but was definitely not about health/nutrition, which is off-topic on our site. I've edited that portion of your answer out.
but in doing so you also removed WHY it is not recommended to peel them.
If your reason not to peel them is because you claim it's healthier that way, it's not the kind of thing we any to see in an answer here. If I removed something else mistakenly, I apologize, and please edit it back in.
I rarely peel my potatoes, I love the flavor and nutritional benefits (and ease) of retaining the peelings. If skin is too old or green, then I'll peel.
This discusses the concern of green potatoes:
Are Green Potatoes OK?
PS: I always wash my potatoes with a vegetable brush under water; I always wash all produce.
The skin of a potato concentrates not just nutrients but also many of the chemicals used during the cultivation process (pesticides, fertilisers, etc). It is therefore preferable to peel them, unless you're cooking organic potatoes.
source
@thinlyveiled, I believe the standard for the US is set out in Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues, but I'm not a lawyer. Organic farmers are going to use anti-pest and fertilization chemicals (otherwise the crop gets lost), but those chemicals must be from organic sources. As an example, rotenone is an organic pesticide which can produce Parkinson's-like symptoms. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
... then add the ~50% markup put on organic produce over their competitors...
When I was a kid, I would eat the potato peels of our home grown potatoes, as my Mom peeled them. If it's dangerous, it's been dormant for 50 years:)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.122406 | 2014-09-21T16:34:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47304",
"authors": [
"Brian S",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Debbie Gilbert",
"Doktor J",
"Donna LaFrance",
"Eric McCormick",
"Frances Paynter",
"Glass Walls LTD",
"Katherine Langston",
"Kevin and Shelley Fortson",
"MPW",
"Matthew",
"Nancy Oswald",
"Pragnesh Makwana",
"Riley W",
"Samantha Dove",
"Sandra Ramirez",
"That One Actor",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"WellDuct Air",
"Yu Yin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"lzam",
"seasoned",
"stonemetal",
"Živilė Pociūtė",
"Михаил Курков"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35927 | How do I debone fish quickly?
A week ago, we bought some salmon, that was oddly cheap. Today, after cooking it, we realized why: there were hundreds of bones in the fish, all waiting to make their way into our throats. We stopped eating it and threw it away. I realized at the same time that even though they were potential hazards, it was such a waste of money.
Question is, how do we best efficiently filter out fish bones from fish that have tons of them? In other words, is there an easier way besides manually pulling out the bones one by one?
If you are speaking of a salmon filet, you must remove the pin bones one by one. The easiest way to do it is with tweezers or needle nosed pliers. This brief video demonstrates the technique:
Run the back of your knife across the line where the bones are, from tail to head, to make them pop out more.
Pull each bone, on an angle towards the head of the fish
Depending on your tolerance for waste, you can also slice away the portion of the fillet that contains the bones. That can be used in a stock to be strained after cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.123305 | 2013-08-11T06:54:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35927",
"authors": [
"Couverture 94 - Msc spam",
"Erin Hinze",
"July.Tech",
"Kelly Kennedy",
"Mattman944",
"Terea Heets Dubai",
"Trish",
"Weather Vane",
"abestrange",
"divakar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84262"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44180 | Does candy expire?
If so, is there any preventative measures I can take to prevent candy from expiring?
I'm curious because Halloween candy after two years tends to look a little...off, and I'm not sure if it's safe to give it back out this Halloween. Since there's no noticeable expiration date on candy packages, is it safe to assume that they don't expire?
Same goes for homemade candy, does it expire too?
I want to know for the majority of chocolate-based candies, rock-sugar candy (jolly ranchers, etc) whether or not they expire
I don't know the answer to your question, but giving out 2 year old candy for Halloween sounds like a sure-fire way to get your car egged.
There are many different types of candy. Can you narrow this down?
@SAJ14SAJ Done, edited in the original post
Hard candy (I think called boiled candy in England), such as lollipops or star mints is essentially pure sugar, with some color and flavor added. This type of candy will last essentially forever, if kept absolutely dry. There may be some degradation to the color or flavorings after six months or so, but the candy itself will last indefinitely. If moisture can get to it--even summer humidity--it can soften, become sticky, clump together, and otherwise become unappetizing.
Chocolate has a fairly long shelf life, especially dark chocolate. Under proper conditions, it can last for several years. The mix ins or other components of a confection may limit its shelf life:
Nuts may go rancid after a year or two
Nougat may dry out and get rock hard, or if it is humid, spoil
Caramel may get very hard
One manufacturer suggests a shelf life of 6 months for its candy bars, which is probably a reasonable estimate for good quality.
See also:
What is the shelf life for chocolate chips?
Kansas State University: When Sweet Treats go Bad
Good plain chocolate does last pretty well, but at the same time, especially with cheaper chocolate (think candy bars) I think you can get discoloration/bloom after a few months, especially if it's stored somewhere a little warm. The 6 months number sounds pretty reasonable.
'if kept dry' is a rather huge caveat -- we're talking about vaccuum sealed, not just 'don't dip it in water'. My mom kept a candy jar full of peppermints ('starbrite' style), individually wrapped. One day in high school, a friend went and got one out ... and asked if they were supposed to be chewy. They had been there for at least a year (if not multiple years). Although there was a lid, it was exposed to sunlight, so they likely went through some heating/cooling cycles, too. The candy still 'lasted' in that it existed ... but it was unpalatable.
Hard candy if kept dry and within a reasonable amount of years should stay good. I'm not saying that you should re-give old candy as in butterfingers or hershy chocolate. It might get crumby and taste foul so before you give it to kids and their parents say you poisoned it and you get arrested for drugging the candy i'd buy new non gone bad candy.
This may not answer the question in the title, but for :
is there any preventative measures I can take to prevent candy from expiring?'.
Yes. Make sure it doesn't hang around.
There are groups that will take leftover candy / candy the kids don't like, and will give it to others. Some will give it to kids in hospitals that didn't get a chance to trick-or-treat, others in the US will ship it to military personnel serving overseas.
And if there isn't one in your local area, you can always start one.
I've also known people to put it into candy jars at work, but I also know of a case where someone asked if the chocolate could be kept in something other than a clear container which somehow led to abusive e-mails, threats of violence, and someone being let go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.123577 | 2014-05-16T05:15:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44180",
"authors": [
"Allstar Poolparts",
"Cascabel",
"Chryssie Thomas",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Junk Pros Dumpster Rentals",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"The Pathway Hypnotherapy Rooms",
"gstsuvidhakendra net",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yuritsuki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47791 | Substitutes for wheat flour and their challenges in baking
What are the flours that can be substituted for wheat flour in baking, specifically for breads, pastries and cakes?
I found a few here: Top 10 alternatives to wheat
What sort of challenges have you, experienced or novice bakers, faced while using substitutes? In terms of taste, texture and aroma, is there a better compromise? Are the baking temperatures higher or lower and is making the dough easier or more difficult when using substitutes?
Since the edits have stood post-unlocking, I am assuming that this matter has been resolved, and deleting all comments. Any further discussion can take place on the meta question.
There is no universal substitute for wheat flour.
The challenges are, roughly, that recipes will often completely fail if you replace wheat flour with something else. The particular questions you've asked aren't really answerable in a concise way. Yes, taste, texture and aroma can all suffer; yes, baking temperatures can change; yes, making (bread) dough is harder (in that you have to completely change the recipe). Cakes and pastries will tend to fare better than bread, but it's still not just a direct substitution question.
There are some cases where you might get pretty close on the first try (e.g. brownies), but if you're trying to be able to bake everything, there's really no way around this. The list of possibilities and ways to fix them is something many people have written books about, after doing tons of research. Starting from good recipes will save you from having to repeat all that work.
So, why is this all so much trouble?
Along with all the nice starches, wheat has gluten, which is (to oversimplify) a bit magical and difficult to replace. Essentially, the more the original recipe depends on the flour for structure/texture, the more trouble you'll have without using wheat. Specifically, good wheat-free bread is pretty difficult, since gluten (from wheat) forms the basic structure. If you naively try a flour substitute, no matter what it is, you'll probably end up with something absolutely nothing like the original recipe.
You'll have much better luck with the cakes and pastries, where the flour still provides structure, but a lot of it comes from starches, not gluten. (Indeed, cake flour and pastry flour have lower protein content - less gluten!) But still, baked goods can be pretty sensitive, so something as drastic as swapping out all the flour can still derail things.
You can find a lot of suggestions for gluten/wheat-free flour substitutes, which will likely work fairly well in most things where the wheat doesn't provide a ton of structure, i.e. not bread. Generally the best substitutes are blends of flours, not a single flour. For example, America's Test Kitchen came up with this blend of white rice flour, brown rice flour, potato starch, tapioca starch, and dry milk. You can also simply purchase something that's marketed as a gluten-free flour - but note that not all are created equal, and if you can make a well-tested blend yourself (like the ATK one) it will likely serve you better. Unfortunately if you're somewhere where some of those things are difficult to find, you may have to do a bit more research (and experimentation) to find something that'll work for you.
Some recipes will require modification - tweaking other ingredients or the preparation - and for others you will be able to simply use a wheat-free blend like the one I mentioned without changing anything else.
But if you're trying to wholly avoid wheat, rather than trying to ask what all the challenges are, I would recommend specifically seeking out gluten-free recipes for things you want to make. You can even find entire cookbooks for this. For what it's worth, while I haven't seen it, the recipes in the America's Test Kitchen one are definitely really well-tested. This will help you make things that work right on the first try, not the tenth try.
Another great reference is King Arthur Flour. When you're in the US, you'll find their products everywhere, and they ship. Outside the US you'll probably find buying their products problematic, but the website is still outstanding. All of their thousands of recipes have reviews and comments. If you're having trouble, you'll get a response from one of their professional bakers. They do a lot of gluten-free applications, not just bread.
I've made a number of the recipes in the America's Test Kitchen gluten free cookbook, and I'd recommend it as a great resource for anyone who wants to learn more about wheat-free cooking and baking. The book also discusses challenges related to substitutions and some of distinct flavor, texture, and working issues with the different starches, gums, and ingredients used to make wheat-free baked goods and other foods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.123910 | 2014-10-09T03:42:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47791",
"authors": [
"Alexis",
"Carol G",
"Cascabel",
"Clio Horner",
"Concert Venue Rental Brooklyn",
"Dennis Girard",
"Didgeridrew",
"Ed Preston",
"Eva Wielgolaski",
"Ian Kerienye",
"Imona Wadsworth",
"Jack Ladson",
"Jeanette Vautrin",
"Jennifer Duskey",
"Michelle Theron",
"Mukesh",
"PURE CLEANING US",
"Sandie Burns",
"Sharon Hogue",
"Spammer",
"Susan Stephens",
"Tammy Geertgens",
"Tina Brant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"paul davies",
"romeo gcwensa",
"user116869"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83587 | Cutting seared tuna
Just tried searing our local Mediterranean version of skipjack tuna on a very hot pan.
However, when trying to slice it, although I'm using a very sharp santoku, the seared portions tear, making for unaesthetic ragged edges on the slices. Of course, the raw portions cut straight through.
How do the pros perform the cuts so cleanly?
Practice, practice, practice.
More specifically: The searing will make the piece a bit flakier and less cohesive around the edges, so it requires a more delicate touch than raw tuna. So...
if you aren't already, holding the knife properly for maximum control helps.
Look at "The Blade Grip" here.
using longer knife strokes with very little pressure helps
this is why sushi chefs and people cutting smoked salmon at appetizers/delicatessens use long thin knives instead of short fat santoku knives, but if it's a small cut of loin your santoku should be fine
holding the piece of loin right near the blade to avoid excess movement and distortion, but without applying enough pressure to flake it helps
having your knife sharpened to the japanese 35ish degrees angle helps
being very gentle while you're searing it, turning it gingerly with a sharp fish spatula helps
cutting it after it's been refrigerated, if that works for your application, helps
searing it at as high a heat as possible to get the maximum flavor, while keeping it on the heat for the shortest amount of time possible to get as little flaky flesh as possible helps
Good luck, and happy searing!
I'm not sure the knife is the issue. It flakes on the initial cut, and the fish is rather small (6 pounds).
Totally. "but if it's a small cut of loin your santoku should be fine"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.124329 | 2017-08-08T18:52:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83587",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"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
} |
89697 | Are long brines neccesary for sous vide?
I'm looking at a recipe which calls for two weeks of wet brining followed by 48 hours of sous vide for beef tongue. I've seen similar recipes for other tough cuts of meat such as brisket.
It seems to me that if we're going to stick it in a vacuum, the meat can't really dry out that much in any case, so I'm not clear on what the brine, especially such a long one is accomplishing.
What am I missing? Are long brines for tough cuts really necessary if you're going to sous vide them afterwards?
Typically brines are for tenderizing and penetrating flavour into the meat.
The use of the brine would be to break down the tough meat
Though a sous vide does tenderize mildly with the long cooking time you stated, you don't want to over cook it, hence the brine.
Nor would the sous vide alone add as much flavour as the 2 week brine.
The brine is more for a tenderization than to prevent drying out.
But the brine doesn't actually break down proteins, unlike heat. How then does it tenderize the meat?
Salt desiccates and denatures meat actually and break apart proteins and overall softens the meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.124482 | 2018-05-09T06:53:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89697",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28566 | Tea cup residue
Why do I have residue at the bottom of my tea cup? I've tried bottled water and tap water, and the result is always the same. I've tried many different brand of tea bags and they are all the same.
Have you always had this problem, as in going back years? Do you have tea at friends' houses or at restaurants and there is no residue in the cup? I don't drink tea, but it seems like I've seen it more often than not in friends' empty cups.
What do you mean by "residue"? A bit of tea-dust fallen on the bottom making the last few sips look muddy? White scales, as caused by hard water? Or do you just mean the coloring left on a white cup even after it has been washed?
MargeGunderson: I've had tea at restaurants and at friends homes with no residue in the cup. rumtscho: By residue I mean something you can feel in your throat when you swallow the last drop. It leaves a trail in the cup. Thank you all for your interest. I really miss a good cup of tea!
It's a feature. Buy 3, get one free! Don't rinse the cup between brews. The 4th time, just add hot water. :-)
You could try making tea with loose leaf tea and a strainer (rather than tea bags). I have an inexpensive teapot with an insert. It is big enough to make 2-3 cups. There is still a little of the tiny tea flecks in the bottom, but if you pour carefully they stay in the pot and you can have a no-residue cup of tea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/nov/04/foodanddrink.features
That sounds like what your experiencing. But also keep in mind that the grade of tea used in tea bags is pretty poor unless your springing for high quality stuff. I've found that if your water is too hot, too much tannin can be released and this can cause a different mouth feel, sometimes described as "meaty" or "chewy" similar to some of the desired characteristics found in wines (where tannin content is large).
I'd say experiment with different loose leaf teas as described above but to also work with different water temperatures and water sources. If your bottled water is coming from a source up the road from you the mineral content may not be that different then what your getting from the tap.
Try filling the cup with some vinegar. Just enough to cover all the parts with residues. Let it sit for a few hours. If the residue marks are not too strong, try a mixture of vinegar and water.
This method is well known among Chinese people (from tradition) and it has chemical explanations too.
Try it :)
EDIT: Sorry my English is not good enough and didn't comprehend "residue" well enough. In that case, I suggest you just leave the last sip and don't drink it. Also, some tea doesn't have this problem. But as far as I know, most tea have this problem.
The OP clarified in a comment that "residue" is the "mud" in the last sip, not the coloring on the cup walls.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.124618 | 2012-11-22T00:09:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28566",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Bhumphuc",
"Izzy",
"Jean Michele Lee",
"Jonathan K",
"Les",
"MargeGunderson",
"NitrusInc",
"Rinkle Kapur",
"deemel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67155",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28602 | How to know if frozen clams are good when cooked
I have some live clams in the refrigerator that I would like to freeze because I will not be able to use them in time. My question is, how will I know which are good when I steam them later. Will they open up like live clams even if frozen and will the bad ones stay closed? Otherwise, how can I tell which are good when cooked? Thank you.
Per
http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodstorage/a/clamstorage.htm
Do not freeze clams in their shells. To freeze clams, shuck them,
being careful to save their liquid. Rinse with salt water (1
tablespoon of salt to 1 quart of water), and place in a container with
the reserved clam liquid and additional salt water so they are
completely covered. Frozen clams will last up to 3 months at 0 degrees
F. Thaw frozen clams in the refrigerator before using, and never
refreeze them.
While About.com is not always the best, in this case their information passes the gut test. Frozen clams certainly would be killed, and so wouldn't open upon steaming.
The thing about never refreeze is almost certainly a palatability issue, not a safety issue, as long as they stay in the safe zone (under 40 degrees F) and are not unfrozen for very long--but clams are highly perishable. I would exercise considerable safety.
Sadly, I found conflicting information saying freezing them in the shell is okay--but they didn't offer any detail at all, so I its hard to give credence to:
http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/freeze/clams.html
despite their being a university sponsored site.
Being conservative, I would cook then freeze.
Clams are still alive when you freeze them and when thawed come back to life. That is how they live under water in the winter. They will be as good frozen as if you bought them from the seafood store. You can tell, once thawed, if they bounce back like a freshly shucked clam. I have had them for many years this way because we usually buy them by the bushel and cannot eat them all.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. This is really surprising to me, and I can't think of where clams live that require surviving being frozen. Where did you get this info?
In the winter clams go under the sand and basically hibernate until the weather is warmer again. I live in an area that gets all 4 seasons and we have a boat, do a lot of fishing, digging for clams and crabbing. They don't go to the south, they just stay under the sand, mud, dirt. I just got a new fridge and found some clams in my fridge today. My daughter thought they were bad because we got these clams some 3 or 4 months ago. After thawing they responded just like a fresh clam does. My daughter didn't believe and she found this website. We just ate them and this wasn't the first time
I highly doubt they are still alive after thawing, please back your answer with a reputable source confirming this.
Welcome to the Arctic. Mollusks can survive freezing. If you're interested in some light reading, try--Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology
Volume 73, Issue 4, 1982, Pages 571-580
If not, steam your frozen clams. If they open, eat'em!
It would be nice to include the quote in the answer for those that don't have access to the book.
I had 6 doz fresh clams in fridge vegtable bin for 4 weeks by keeping a moist towel over top and little water on bottom, bottom clams froze to bin, thawed out and steamed all opened made clams casino , very good and tasty, so i suggest if any doubts do your own freeze test on a few fresh clams. Happy clams !!!
People you need to be carefull who you listen to about how to eat frozen shellfish,the best way to eat clams frozen is to boil them frozen for sure they will still open but just as good as live. clam man
"People you need to be carefull who you listen to about how to eat frozen shellfish..." -> So how would we know that we can trust you? Could you "flesh out" your answer a bit, please?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.124882 | 2012-11-23T07:35:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28602",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Diane Karnowski",
"Ericka",
"Honwang",
"JohnEye",
"Luciano",
"Miranda Plecker Hartman",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"user69700",
"user69841"
],
"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
} |
62918 | Pizza dough texture and workability
I make my pizza dough with the following ingredients:
2 cups bread flour
1 cup whole wheat flour
2 teaspoons instant yeast
2 teaspoons coarse kosher salt
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
1 cup of water
I mix all the dry ingredients in the bowl of my food processor, turn on the machine, and add the water and olive oil. I watch it come together and add enough more water so that it all sticks together.
I knead it a few times by hand, put it on a bowl on the counter covered with kitchen towel, and let it sit for a day out on the counter.
This is basically the Mark Bittman recipe, except I leave it to sit for way longer than he recommends.
The pizza dough is always pretty easy to shape and tastes good. But, it is better tasting and easier to roll thin in the winter. I live in Maryland, so I assume our heat and humidity are the difference. Even with the AC running , the house tends to be 5-10 degrees warmer in the summer and there is a lot more moisture in the air.
The dough looks and feels identical as I take it out the machine, but while it rests, something is obviously different.
How do I adjust the recipe for the summer to make the dough have the same texture and qualities as it does in the winter?
That seems an awfully long time to rest the dough at room temperature. Assuming you mean an actual full 24 hour when you say "let it sit for a day out on the counter." Actually anything more than 2 hours should be put in the fridge rather than room temperature.
The fact that it's better in the winter reinforces Jay's point: dough left at room temperature that long will almost certainly be over proved.
@Jay if you are referring to the 2 hours rule of food safety, it doesn't apply to foods which are preserved in some way. Foods which are under active fermentation (such as a crock with sauerkraut, but yeast dough too) count as "preserved" in that sense. The dough can overproof, but the OP is obviously not getting any problems with texture, and he's certainly not complaining of bad taste either.
@rumtscho not at all. Im referring to dough being over-proofed when left at room temperature for more than 2 hours without any de-gassing.
Yes, the heat is the difference. You get a better gluten production with a colder dough. That's a pretty basic fact of baking, there are even recipes which insist on using ice cold water for making bread.
If you want to have the same effect in summer, you should use cold water. As cold as possible, I even tried once slush from the ice cream machine just for kicks and it indeed produced very strong gluten (actually too strong for my preferences).
You should use the cold water on the actual dough. The sponge should use room temperature water, because ice cold water is rather unpleasant to yeast. They can live with it after they've been reawakened from their dry state, but it's not good to use it for their hydration.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.125229 | 2015-10-28T18:46:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62918",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fathima Nasreen",
"Fiona Lawlor",
"Jay",
"Mike Gomez",
"Tai Chiao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47324 | Are there special considerations for making a pie with the express intention of freezing?
This past weekend we visited Rodale farm's organic apple festival, and we spent all of yesterday canning. We also have several peaches from making a batch of fruit ketchup. We still have about 1/4 a bushel of apples left, so I was considering making several fruit pies to freeze for the upcoming thanksgiving season.
Thus far, I have seen several recipes that caution AGAINST freezing, some that have tips about freezing (namely, blind bake the crust before freezing, do NOT bake the fruit, bake the pie frozen, just add an extra 20-25 minutes to the normal baking time).
Are there any other major concerns when making a pie specifically with the intention of freezing it? Should I add starch to prevent a liquidy mess? Should I try to drain the fruit first with a little salt to remove excess water?
We get a bushel of apples every year and make and freeze pies. We do a double crust without problem. We put a couple of tablespoons of flour on the bottom for the juices, but we do that for fresh pie as well.
We use tin and pyrex, whatever we can get our hands on.
The main concerns we have is the apples juicing too much in the pie, so we assemble and freeze them as fast as possible. (And we made 18 two weeks ago Saturday) so every time one is done we run it down to the freeze to freeze it immediately, we freeze them uncooked. Don't thaw the pie as again the fruit will have time to juice. We unwrap it (we wrap ours in plastic wrap and then foil to protect the foil from some of the acidic fruits) and put it in the cold oven and start cooking it as normal.
My family has frozen, apricot, apple, and blackberry.
Also when doing the pies en mass like this, we roll our open crusts for the holidays as well, since the mess is already made. These are for the pumpkin, banana, and chocolate pies. The crusts alone we do let thaw before cooking, as they cook so fast.
For apple, specifically, I tend to add a very thin layer of quick oats to the bottom of the pie filler to soak up any excess moisture. But nothing else really stands out in my recipe if I were to freeze it.
My big thing is to use something that can handle the temperature change from freezer to oven (such as pyrex), and help it by giving it a smooth temperature transition: I take it out and let it sit on the counter on a rack (for airflow) for an hour, then I place it in a non-preheated oven so it gently comes up to temp. Then I time it onward from the preheat successful beep to the normal baking time. I may add five minutes if it doesn't look done enough, but I generally eyeball it at the end and I cannot offer any hard advice at that point.
I may have to try your blind baking of the crust one of these days. That may be viable.
I would definitely not salt the fruit.
Metal pans are often better. What's currently sold as pyrex can't handle temperature changes as well as the older stuff. It's likely okay starting in a cold oven, like you mention ... but don't put the new stuff cold into a hot oven.
First, thanks for the heads up about new/old pyrex. Both of our pie dishes are old pyrex so I shoud be safe.
Any thoughts on using a double crust (bottom and top crust) vs using a single crust?
Can't comment on the crust: I always do a butter crumb top which I gently pat down to freeze (acts as a fatty moisture barrier). It browns nicely later.
For freezing I bake until the top looks just cooked (not quite turning golden so maybe 5 minutes less then normal), blind baking or not depending on the filling and whether I can be bothered. Then I cool the pie in the dish on a cooling rack before wrapping it in greaseproof paper then clingfilm and freezing. When frozen it can be removed from the dish and rewrapped - but it's only worth doing this if you need the dish.
I usually defrost in the fridge (still wrapped) then unwrap just before baking again - probably for about 2/3 of the normal cooking time, but going by the colour of the pastry.
The best dish we've got for this is thin enamelled metal but a pottery pie dish works well too.
The idea of salting fruit seems very odd to me. To stop it being too wet I'd just lightly precook the apples with barely any water and a lid on. I often add blackberries/blackcurrants/raspberries or even blueberries, all of which give some juice especially if they've been frozen until the apples are ready - they still don't make the filling too wet, but blind baking is a good idea then.
Thank you! Any advice on a double crust vs a single crust? Does one freeze better than the other?
I normally make a double crust (is that a US term, I'd never come across it before?) for a fruit pie, freezing or not. I would expect it to be easier to wrap/defrost/unwrap than with the fruit exposed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.125477 | 2014-09-22T13:29:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47324",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Glenn Ward",
"Grey Dog",
"Heather Ware",
"Jess Gaar",
"Jessica Darden",
"Joe",
"Martha Jones",
"Matthew",
"Muhtari Galadanci",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21858 | Are Non-Stick Bread Pans Destined to Fail?
Bought a pair of generic non-stick bread pans (Ecko or Good-Chef or some such).
After 100 to 150 loaves, and gentle care, they're now more prone to sticking bread than the non-coated pans they were meant to replace, even when liberally oiled.
Is the problem a bad coating technology, or does this short lifespan apply to all non-stick breadpan coatings?
Are uncoated bread pans fundamentally better for long term use?
If they have a Teflon coating, they may be building up a patina of partially polymerized oil. Oils that sit in contact with Teflon while being heated will gum up and form a layer on top of the coating that is a bit sticky, and prevents the Teflon from working properly. Interestingly the polymerization process is similar to what occurs on a seasoned cast-iron pan, but in its incomplete state, it is sticky rather than slippery!
All-Clad recommends scrubbing their non-stick pans periodically with baking soda to remove the polymer layer, which would be good advice for any non-stick pans.
That said, I'm not sure that it will entirely fix your problem, but it is worth trying before you replace the pans. Micro-scratches and other things will make non-stick surfaces more sticky over time as well.
+1 - your wording is a bit odd though, gummy oil isn't helpful on cast iron either though ;)
Tweaked the wording a bit. ;)
All non-stick eventually gives way to surface scratches, polymerization that just won't come off, and other issues. As @SamLey points out, there are some restoration methods that will help some. Some pans last longer than other, but ultimately, they're not pans built for life. If you liberally coat them in oil, you're probably accelerating it by building up that polymerization.
You've got a few options.
Use cheap ones, knowing that they're somewhat disposable.
Buy nicer non-stick and it should last longer, but not forever.
Liberally grease a normal aluminum pan.
Try a silicon loaf pan, these require very little lubrication.
Try a cast iron loaf pan, these will build up the 'non-stick' over time.
Freeform batards, boules, and baguettes.
@TFD below brings up what to do with the cheap ones. I used to literally recycle them (big blue recycle container in my garage..), but I suppose you could give up the non-stick game all together and treat them as normal aluminum pans. You could also use some cloth/oil and line them as proofing 'baskets'...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.126001 | 2012-02-29T19:31:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21858",
"authors": [
"Sam Ley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22057 | What type of yogurt is most similar to the yogurt used in authentic Middle-Eastern cuisine?
While looking at different recipes to make "yogurt sauce" commonly found in Middle Eastern cuisine, I noticed a descrepancy between the type of yogurt the recipe calls for. Some recipe calls for plain low fat yogurt, others calls for plain Greek yogurt, and then in this recipe, it calls for strained plain yogurt: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/tzatziki-sauce-yogurt-and-cucumber-dip/.
What type of yogurt should be used to make the most authentic yogurt sauce? Is there a specific type of yogurt or specific brand that most closely resemble the yogurt used in the Middle East?
possible duplicate of What is the difference between Greek yogurt and plain yogurt?
@TFD I dont think its a duplicate since I'm not asking the difference between Greek yogurt and plain yogurt, I am asking what type of yogurt most closely resemble the yogurt used in authentic Middle Eastern cuisine.
You might not want to be asking about brands. It leads to answers like Anagio's.
Dana or Labne are middle eastern brands right
They key, for me, is checking the "contents" list and not getting anything with added emulsifiers, gum, thickeners or gelatin, more than any specific type or style.
Greek yogurt is simply strained yogurt. It was only fairly recently that Greek yogurt was widely available in the United States, so prior to wide availability, a simple substitute was to strain normal yogurt.
The type of sauce you are trying to make would definitely use a strained yogurt. Whether you wanted to strain your own or buy strained yogurt (aka Greek yogurt) is really up to you. In Greece, sheep's milk was traditionally used for yogurt, but now there's a lot more cow's milk too, so either would be authentic. I would think that full fat would be the most authentic, but not the healthiest, as I doubt low fat varieties were used traditionally (if they even existed).
The American use of the term Greek yogurt is really just one of branding. Many other areas in the middle east use the same style of strained yogurt. The Greeks also have plenty of normal (unstrained) yogurt.
Actually "Greek Yogurt" is a bit misleading of a name. The Levant region, the area around Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Jordan is where this type of yogurt is from and consumed. Less so in Southwestern Europe (Greece), where it is used mostly as a dessert. It is actually called Labneh which is derived from the Arabic word Laban (yoghurt), and it is simply instead strained yogurt. The term Greek Yogurt probably came about from marketing purposes to the western world. My mother is Lebanese and I grew up eating Labneh almost everyday and it is very easy to make, you should give it a try. Just take plain yogurt (lowfat unflavored) and put it in a cloth bag, you can make one out of muslin fabric. Leave it hang in a sink overnight or a bit longer and you are done.
Also, if you are looking for a middle eastern brand there are plenty but you might need to visit a Middle East import store, I have seen Labneh at Whole Foods also. Sometimes it goes by the name of Lebni as well. Hope it helps!
Strained plain yogurt (here's a good tutorial for doing this at home) or Greek yogurt will both work well. Some brands of 'Greek' yogurt in the US contain gelatin or other thickeners; if you choose this route, try to find one containing only milk and cultures.
You might also consider making your own yogurt.
@zanlok: Dangerous how? Homemade yogurt is very easy to make, and quite popular. I've been eating it all my life, and know many others who do as well.
@zanlok: I tend to have the opposite impression... Home-made food is usually safer, because it has fewer preservatives or other additives, and higher nutritional content.
@zanlok: While that may be a technically true statement, it's effectively meaningless, as it doesn't take into account the relative risks. The risk of finding a toxin or harmful microbe in home-made yogurt in quantities capable of causing illness or death are incredibly miniscule, unless you're just stupid in your kitchen. Furthermore, one of the reasons yogurt in particular is touted so often as a health-food is because of the numerous beneficial microbes it contains. If you're eating microbe-les yogurt, then what's the point? Food is not meant to be sterile.
@Flimzy comments removed in favor of chat or a separate question
I am not an expert, but I have just been to Crete. Authentic Greek yogurt uses goat milk or sheep milk, or a combination of both; and full fat. From what I have read, most commercial yogurts are just Greek-style, and without thickeners and additives. That recipe probably means Greek-style, which is strained, whatever percentage milk-fat is used. Plain just means it is not flavored. Some traditional Greeks do not even strain their yogurt.
Fage strained Greek Yogurt is pretty much the best around.
The question is asking about types of yogurt, not specific brands.
I'm Greek, it's all I use.
Then let me be more clear: the question wasn't "what brand of (Greek) yogurt do you use, Anagio?", it was "what type of yogurt is most similar?"
Actually please re-read their question it asks specifically about a brand Is there a specific type of yogurt or specific brand So my answer is valid and doesn't server a down vote. Fage the brand IMO
@Anagio, I am asking what brand most closely resemble the kind used in Middle Eastern cuisine. You are answering what brand of yogurt you think is the best. Not quite the same.
I missed that, sorry. However, it's only said in that one part of the question (not the title, or even the previous sentence). It's also not good to ask about brands, because they're often only locally available - we tend to close questions asking for shopping recommendations of that form. It's also pretty clear comparing your answer and yossarian's that his is much more helpful.
Greek or greek style is the best, if you can't find that look at plain natural yoghurt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.126236 | 2012-03-06T17:49:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22057",
"authors": [
"Anagio",
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Jay",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9406",
"jessopher",
"linda_j_p",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19461 | Can I store raw gnocchi dough in the fridge?
I made gnocchi dough earlier this evening. It was my first time, so I took a bit of dough and made myself some dinner with it. It was great.
But I still have some dough left over. Since it's quite late: can I store it in the fridge and continue making gnocchi tomorrow?
The dough should keep for around a week in the fridge before changing texture, in my experience. So a day should be fine.
Yes, gnocchi store well in the fridge for a day or so, or in the freezer for longer term storage. It's best to try and keep the gnocchi separate (placing on a baking sheet or tray is best) so they don't stick together, and very well covered so that they don't absorb any odours in your fridge.
If freezing, freeze on the tray until reasonably hard, and you can then transfer them to a tub or bag.
Just to expand: if you freeze them, freeze the already formed gnocchi. Do not freeze the dough ball, in my experience it was disastrous to try and make gnocchi out of it (still tasted ok, but the handling was very messy).
Yes but from my experiance they only keep for 3 days in the fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.126689 | 2011-12-06T21:28:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19461",
"authors": [
"Abhinav Singh",
"J. Cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11127 | Tips for reheating food in the microwave
I often want to buy more than a meals-worth of fast-food (or other food you buy hot) to save multiple trips, but the reduction in taste that comes from reheating it makes me not want to.
What can I do to reheat food in the microwave and have it taste more like it did originally?
Often the answer is "don't use the microwave" - a lot of things that heat poorly in the microwave do much better in the oven. Toaster ovens make that a bit easier for single portions.
The best advice I can give is that you're not going to want to use full power very often. I find that food tastes much better if you cook it for longer at 60 or 70% power then if you blast it quickly at 100%. This is especially true for proteins like chicken. I guess this allows for slightly slower, more even heating without destroying all the water in the food. The extra minute or two of time is worth the huge difference in the final texture.
I find that pretty much any vegetable or rice-based dish will reheat "ok" in the microwave, because of the nature of the microwave itself, which works very well for steaming. When reheating stuff like this, throw a tsp or Tbsp of water in the container, and place a lid on it (but do not seal the lid, you want it vented slightly). Again, stick with less than full-power.
I know someone who swears by boiling a glass of water in the microwave first to fill it with moist, warm air. Supposedly it helps with evenness and faster cooking, and reduces drying out the food; I don't know if I buy it but thought I'd mention it so you and the community can comment/decide. I understand the idea, but feel like you'd lose so much of that just opening the door to swap the water for your food. If you do go this route, it's very important that you understand superheating water, which is dangerous. Don't try to boil water in the microwave without reading that link.
If you're adventurous, there's a line of Corningware Microwave Browning products (scroll about halfway down the page where it mentions browning) - I was given one a half a year ago and was surprised at how well it works. There's a lining of microwave-safe metal (I believe tin oxide) inside the bottom of the casserole/skillet, and you heat the casserole by itself for a minute or two first which gets that blazing hot. When you drop food on it, it actually sizzles, so now you're using a combination of normal microwave cooking and direct, skillet-like heat. I've had a lot of good luck reheating things like pork chops and keeping/adding a crust to them.
Also, there's a book, Microwave Cooking For One, and an accompanying website, that are both supposed to be really useful. I don't own the book but have heard from friends who do own it that you can learn a lot about general microwave use from it - even if you don't plan on cooking from "scratch" and are just reheating leftovers.
All that said, I completely agree with Jefromi's comment. 90% of the food I reheat is reheated in the toaster oven, either preheated like a regular oven, or under the broiler depending on what the food is. You might take an extra 5 or even 15 minutes to reheat this way, but the difference is unbelievable, and the convenience is still the same - I just put whatever I want to reheat into a casserole dish and throw it in, sometimes covered, sometimes not. So, cleanup still only involves one dish, and you can eat directly out of it (though it will be very hot, so be careful!) Once you get into the habit of using the toaster oven, you'll find a way to make up for the small amount of extra time - for example I often I empty the drainboard while it preheats, and wash dishes or something similar while the food heats up.
Thanks a lot! I'll probably try, well, all of these ideas (except the boiling water, as I think adding water will be good enough). And thanks for the links.
The biggest problem isn't the microwave.
it's how you're storing the food in the fridge.
Fast food containers are not air-tight, nor are pizza boxes. The food will dry out in your fridge, so when reheated its flavor will be off at best or horrible at worst.
Transfer your leftovers into airtight containers and you should find they reheat much better. This is especially important for small burgers and pizza which dry out very quickly.
Also, if you want to reheat any dry or greasy food in the container - get a glass container (there are airtight ones too - lid is plastic but well, take it off when microwaving :) and not a plastic one, microwaves tend to heat oil drops far above temperatures that plastic will gracefully take.
Heat it up in the containers that you get when you pick up Chinese food.
When heating or reheating in a microwave uses microwave safe cup of water. Microwaves cook from the inside out or bottom up. That's why dishes are hot on the bottom. Anything with cheese on it the outside will but use more cheese on the edges and less in the center which will not get all melty as fast. Stir the food if possible to get it to heat evenly. Cook slower at a lower temp. Use the casserole or defrost button on your microwave and trust your instinct. You cooked it so you must be able to tell if and when its done.
Microwaves cook from the outside in, like any other form of heat transfer. You can check this yourself by microwaving something solid, like a roast for 2 minutes. Use an instant-read thermometer to measure the outside (place the probe on the roast without piercing it), and then pierce the roast to the center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.126827 | 2011-01-17T05:31:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11127",
"authors": [
"Andrew Beals",
"Cascabel",
"Heena",
"JustcallmeDrago",
"Kader Kouider",
"Karie Davis Riley",
"Keith Twombley",
"Spammer",
"forsvarir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4338",
"rackandboneman",
"stripybadger",
"user22927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57712 | How do you finely grind coriander seeds?
Whenever I grind coriander seeds the outside seems to separate like a husk and doesn't grind well.
I use a pestel and mortar.
Is there a trick to getting finely ground coriander?
Do you have a coffee grinder?
@Jolenealaska : I've had mine for years. I've thought about getting one with a metal work area, (less issues with flavorings lingering), or a Krups Type 223 (so I can make my own Mr. Fusion), but for now, my under-$20 blade grinder works just fine. (and I think I've had it 10+ years)
I recommend a dedicated, rotary style coffee grinder for home spice grinding. Whole spices last longer, usually taste better, and are often less expensive than pre-ground. In many food cultures, whole spices are often toasted whole, then ground. It makes a big difference for not a lot of effort.
I picked up a rotary style coffee grinder for $3 at a thrift store.
I use it to grind all kinds of spices. It never needs to be washed. If it starts to taste like last weeks spices, I just grind up some rice and shake it out. It works great, I've ground spices in the same grinder for 5 years.
I used to use a coffee grinder for this, but one of the better purchases I have made is a dedicated spice grinder. The blades are a bit lower, so it can grind things more finely, and the cup is detachable from the base so that it can be washed along with the lid. I used to do the "grind rice to clean it out" trick, which worked fine, but being able to wash it well and completely get last meal's cumin and chile out of it is wonderful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.127292 | 2015-05-23T06:06:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57712",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Macksey",
"David Gray",
"Fairity McCowen",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lisama",
"nohiros"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11611 | How to blanch and peel nuts?
I recently blanched and peeled the "skin" off 500g of shelled pistachios and 500g of almonds.
For the pistachios I poured boiling water over them, waited a minute, strained, and then rubbed the nuts in small batches in a clean cloth to pull the skin off.
For the almonds, I tried the same strategy as the pistachios. But this was not so good. The skin starts to dry too quickly. So I poured more lukewarm water over them.
Then I dried them in an oven preheated to 150C for about 10 minutes. They are still a but soft, so I may have to do this again later.
My question is, is there a better way? That took a really long time.
You're missing an important step here: You need to use cold water immediately after the boiling water in order to halt the cooking process.
Boil them for about 1 minute, then drain. (You can pour boiling water over them, as in the case of almonds - it doesn't really matter how you do this.)
Submerge or rinse in cold water, to prevent any further cooking and softening;
Peel them.
For the case of almonds, you should not rub them in order to peel. Just pinch the end - they should pop right out of their peels. If you find it taking any more effort than this, stop, don't waste any more time on peeling, and just blanch them again. If you've blanched them long enough, peeling will be very easy.
Yeah, almonds are the easiest nut to blanch. Try cleaning a pound of hazelnuts sometime. (Although the baking soda method does make it easier.)
Hm. When I did my quick google search I never came across step 2. Fortunately they taste alright still and I was going to blend them up. Thanks.
Blanching the shelled pistachio nuts for one minute and then plunging them into ice water made them soft. There was no crunch left in them like there was with the unblanched pistacios. Therefore, I searched the Internet for additional advice and found a video of de-skinning pistachios by using a food processor with the softer, more flexible blade attachment (rather than the ridgid, metal “chopping” blade.) That method worked well. I had already taken the shells off by hand, then the plastic blade of the processor did a fairly good job of removing the skins. No use of water meant the nuts were still crunchy. Process for only seconds at a time or you run the risk if chopping the nuts in with the skins!
For easy peeling of the almond's skin, it's better to soak it in cold water overnight.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please don't write your answers in caps lock. I've edited your post fore better readability. EDIT: Whoops, rumtscho was faster.
Hello, and welcome to the site. Please don't use allcaps (writing in capital letters only), this is considered rude on the Internet, as it is seen as the equivalent of shouting when talking in person. I edited your post to normal letters.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.127458 | 2011-01-29T14:38:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11611",
"authors": [
"Amar",
"Ching Chong",
"Jude",
"Marti",
"Megasaur",
"Natth Wetchapan",
"Raven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user23839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20256 | What can I bake with only flour, water and sugar?
This won't be haute cuisine unfortunately, but I am kind of stuck. I want to bake some snacks, but have only access to water, flour and sugar (student, between two jobs, need to save). I'm pretty sure I can make something "edible" out of it, that I could then dip into peanut butter, jelly, or whatever I have laying around here.
The only requirements are:
need to use only water, flour, and sugar/salt (no baking powder, or eggs)
edible (crackers-like things are ok, but no rock-like things)
doesn't have to taste great, or even to have a taste at all
So, what is your most simple and minimalist recipe available?
Thanks!
Sorry, but we don't accept recipe requests or questions of the form "what should I make/eat" here. This is an even more open-ended form of recipe requests where people are free to post anything at all using those (extremely common) ingredients. Might I suggest one of the many ingredient-based recipe searches?
Well, the idea was to know what I could bake using ONLY these ingredients, nothing added. Every ingredient-based recipe search I found only allows me to select a few ingredients I don't want, whereas what I don't want is "everything else". And so, I find myself with thousands of recipes, exactly because the ingredients are too common. I will try the suggestions below.
Those really aren't the only cheap ingredients.
No, but they are the only ones I have availaible, and I don't have the possibility of buying more. I ended up making sacramental bread by the way.
You can make Indian flatbreads such as roti and chapati. They're great with savory stuff, but they will go well with peanut butter and jam too!
With flour, water, and salt you could make sourdough bread. The idea is to encourage wild yeast to grow in a mix of flour and water, which you then use to leaven your bread. It will take a few days to get a culture/starter going in the first place, but once you've done so you can use it to raise all sorts of breads.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.127751 | 2012-01-08T21:22:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20256",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Cristol.GdM",
"Hackless",
"Mudit Kapil",
"growse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8608",
"user44378"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21100 | Why condiments expiry date is rounded?
Many condiments such as katchup, mayonnaise and mustard (where I live at least) seem to love rounding all of their expiry dates to "60 days after opened".
Thing is, I never see any difference after the date, at least with mustard. It's easy to consume katchup or mayo under a couple of months, but I only like mustard for very few things, so I have some black mustard from ~3-4 months that tastes just as good.
What is weird to me is that they round the expiry dates. Are they just lazy and think "nah, nobody takes more than two months and it should last that long"?
By the way I would expect katchup to last much less than mustard, but it's rare getting it to last one month anyway :)
You seem to be using "rounded" to mean "too soon". You're actually asking why the dates are shorter than the dates you think are safe, right?
Also, surely this is a duplicate. Maybe we can just add a tiny bit to the answer on the generic food safety question and point it there?
@Jefromi Yes, I mean they're "floored". Of course they're supposed to be good until the expiry date... I don't think this is duplicate because I'd also like to know if there's a correlation, some reason why they're all the same date ("60 days") for a lot of condiments, even salad sauces and other things that remind of junk food. My question is more about if there's a reason why all these condiments seem to have (at least where I live) the same expiry date.
Ketchup and mustard expire due to quality not safety, at least when stored in the fridge. They're quite acidic. 60 days in the pantry for ketchup, I'd definitely call expired ketchup—due to taste. StillTasty gives 6 months in the fridge, which sounds reasonable. I'll add ketchup and mustard to the big question when I next work on it (hopefully I'll have some time tonight)
@derobert Which big question? By the way, the expiry dates say "after opened and in the fridge" So I guess I'm on the safe side. I wouldn't think of keeping it out in the summer (yes, I live where santa wears bikini). And +1 for the excellent resource.
@CamiloMartin: The "big question" is this one: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
Food quality isn't binary; it doesn't go from perfectly good to perfectly bad in an instant. Even if it did, the time it would take depends on the storage temperature. And for non-liquid foods, it's possible that only a part went bad (how well does it mix?).
So, you don't get a precise date, but a rough interval at which time the decay starts to set in. As a result, the manufacturer will just pick a rounded date from that interval.
Example: the engineers might calculate that under reasonable circumstances, the product may start to noticably deteriorate after 52-75 days, and become dangerous after 81-112 days. They manufacturer could then say that the expiry date would be 60 days.
(The other answers explain why you'd use the first interval, but not why they're actually intervals.)
:edit:
The likely reason why they're all the same 60 days is probably also engineering. How much preservative do they use? As noted in the comments, the primary preservatives are the acids, but you need quite some sugar to compensate. It seems 60 days is a commonly accepted balance.
Even if you answered later than the others, your answer really seems to be the most sensible reason for them to do that. I would guess food starts to taste and look strange much before it's bad (or maybe not), so they prefer to round it on some date where the product still looks and feels good, but it's actually edible some time after. I'd guess the aproximation is very rough even.
I'm not sure what the consumer liability laws are like in Brazil, but I expect that they 'good until' dates well short of their 'actual' lifespan to protect the manufacturers from lawsuits for people who don't read the labels anyway and get sick on 3 year old mayo...
A second reason they set short shelf life for such things is to encourage you to buy it more often, thus more money for the manufacturer.
Both guesses make a lot of sense, especially the second one. For example, I condensed milk after 2-4 days, store the (non-heated recipe) result for a week, and it tastes perfect, yet the expiry date is 3 days. I guess the expiry dates assume reckless storage conditions or something too.
Expiration dates for safety are not about "usually okay". Sure, if you keep mustard in good conditions, it'll probably last longer than that most of the time. But things are labeled with expiration dates that are designed to guarantee that everyone will be safe. Yes, that means that most of the time they're overly conservative. But the alternative is to let people get sick, or even die. It's a big world; if even one in a million bottles goes bad after 60 days, that's a big deal.
That makes sense, I guess some people may leave condiments outside of the fridge for extended periods of time, and they take that into account.
If by "round" you mean 60 days as opposed to say 58 for some things, and 63 for others, it has to do with the perceived accuracy of numbers. If you read "keeps for 53 days after opening" you might feel it has gone bad after 54 days. But with 60, it's a round number, you realize that there's essentially no different betweeen 59 day old ketchup and 61 day old ketchup. When you find a 90-day-old bottle at the back of the cupboard, maybe you decide you'll toss it because it's so far past 60 days. If you're wondering why so many products have exactly the same shelf life, I think the manufacturers tweak the formula - who would buy a jar of mustard that went bad in just few days? It needs to last about as long as it takes people to use up the jar or bottle.
Me, I keep my ketchup in the cupboard (in Canada, the large bottles say refrigerate after opening and the small ones don't) and keep it for months and months - maybe even a year. No worries. But my chef-daughter announces that a product (eg a carton of milk) "goes bad" on it's expiry date, and refuses to consume anything on or after its date.
+1 because of the percieved accuracy concept, but indeed, I meant why they all have that same date. Some things however say they only last for three days after opened, notably condensed milk (at least where I live). I've eaten condensed milk way older and couldn't even spot the difference. Also, regarding condiments, I've come to the conclusion that ketchup for example is made from excessive amounts of salt, sugar, vinegar, MSG, and other strong things, plus rotten tomatoes, so any difference will be hard to notice. It will last longer than the lightbulb on the fridge.
There are many things we all eat that are designed to keep a long time - they come from a time before "opening" was even an option. You made something and then you ate it until it was gone. Jam, cheese, pickles, and many many sauces - soy sauce, ketchup, worcestershire sauce, chutney, salsa etc etc are strongly flavoured with salt and sugar (both of which are preservatives) and have always kept a long time and added a hit of flavour to what we're eating. That's not a bad thing, that something keeps a while.
The manufacturer has to test that the expiration date is valid and each tested point has some cost associated with it. Lets say they test with 100 containers at 60 days, testing an additional 100 containers at 61 days has significant incremental cost but very little incremental value.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.128056 | 2012-02-07T01:41:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21100",
"authors": [
"Camilo Martin",
"Cascabel",
"FOSHealth",
"Kate Gregory",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51898 | Brining rack of lamb
I am making a crown rack of lamb tomorrow, and today to prep I plan on getting some of the trimming done. I went to a new butcher this time around and sadly they left the extra layer of fat on the meat side of the racks which I want to remove (i'm a bit angry considering I paid about $30 extra because of that layer of fat).
Anyways - I know lamb doesn't have a lot of extra moisture of intramuscular fat. So, it would seem like it is a natural candidate for wet or dry brining. However despite a ton of searching I can't find anything referencing brining racks or crown racks of lamb. I know the amount of actual meat on each bone isn't huge so I am concerned about over-brining or washing out the delicate flavor of the lamb.
So, is brining lamb not a thing? Is there a specific reason to brine or not to brine lamb?
Why do you want to brine it? First, there really is no such thing as dry brining. It is salting. When brining, however, only salt and water penetrates. The result is a moister end product, but, depending on how long you brine, it can also change the texture. Some people enjoy brined proteins, others don't. Brining can also be used as a crutch in potential over-cook situations (like turkey, which has parts that cook at different rates). I would not brine lamb rack. You are probably going to cook it rare, to medium rare anyway, so there is no chance of drying it out.
We always brine our lamb; tons of garlic, rosemary & lemon; in the normal 1/4c each kosher salt & brown sugar. I also add a couple T red wine vinegar. I like to remove a lot of the 'gamey' taste, so like to brine at least 5hrs; best 24hrs, for me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.128615 | 2014-12-23T18:46:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51898",
"authors": [
"Bart Turchin",
"Charles Starr",
"EVE KEALTY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123076"
],
"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
} |
55438 | Can you thicken a pudding just by reducing?
Pretty simple question I hope. I am trying to recreate a recipe I made several years ago using heavy cream, lindemans framboise lambic, raspberry puree, and sugar. I don't recall using any thickeners - though I may have. It was easily 7 years ago, and the recipe is long gone, so I am trying to recreate it both from memory and based off my current culinary knowledge.
The resulting consistency was similar to a thick pudding. It worked great as a pipeable filling for cupcakes, and also was smooth and creamy enough to be a dessert on its own.
I remember reducing the cream for a long while, but as I said, I do NOT remember using any thickeners.
Is it possible if I added the fruit early on pectin would have helped thicken? If I started without the fruit and just used the lambic, cream and sugar, could I have reduced it well beyond nappe and then loosened it up with the fruit? Would that have thickened at all?
Or am I simply misremembering?
I wish I could remember what I did!
If it was like a filling, it may have had cornstarch in it. It's not uncommon to make raspberry filling using raspberries, sugar and cornstarch. I know you say you don't remember any thickeners, just don't know how it'd thicken on its own.
This will only thicken by reduction if you leave it on for a really long time. At least 8 hours of simmering, but better to use more than 16, and then you'll get a flavored kaymak.
The way it thickened is much more likely to have been raspberry pectin. Many berries have sufficient pectin to thicken when they happen to be used within the optimal sugar and pH range. The calcium in the cream will also activate the second type of pectin.
I have had raspberry juice make a jelly by itself, and I have made a recipe which thickens a gooseberry-cream mix, relying on the gooseberry pectin. I haven't made a cream based raspberry thickened dessert, but it's very likely to work.
You can use the gooseberry recipe to get an approximate range for the sugar amount involved, http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1415683/gooseberry-cream-and-elderflower-jelly-pots.
To add to this, you can certainly thicken milk by reducing, for example, commercial evaporated milk, or the khoya or mawa used in many Indian sweets. I expect cream should also work, but you would want to take care not to allow it to reach boiling, and it would take a long time. It works best in a broad pot/pan with a lot of surface area, and it needs a lot of attention to avoid scorching on the bottom. If you did this before, I think you would remember. :-D
Sounds more like a custard. Do you remember using any egg yolks?
I don't like to use gelatin when I make flan, so I tend to use either half and half or use 1/2 milk and 1/2 heavy whipping cream. I get a gorgeous, silky, creamy texture that way.
Found this when I googled the ingredients that you listed.
http://www.thebeerista.com/?p=828
Raspberry Lambic Pudding Filling, makes 2.5 cups
(Adapted from the Homebrew Chef’s Stout Pudding recipe)
What You Need:
4 tablespoons cornstarch
2 pinches salt
2/3 cup sugar
1 cup whole milk
1 cup heavy cream
1 cup raspberry lambic (I used Lindemans Framboise)
2/3 cup raspberries (fresh or frozen that have been thawed), mashed with a fork
What you do:
Start by combining the cornstarch, salt, and sugar in a large bowl. Place the bowl on top of a pot that has some boiling water in it (you don’t want the water to touch the bottom of the bowl). Pour in the milk, cream, and beer into the bowl with the cornstarch and whisk until well combined.
Next, add in the mashed raspberries. Whisk the mixture frequently over the boiling water until it becomes thick and smooth. This should take about 15 minutes. Once the pudding has become fairly thick, remove the bowl from the pot and transfer the pudding to a container, cover, and refrigerate until it is chilled and completely set. You should be prepared to give it at least 4 hours in the fridge before using it to fill the cupcakes. Leaving it up to overnight would be even better.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.128778 | 2015-03-06T03:16:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55438",
"authors": [
"Amy Jones",
"Catija",
"Diane Leafer",
"Helpxpat Oman",
"NadjaCS",
"Ray Kuntz",
"Tanika Rowland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43165 | Giant meringue French pastry - what are these called?
A few months ago we were visiting Paris, and in Montmartre, there were several pastry shoppes with large meringues. And by large, I mean the size of someone's head, or an American football. They were usually swirled with a pastel food coloring to give them a frosted look. But otherwise, they were just a gigantic meringue.
For the life of me, I can't find what these pastries are called. It came to a head this morning when I made a recipe which left me with 18 egg whites, and I'd love to try making them. So, does anyone have any idea what these large meringues are called??
Its sounds somewhat like a Pavlova, but that is Australian. Do you have a picture? For whatever it is worth, angel food cake is my standard use up egg whites recipe.
Sadly we don't have any photos - we didn't have any cameras with us, and even if we did, we were cautioned against bringing them into Montmartre because of pickpockets, lol. This is the closest I've been able to find, but it still isn't quite right (they're about 4x the size of the ones in the photo):
http://debsravingrecipes.blogspot.com/2012/12/giant-chocolate-meringues.html
Like this? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_of9NPGo1g1M/Rarv4t5Af4I/AAAAAAAAAEM/P4CRnQWzjZI/s1600-h/IMG_1478.JPG
They're just called meringues... Make sure to use a recipe for French meringue, not Italian meringue.
http://hipparis.com/2011/03/14/au-merveilleux-de-fred-a-meringue-bakery-in-paris/#more-16159
I saw them in a patisserie in Bergerac called Rocaille but can't find a specific recipe . They were 3 different flavours
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.129128 | 2014-03-30T19:15:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43165",
"authors": [
"Accounting Firmus spam",
"Didgeridrew",
"Erin",
"FoodCrumbles",
"Matthew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Taw",
"Theoracleiam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44799 | Can you safely triple the brine recipe for corned beef?
I am picking up a full packers cut brisket tomorrow, weighing in at about 15 lbs. I am going to be making my very first pastrami.
For the Corning brine, all recipes I find call for:
1 gallon/4 liters water
1.5 cup/350g salt
1 cup/225g sugar
42g/8tsp pink salt
spices
This assumes a 5lb brisket. I am planning a 7 day soak. I will very likely need more brine given the size of the brisket. Can it be safely doubled? Tripled? I am asking largely because of the amount of sodium nitrite in the solution, and it's potential dangers at higher amounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite puts the LD50 at around 71mg/kg. If tripled to 126g, pink salt (containing 6% sodium nitrite) would have 7.56g total. That sounds incredibly high.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
My immediate thought is that the "potential dangers" that you mention are more to do with concentration than with total volume. If you're tripling the amount of water, you should be able to scale everything else up as well with no ill effects. Are you sure you want to try such a large volume for your first go-around, though? That's a lot of waste if things don't turn out.
Even setting aside the fact that concentration is what matters, your intuitive reason for being concerned here seems a little weird; sure, after tripling you're a bit above the LD50 for a 100kg person. But even before tripling, you were above the LD50 for a decent-sized child (35kg), and the original recipe wasn't unsafe to feed to children. If you drank it all, sure, but you're not doing that.
You should be fine scaling this recipe up, as long as you are sure to scale all components equally.
The USDA regulations for commercial brining and curing give a maximum of 200ppm (parts per million) sodium nitrite in the finished product. They also stipulate a minimum of 120ppm ingoing nitrite for adequate preserving properties in refrigerated products.
Let's use the metric weights for your formula to calculate its concentration by itself:
Weight of single batch: 4000g(water)+350g+225g+42g = 4617g
Weight of sodium nitrite: 42g*6.25% = 2.625g
Concentration of brine = 2.625/4617 = 568.6ppm
Now, that may sound like a lot, until you realize that commercial brining solutions often use concentrations of around 2000ppm. For example, federal standards also say that 2 lbs. of sodium nitrite can be used per 100 gallons of water, effectively a solution of about 2400ppm, assuming it is injected into the meat at a rate of 10% per original meat weight. (That's only nitrite and water; once salt is added to the mix, the concentration would come down to around 2000ppm or somewhat less.)
How is this in compliance with the USDA? Because very little of the solution is generally absorbed by the meat. Even when directly injected into corned beef, usually the meat only gains about 10% by weight, which means those concentrations effectively drop to 1/10th in the actual finished product.
For a relatively short cure of a large piece of meat (as in your case): if you wanted to be in compliance with USDA preservation standards, you'd need to weigh the meat before brining, weigh after, calculate the weight gain, and then calculate how much solution was absorbed to determine whether the nitrite falls into the 120-200ppm range. My guess is that your brine wouldn't even hit the low range of 120ppm in the meat unless you injected it. (With longer curing or smaller pieces, more nitrite could circulate in the meat, so we'd have to do a different sort of calculation then, which would assume that the solution was coming closer to equilibrium with the meat; but that won't happen in 7 days.) Nevertheless, even lower concentrations of nitrites will add significant preservation qualities, even if they don't hit commercial levels.
In terms of toxicity, you also need to factor in the chemical reactions which happen in the meat (and produce that pink color). Some nitrite will be converted into nitric acid and bind to other components of the meat, effectively rendering it harmless. So even if you calculate the amount of nitrite solution that was absorbed by the meat, it may not given an accurate representation of how much is actually left in the meat once various chemical processes occur. (And by the way, the lowest published toxic dose for humans is 14mg/kg and the lowest fatal dose is probably somewhere around 25mg/kg. You'd probably need to eat your entire 15 lb. brisket cured at the maximum commercial brining level in one sitting to get near that amount.)
Finally, in terms of efficiency, I doubt you should need 3 gallons of brine for a single 15 lb. brisket. The Culinary Institute of America's Garde Manger book has a recipe for corned beef involving 3 gallons of water (and 198 grams of pink salt, for what it's worth, higher than your concentration). But it's for 4 briskets of 10-12 lb. each, and they even do an injection of 10% of the meat's weight before submerging.
Thus, I doubt you'd actually need to increase the recipe that much in an appropriately sized container (maybe 1.5-2 gallons at most?). Also, if the brisket is oddly shaped and doesn't fit well, I might consider cutting it into 2 or 3 pieces that will fit better and require less brine. That will also increase surface area and absorption, probably approximating the results of the recipe you found for the 5 lb. brisket.
If the entire brine recipe is tripled including the liquid, the concentration of each element will remain the same . It is like making 3 batches and mixing them together.
I rely heavily on Cooks Illustrated and the Harold McGee books for this.
Here is the Cooks Illustrated pdf on the Basics of Brining. I have relied on this for several years and have not gone wrong with it yet.
http://www.dipee.info/pdf/OnlineResearch/2.pdf
And what does it have to say on this topic? As written, this isn't an answer to the question.
Matthew's original question concerned increased nitrite concentration. If the entire brine recipe is tripled including the liquid, the concentration of each element will remain the same . It is like making 3 batches and mixing them together.
@piquet please don't add link-only answers, these are subject to link rot, and besides, we specialize in very concrete questions, so indicating a reference work is not really an answer. If your source has information which can be applied to answer the question directly, please write it up (or cite, if appropriate) and edit your answer to include it. I assume that your comment here was meant to do this, so I will include it now for you. But that short sentence doesn't seem to create a good, cohesive post together with the rest of the answer, so you might consider editing it into better shape.
LD50 refers to the body weight of the organism:
"Lethal dose (LD50) is the amount of an ingested substance that kills 50 percent of a test sample. It is expressed in mg/kg, or milligrams of substance per kilogram of body weight."
whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf
To use your 71mg/kg number, a 100kg person would have a 50% chance of dying (LD50) if ingesting 7,100 mg of the substance.
I am finding LD50 of Sodium Nitrite to be 180 or 175 mg/kg so that's even higher, a 100 kg person has a 50% chance of dying by ingesting 18 grammes of Sodium Nitrite (Equivalent to 288g of Instacure 1)
MSDS for Sodium nitrite - ScienceLab
www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927272
Of course these figures refer to rats, but that's how its done.
Disclaimer: Not a Doctor, do your own calculations.
This is useful to know. Can you extrapolate this information to talk about the impact of brining meat in this solution?
Well, if you tripled the whole recipe you'd have 126 g of pink salt which according to the numbers I'm finding you'd have to eat all 15 lbs of beef and drink the 3 gallons of brine at once to get to half the LD50 dose. Given the numbers in the answer this would be ingesting 20 % the bodyweight of the individual. You can use an online brine calculator to see if the numbers sanity-check. Concentration of brine and its relation to nitrite ppm remaining in the meat seems to attract a lot of discussion and opinion, and varies by the brining method, but the question was about LD50.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.129547 | 2014-06-12T04:00:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44799",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aga",
"Anjan Biswas",
"Bassam Bussal",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Spammer",
"Well TheGoodNews Is",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71101",
"logophobe",
"lukman kurniastoro",
"piquet",
"rumtscho",
"spl"
],
"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
} |
47851 | Acmella oleracea (Szechuan buttons) - active chemical for mouth sensation?
I am looking to begin growing Acmella oleracea (Szechuan buttons). I would like to use them directly, and also make extracts specifically to maximize the taste/oral stimulation effect. Apparently there are a ton of different active chemicals.
So does anyone know what chemical(s) causes the licking a 9volt battery/buzzing teeth/foaming mouth sensations?
From the Wiki on Acmella oleracea, I get Spilanthol as the major compound in Jambu, an extract of the plant used culinarily for exactly the sensation you describe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.130167 | 2014-10-11T17:05:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47851",
"authors": [
"Alicia Simmons",
"Brenda Ryno",
"Gauri Nadkarni",
"Renada Wilkerson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116567"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50346 | Why can I resuse green tea leaves several times, but not black?
Simple question really - why is it I can reuse green tea leaves 2-3 times with minor degradation in the quality of tea, but I can't do the same thing with black tea?
Is it because the black tea has oxidized?
I've noticed that you can also reuse Chinese red tea leaves as well (fermented green tea) without a problem.
This was asked as a "bonus" to another question here. Some of the answers there attempt to deal with this.
I've never had an issue reusing anything that's real tea (black, oolong, green). Perhaps there is another factor here? If you're black tea is coming out of a tea bag, or a lower "grade" then the green tea leaves you're using that might be a reason that it isn't coming out desirably.
Generally speaking it's an issue of grade rather than the type of tea. The finer the tea, the more likely you are to extract everything in the first run. Take apart a cheap tea bag, and you'll notice that the leaves are powder or almost powder. A full leaf (you can buy any black tea from a reputable shop in a higher grade) will extract more slowly and give you a better flavour and probably yield to better second or third runs.
My grandmother always drank black tea from store-brand or Lipton tea bags, and she always reused them and didn't say anything about the taste.
My current favorite black tea is pu-erh tea from Prince of Peace brand tea bags. I use two tea bags in an extra large tea mug, steep exactly 3 minutes, and use the tea bags three times. I tried using four or more times but sometimes cup #4 is a bit weaker. I honestly don't see much difference between batches.
I have read that the caffeine content goes down in the cups after the first. In fact, in the book "Lose weight with green tea" by Patricia Rouner, it is suggested that steeping a fresh tea bag in hot water for about 50 seconds, then discarding the water removes most caffeine but keeps most of the antioxidants so you can decaf your own tea at home.
I store my used tea bags on a plastic soap dish that has a grid to help the soap dry. This lets the tea bag dry out some between uses.
I might add, however, that if you are drinking tea for the medicinal benefits, you might try using fresh tea bags each time to ensure the maximum antioxidants, and see if that helps your health problem more than drinking tea from reused tea bags.
Long steeping makes for bitter tea. I suspect that you will find that the second batch of tea either has no flavour, or is more bitter.
Note that tea making is very depending not only on steeping time, but on temperature. There is good reason to pre-heat china teapots before making the tea -- especially if you live in a country like England where room temperatures in winter are measured in the 50's (F).
Long steeping also adds astringency. That's the "dryness" factor of the tea. That however comes from long steeping, not repeated use. The long the tea bag is in the water, the more tannins and similar phenols are extracted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.130264 | 2014-12-05T15:45:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50346",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Christina Bejsovec",
"David Click",
"Escoce",
"Julia Bannister",
"Marie Killeen",
"Robin Friess",
"Terrilyn Mcmillon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39531 | Wax paper sticking to homemade taffy - what to use for wrapping?
I am developing a recipe for a taffy, and the candy itself is turning out perfectly. The major problem that I'm encountering is that the wax paper squares I am using seem to stick to the taffy after about 2-3 days of being wrapped. This may be a function of humidity (we're in mid-atlantic states).
To make the squares I simply took storebought wax paper, cut into 4x4 squares, take 1" taffy pieces and twist the ends. Every recipe I have found has supported using this. For the first few days, this worked fine. However, soon after I noticed that the paper was starting to stick at spots. Now, on several of the taffies, you simply can't remove the paper, it has adhered completely to the candy.
I'm contemplating using edible rice paper, and then a wax paper around it, but I was hoping there may be some other suggestions such as rolling the taffy in powdered sugar, starch, or flour. Any advice would be appreciated.
I'd give parchment paper a try. Either that, or give the candies a bit of time to dry before wrapping. (I'd post this as an answer, except both are wild guesses, since I've never made taffy...)
@Matthew what have you tried? what worked best?
I have a similar issue with caramel coated nuts that I have been making. What I have found works well is to place the nut clusters in a large bowl (which has a lid) containing a mixture of powdered sugar and cinnamon, seal the bowl and shake 'vigorously', remove the remaining powder and shake again.
In your case you may not wish to use the cinnamon, and perhaps only cornstarch rather than powdered sugar. The powder coat will provide a non-stick barrier to your taffy, which should be only slightly sweet (powdered sugar) to neutral (cornstarch) and dissolve in the mouth very quickly. Depending on the flavor of your taffy you may find that adding a touch of cinnamon (or perhaps powdered ginger) might provide a bit of 'extra flavor'.
This is a good idea - in my case I may be able to use a mixture of superfine or powdered sugar and citric acid. I'll give it a shot!
For a longer life, you can wrap your candies with cellophane or foil candy wrappers, which are somewhat tricky to google, but available on the internet.
Wax paper squares are also available, and are likely to be a higher grade than the consumer rolls available in the supermarket, but I have not tried these.
I've not tried this, but it just might work. Have you tried giving the wax paper squares a very quick spray of nonstick spray? Perhaps even blot them with paper towels after spraying so that you can't even really tell that it's there.
I hope you try this and let us know if it works! :)
I will give it a shot and see if it helps! Stay tuned!
@Matthew Cool! I love experiments! :) I hope it works. Just a trick from ATK: To keep from making a mess with the spray, lay the paper on the inside door of your dishwasher to spray. (no mess)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.130649 | 2013-11-18T02:55:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39531",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew",
"Savannah ",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91857"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34451 | Can any custard be made into a frozen custard?
I recently came upon a book of antique recipes, and there are several wonderful custards. I really have my eye on an almond custard, but not to serve as a custard, but to freeze in an ice cream maker and serve as a nice summer dessert.
So, quite simply, can any custard recipe be used as the basis for frozen custard? Or does a recipe have to be made specifically with freezing in mind?
There are a variety of frozen desserts which are all related. The main difference between ice cream and frozen custard is the amount of eggs used to thicken the base mix.
Philadelphia style ice cream is made from a base mix of milk and/or cream, sugar, and flavorings.
French (or simply plain) ice cream is made from a base mix which is essentially a very thin custard or creme anglaise: milk and/or cream, sugar, and flavorings thickened with egg yolks or whole egg. The base mix is cooked to thicken, and then chilled prior to churning.
Frozen custard is very similar to French style ice cream, but with a greater ratio of eggs or egg yolks to dairy or liquid in the mix.
With this information, you can adapt nearly any custard recipe to be freezable as ice cream or frozen custard.
My survey of frozen custard recipes indicates a ratio of eggs to dairy of about 5 egg yolks to three cups (700 mL) dairy, or 6 whole eggs to 4 cups (1 L) of dairy.
To adapt any custard recipe for freezing, then:
Adjust the ratio of egg yolks to dairy to no more than about 5 yolks per 3 cups dairy.
You may also want to adjust the total yield to be based on no more than 3 cups dairy depending on the capacity of your ice cream maker. Many home ice cream makers have a 1 quart (close to 1 L) capacity, but you need to leave room for the air which will be incorporated as the mix is churned.
I recommend not using whole eggs for frozen custards, as the yolks facilitate a better texture, and create the rich eggy custard flavor.
Frozen desserts are served colder than custards normally are, so the flavors will be more muted. You may need to compensate by increasing the ratio of flavoring ingredients.
This will be hard to judge until you have made the frozen custard/ice cream at least once.
Cook the custard until it thickens on the stove top, per the normal custard method.
Chill it rapidly for safety, and then hold it for at least 4 hours (overnight is even better). While I cannot explain the science, empirically, allowing the mix to mature lets the flavors meld and produces a better frozen dessert.
Churn it into a frozen dessert according to the instructions of your particular ice cream maker.
Note that you can even convert a custard recipe into a Philadelphia style ice cream by eliminating the eggs completely, and simply creating a dairy/sugar/flavoring mix. These still benefit from overnight maturation before churning.
You can make ice cream with 8 or 9 egg yolks per three cups of dairy! It's just really rich and smooth and, well, custardy.
The answer to the science of "holding" the custard might be found here
Caring about the yolks is a special case of caring about the ratios needed for an ice cream. So here a more general answer to extend @SAJ14SAJ's first point.
If you are not using external emulsifiers, try to keep your ice cream in the 10%-15% fat for lean ice creams, and 15%-20% for rich, smooth ice creams (French ice creams usually fall in the second category). The total dry matter (including fat) should be in the 35% - 45% range. So, calculate those figures for your custard. If it is within the range, you are golden. If you are not, you may have texture problems after freezing (which can sometimes be mitigated by additives).
If you are not in the range with a given recipe, it is up to you what you will change - the amount of yolks, or the amount of dairy, or just substitute the dairy type (e.g. using a mixture of milk and cream which gives you the fat amount you need). You can doctor around with the sugar too, if you have to do a major change to the dry matter without changing fat. Remember that sugar is perceived as less sweet when frozen, so adding significant amounts of it to a custard designed to eat warm is unlikely to oversweeten it.
Depending on the type of ice cream you want, there is generally no problem to adding more yolks than @SAJ14SAJ recommends. But you will get not just the smoothness from the lecithine, you will get the coloring and the eggy taste too, which may overpower more delicate flavors. In the end, it is mostly a matter of taste whether you change the yolks or the cream amount when you need more (or less) fat.
I agree that you shouldn't include whites when freezing, they make the texture wrong.
The answer to your question depends where you live. In North America, frozen custard must have egg content, and is not called ice cream. In Europe, ice cream is basically frozen custard, whether it is egg stabilised or with another stabiliser such as cornflour. So, in Europe, any custard will do. Italian ice cream or gelato is basically frozen custard, so that is what you will end up with if you freeze custard. The north Italian tradition is to use an egg custard, while the Sicilians prefer a cornflour custard (as also found in some Scottish shops selling "Italian Ices"). Cream does not have to be added, which means the fat content may be less 5% and cannot be called "ice cream" under EU rules. It’s much healthier and lighter in texture if you make a thin custard using only milk, corn flour (UK Bird's Custard Powder incl flavouring) and sugar - without added cream, emulsifiers or other stabilisers. This means crystallisation may happen after 2 hours. Unfortunately, it's not the modern fashion, but I was brought up on it as a kid in Glasgow and loved it served in a wafer sandwich from a mobile ice cream van with rotating freezing vats.
A useful tip of mine is to add a little whiskey to the ice cream maker if it gets too stiff and the paddle starts to jam. The alcohol acts as an antifreeze. The best source of information I know of is the website of a Swedish guy called Anders http://www.icecreamnation.org/ice-cream-nation/ Check out Sicilian Gelato.
The fact that you had to give a suggestion about what to do if it freezes too hard is a sign that in fact a lot of custard recipes won't freeze well. If they freeze too hard (especially in the ice cream maker - they're going to get way harder in the freezer) then they don't freeze well. It's definitely possible to compensate, though.
Using a simple pre-frozen motorised paddle ice cream maker is a tricky operation, getting quantities and temperatures correct. A professional one with a built in refrigeration unit can be controlled for perfect results. The choice is between using high fat levels, stabilisers and emulsifiers for ease of making, or not using them for a lighter and better flavour. The Scottish shops serve such ice cream direct from the rotating cylinders in the front counter. It should be eaten within 2 hours of serving, before recrystallisation. Not many traditional shops left now.
Even with the best possible ice cream maker, if your custard doesn't have enough ingredients to keep it soft (fat, sugar, alcohol, etc) it's going to end up rock hard once fully frozen in the freezer. While it's true that you can serve it straight out of the ice cream maker to avoid the issue, I don't think the OP was intended to be limited in that way.
Yes, I agree that it can't be left in the freezer indefinately. I checked Anders web-site on Sicilian gelato, and he said that more cornflour can be used to stabilise the ice cream if making it in the freezer without a machine. And maybe add some cream I think. My own experience is that it should not be too cold when served, so that is slightly soft when eaten. Please check out Anders web-site mentioned earlier.
Cascabel, I apologise that it took me so long to understand your point. If you want to keep ice cream in a freezer, they do have to have more fat content, etc. I suppose that's the preferred American way. I prefer lighter ice creams like the low fat Sicilian gelato I had as a kid in Scotland. Merry Christmas by the way.
No worries. I think it's mostly about being able to keep the leftovers or being able to make it ahead of time, not about actually preferring the fat content.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.130915 | 2013-06-02T01:04:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34451",
"authors": [
"Andrejs Geske",
"Brian ",
"Brian F",
"Cascabel",
"Cat G",
"Chris Melville",
"Dan Glass",
"Dawn",
"Donna L. Hutton",
"JULIA HARTLAND",
"Linda Hutchinson",
"Mandy Mccoo",
"Melissa Van Eeden",
"Patricia Garcia",
"Pauline Wilson",
"TheFiddlerWins",
"Throsby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80347"
],
"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
} |
28832 | Oil separating from fried onion/spice mixture, why does it happen?
I was always taught when cooking Indian dishes to fry spices in a chopped/pureed onion and garlic mixture to release their flavour and essential oils.
I was also taught that when the oil separates from the mixture, the spices are done and you can carry on with the next stage of the dish.
That's the principle technique I've always used.
Can someone please explain why the oil separates and what this signifies? Have the spices absorbed as much of the oil as they can and release the rest?
I'd really like to understand this process.
When you cook a vegetable, such as a cut up onion, it will release water. The water initially will create an emulsion with the oil in the pan, so you won't see them as clearly separated elements, but the water will also be evaporating. When enough (perhaps all) of the water has dissipated, the emulsion breaks and you see the oil separate from the rest of the ingredients.
The breaking of the emulsion doesn't tell you anything in particular about the doneness of the vegetables, nor about the extraction of the spices' oils into your cooking fat, since the time it takes for the water to evaporate will depend on the strength of the burner, the geometry of the pan, and the amount of onion and other vegetable that is present.
If you are always using the same stove, pan, amount and cut of onion, and amount of spices, then you will be able to gauge the readiness of the mixture from cues like the water having evaporated. In general, though, it would be best to evaluate the mixture's flavor by tasting it. In some cases, you may even want to add a little bit of water (or stock) to the pan to let the onions continue to sweat!
@JoshCaswell's answer is right on the money, you see the oil because the water has evaporated. That actually has nothing to do with the spices being "done". Spices don't cook so they can't be done or not done, the question is whether or not they have released their flavors, and whether there is water in the pan or not is no indication either way.
The water from the onion mix is what is keeping it all from burning, so when the water has evaporated you need to move onto the next step whether the spices have released all their flavors or not, otherwise the mix will burn and stick in the pan. I use a similar method for most of my curries and if I'm not ready for the next step at this point I'll add a small amount of water to keep the mix moist.
Curry spices are all actually oils trapped in bark, pods, seeds, roots, and the like. Because they are oils they will mix with, and be released into oil which is why you get much better results frying the dry spices off at the beginning, and adding more spices to the sauce later never gives you the same punch.
This is good information that I probably should've included in my answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.131537 | 2012-12-03T00:50:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28832",
"authors": [
"Fitter Man",
"Guillermo Delgado Díaz",
"Jannelle",
"Omnomnious",
"Risa",
"ebe1125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67601",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49835 | What can substitute for barley in soup
What can I use as a substitute for 1/2 cup of barley in a 2 quart soup?
Couscous. Rice. Half-cooked chickpeas or kidney beans. Small pasta. What properties of barley do you wish to replicate, and what have you on hand?
I'd agree with @JamesMcLeod - it depends on what properties you want. Most souls with barley involve some sort of hearty grain, so anything of similar size could work, from James McLeod's suggestions to things like buckwheat or even quinoa. If the soup cooks long enough for the barley to break down and thicken the soup, you might consider something like lentils.
45 minute boil, no other grains are present. As best as I can tell, the barley is for texture. (Would it thicken with such a short boil?)
Oat groats are a good replacement both for texture and for nutritional value. You'll get slightly more thickening, though.
Barley's there to bulk out the soup, and add a bit of flavor and texture. It doesn't thicken or have any other special function, so you don't need to add anything to replace it.
If you want to add something with a roughly similar size with some texture then short grain rice like risotto or paella rice will do, however I prefer Orzo, which is a type of very small pasta. You can also smash up some short pasta like penne, farfalle, or shells and put them in. Just remember that rice and pasta cooks much faster than barley, so add it at the end of cooking and get it off the heat as soon as it is al dente so it doesn't overcook and get mushy. Add a handful of frozen peas to it to get the temperature down quick.
The good thing about barley is that it doesn't easily dissolve and add unwanted thickening, like rice and pasta tend to...
Becky Epstein, author of Substituting Ingredients, The A to Z Kitchen Reference, 4th Edition, suggests farro, spelt, or wheat berries.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.131805 | 2014-11-17T03:27:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49835",
"authors": [
"Anuradha Thiagarajan",
"Athanasius",
"Chew Fook Kong",
"James McLeod",
"Jonathan Allen",
"Karen Dickerson",
"Keith Hunt",
"Leah Valdes",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95256 | How do I work out the use-by dates for my own cooking?
If I sort my fridge by 'eat by' date, what is the best way of dealing with food's I've cooked, or partially cooked, myself?
In my fridge there are such delights as:
thrawed from frozen strawberries for the baby
Seiten loaf, made in the last day
several different types of leftovers.
...and it occurs to me I don't know how to work out the 'eat by' dates on any of the dishes we've made ourselves.
I'd like to know some good rules: excellent answers might include: "I run a bakery and this is the situation that the FDA told us we had to go by" but I'll take any information there is...
The US FDA has a handy Refrigerator and Freezer Storage Chart that might help you. In general your "leftovers" have a 3 to 4 day shelf life...I would think that includes your thawed strawberries.
Although I would probably err on the side of caution where food for a baby is involved, especially with soft and spoilage-prone food like strawberries.
This is very much what I asked for, thank you - don't suppose you happened to find a pdf that wasn't quite so... meaty?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.131997 | 2019-01-01T16:54:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95256",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20982 | Adding additional water to already simmering bone stock
I am making stock from bones and I was simmering it with the lid off. I want to simmer it for 3 days. This morning the liquid was reduced by a significant amount even though the heat was extremely low. I put the lid on to stop the evaporation but is it okay to add new water to the stock? Thanks
Why do you want to simmer for three days?
This is why pressure cookers were invented.
I have never seen a stock recipe that recommended 3 days. In my experience, after 12 hours the bones gave up all they had and would crumble when touched.
Even so- simmering with the lid off will cause quite a bit of evaporation. Definitely add water whenever you notice it is low.
I've had stocks dry up completely and it smells absolutely horrible when they burn.
...and good luck cleaning the pot afterward.
It's easy to clean a pot like that, just toss it in the trash ><
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.132117 | 2012-02-01T15:39:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20982",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21006 | How long should I cook apples in the oven?
How long do I need to cook fresh apples (sliced) in the oven (at 350 degrees) to get a good apple pie consistency?
Is there a specific reason you are asking this? The temperature and time is usually dependent on the preparation of the pie itself and is recipe specific. Some apple pie uses a dry filling that produces liquid as it bakes while other recipe start out with some liquid base with the apples. The time that the recipe you are using gives should be what you should be using.
Various factors influence the consistency of an apple when it bakes.
Acidity. The more acidic the apple is, the better will the apple preserve its pectin and remain its crunch. Also any acidic fluids surrounding the apple will make an impact here.
Thickness of the slices. Thin slices will make the apple heat up faster.
The surrounding environments ability to transfer heat. If the apples are surrounded by a watery liquid heat will be transferred much more quickly to the apple than if it was surrounded by air. Other kinds of liquids will transfer heat quicker or slower.
So you see there are no hard and fast answers. But knowledge of these factors might help you build up experience to make a qualified guess in each case.
And when you lack the knowledge in the beginning, JDWRS (just do what the recipe says). I just made that up, don't judge. :)
The answer is: between 15 and 45 minutes, depending on the thickness of your apples. Check them periodically, when they’re fork tender, they’re probably cooked enough.
It really depends on a lot of things, as Jay said in his comment, not just the preparation of the pie (its depth, the amount of liquid/goop, whether it's covered) but also personal preferences, and the crispness of the apples you've decided to use.
Use a recipe as a guideline, and then check it periodically as it approaches the end time. If the apples aren't cooked enough for you and the crust is starting to brown, you can cover it loosely with foil to protect it. Remember what worked for the next time, and you should be set.
Also note that the doneness of the apple isn't the only thing you need to check. For many pies, the apple can be the correct texture while the thickness of the liquid is still too thin. One of the most common mistakes first time apple pie bakers make is baking watery apple pie. The juices need extra time to reduce into it's gooey goodness. And last thing I forgot to mention is you need to choose apples that can withstand this type of baking. Granny smith and Honey Crisp are two great choices to choose from. (@Jefromi, you may cannibalize this comment into your post if you want).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.132226 | 2012-02-02T03:57:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21006",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12161 | How can I avoid windswept muffins in a convection oven?
I have a very small multi-function oven (about the size of a microwave) and for baking, the recommended setting is the "convection" one. Things bake fine in terms of taste, but muffins and cupcakes often get a sort of windswept look. The fan has clearly blown them into a lopsided shape while they're rising, but before they've set. With cupcakes, it's easy enough to trim them and hide it with icing, but not for muffins. Is there any way to avoid this effect, other than trying to bake them on a setting without the convection fan? Does this happen in larger convection ovens as well or is it just because mine is so small?
I have a toaster oven/convection oven that doesn't do this, but does somehow bake uneavenly, so I rotate my pan even though I shouldn't have to.
I don't have any personal experience with this (hence the comment instead of an answer), but have you tried rotating the pan after a few minutes? It might even be good to do quarter turns, but that's probably impossible unless your muffin tin is tiny (and/or square).
Turning the pans is probably a safe recommendation for muffins, but some other baked goods could fall if disturbed. I worry about that as a general recommendation.
Quite often that look can be from having the temp too high on the oven. A convection oven should always be at least 25 (and some people will say up to 50) degrees cooler than a 'normal' oven. If you haven't tried it yet, knock down the temp of the oven. We used to call this 'lava tops', because basically the outside is baking and setting quickly, and then the insides pop out of the gelatinous surface, and they go in a funny direction (often the way the fan blows). I'm not saying that is the problem for sure, but if it were me, it would be the first thing I tried to eradicate the problem.
Yes, this is the case. The fan isn't powerful enough to 'blow' the batter like that.
I'll have to give this a try with my next batch and report back. Thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.132445 | 2011-02-14T22:39:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12161",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marti",
"Scivitri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"justkt",
"user2490580",
"user25072",
"user8516"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26047 | Fastest Way To Cook Bottom Round Roast
I have a 2.7 pound block of Angus beef bottom round roast that I need to cook expediently (meaning not 7-8 hrs in the slow cooker). What's the fastest way to prepare this meat without it tasting too chewy or tough? Ideally, I would like to be able to use it in beef tacos or burritos of some sort, but I'm open to other ideas.
I'm looking for an answer that contains a cooking technique which takes less than 2 hours total.
Do you have a pressure cooker? If so, you can end up with slow cooker style results (meat tender enough to pull apart with a fork) in around 60-90 minutes.
Can you grind it?
@djmadscribbler I'll try this next time. I do have a 6qt pressure cooker that I've used in the past for roasts. However, Joe's answer was what I was looking for this time. Thanks.
You can cook bottom round quickly, but not as a roast.
Cut into thick about 1 to 2" (2.5 to 5 cm) thick, with the grain. (depending on thickness, either split it in half / thirds / quarters ... you just want them of similar thickness), cut them thinner if you like it more towards medium than medium rare)
Salt, and let it sit out to come up to room temp for about 30 min.
While waiting, adjust oven rack so the steaks on a broiler tray will sit about 1" (2.5cm) from the broiler, or pre-heat your grill (if using propane ... if you're on charcoal ... well, you really need a chimney starer, or take a propane torch to 'em to get 'em going well in a short time)
Start heating the broiler (only takes 3-5 minutes, typically)
Pat dry the steaks, both sides.
Broil for about 6 min per side; if griiling, might have to go a little longer, depending on how hot your grill gets.
Remove from heat and let rest for about 5 to 10 minutes.
Slice thinly across the grain into strips.
Toss with whatever spices (cumin, garlic, etc.), squeeze some lime over it.
You can get extra flavor into it, but don't use a dry rub. As we're going for high heat, if you want extra flavor, after cutting your steaks, pierce them liberally with a fork or one of those spiky meat tenderizers (not the mallet ones), then toss in a bag with a marinade, (a mix of lime juice and italian dressing works pretty well for mexican applications, as it's pretty quick. Worcestershire or soy sauce also work for just about any treatment).
You still want to pat them dry, or else you risk causing the steaks to cook unevenly (the edges evaporate first, then curl up holding in the liquid ... but the curling places them closer to the broiler and the liquid means the middle can't get above 100°C, making the edges char way before the middle's cooked).
update : and to make sure I'm clear on this -- it's very important that you slice the strips in the end thinly, and across the grain. That's the only thing that's going to keep it from being overly chewy with this technique. (and keeping it fairly rare; otherwise it could start to get tough). Don't bother w/ slicing diagonally if it's going into tacos or burritos (as that's mostly to make it look like a thicker steak), it'll be more tender if you slice straight across. If you insist on cooking it to medium or further, I'd heat up some salsa or other flavorful liquid in a pot, and drop the cooked sliced strips in there to cook 'em a bit further without it drying them out)
Thank you, this helped immensely. I ended up using the meat for tacos and they were delicious. Your advice about cutting with and then against the grain was key.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.132657 | 2012-09-07T22:46:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26047",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Nicholas J. Arnold",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23293 | How does the addition of Chicory affect coffee?
Chicory is a common additive in Indian Coffee. A quick search in wikipedia reveals that it is usually 20-30% in coffee powder.
Can coffee be made solely out of chicory? Does the chicory root contain caffeine or just the flavor profile of coffee?
This answer to a previous question is related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/9163/1672
There is coffee made solely of chicory, yes - or at least without real coffee, it could contain some other additives. Popular brands are Inka and Caro.
civil war soldiers in america used to use chicory in the field because coffee was scarce or too expensive.
Also dandelion makes a similar coffee substitute
Roasted chicory root (which is what you are adding to coffee) contains no caffeine.
What chicory does is add a nice, roasted flavor to coffee, which is desireable either for cultural reasons, or to offset the bitter flavor of over-roasted low-grade coffee beans. Originally, it was also added because it was much, much cheaper than coffee. That's not true anymore, even in India as far as I know.
Proper New Orleans or Vietnamese coffee also contains a lot of chicory.
Chicory has no caffeine, hence it reduces the caffeine content in brewed coffee. It also thickens the brew.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.133066 | 2012-04-24T17:42:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23293",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Escoce",
"Fluke KFW0039",
"Larry Hirsch",
"Liczyrzepa",
"Margaret Thomas",
"Peter A. Goulding",
"Tabla Academy in Gurgaon",
"chiffa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78995",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21670 | Why should we not store onions and potatoes together?
I have heard that onions and potatoes shouldn't be stored together. Why will this make the potatoes spoil faster?
As you can see at the Chapter 7: Storage of horticultural crops of the book PDF: Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural Crops (4th Edition):
If you look p.166 (p.173 on the PDF), you can see that the onions need to be stored in this conditions:
between 0-5°C with a relative humidity (R.H.) of 65-70%
If you look p.168 (p.175 on the PDF), you can see that the potatoes have different needs:
Fresh market: between 4-7°C
Processing: between 8-12°C
seed potatoes: between 0-2°C
But must of all, potatoes need very highest relative humidity (R.H.): 95-98% versus 65-70% for onions
So, if you store them together, either one or the other will be in bad storage conditions.
Further, as you can see at Section 7: Storage of horticultural crops of Small-scale postharvest handling practices - A manual for horticultural crops - 3rd edition:
Dry onions (Group 3) are very sensitive to moisture, which makes their storage incompatible with the high R.H. needed for potatoes.
New potatoes (Group 6) may also produce ethylene, which will badly damage green onions (Group 2) if stored together.
Anyway, storage of horticultural crops cannot just be resumed by "don't put this or that together", as you may have seen:
it is important to consider R.H., temperature, and many other factors.
If the subject interests you, all this (and many other things) is pretty well explained in the following references:
PDF: Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural Crops (4th Edition)
Web: Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural Crops (4th Edition)
WEB: Small-scale postharvest handling practices - A manual for horticultural crops - 3rd edition
Ethylene is also a "critical factor", and this topic is more developped in the following resources:
PDF: Postharvest Ethylene: A critical factor in quality management.
Book: Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops (see Ethylene in Postharvest Technology pp.149-162)
This answer makes me think that, if RH and temperature are fixed, there should be no significant effect on potato spoilage (due to the presence/absence of onions). That contradicts the other answer, but maybe this older thinking is a myth; is there any published experiment to check this? It sounds like a good time lapse science experiment candidate.
When stored together, onions release gases that will cause the potatoes to spoil faster and become mushy, if you will.
This is the simple and correct answer to the OP's question.
If you store your potatoes with your onions, your potatoes will begin to grow eyes (stems). I like to put these two together only to start my potatoes off before I plant them. It is a much faster process, instead of starting from seeds. Hope this helps!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.133220 | 2012-02-24T01:37:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21670",
"authors": [
"ElmerCat",
"NashVio",
"Skeez",
"Steve Ives",
"XWV",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48143",
"louise"
],
"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.