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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50376
|
How can I remove a stuck liquor decanter stopper?
I had a decanter half full of vodka that has sat in my basement for about a year unused. Now the stopper is stuck on the decanter. How can I get the stopper off to get the sweet sweet vodka out for consumption?
I would recommend not immersing the decanter entirely, but placing it up to the neck in hot water. This will expand the glass of the decanter slightly, but not the stopper. That might be enough to let you coax it out.
The shape of your stopper is also convenient for making a little noose for it out of cord/thin rope, to allow you to get some extra purchase on it, to help you prise it out. So you could hang the decanter and stopper from a beam or similar, and use your weight to pull down on it. On reflection, and in light of Doug's comment, I'm not convinced this is great advice and should be followed only with serious consideration of the effect on you and the decanter, should the stopper rapidly become unstuck!
As Wayfaring Stranger said, a gentle tap around the sides should help, but be VERY careful not to break the glass, or scratch it. Something not too heavy would be best, and plastic or wooden would avoid scratching - or cover a small hammer with a cloth.
I'd be rather worried about the pulling from a beam suggestion. Just fills my mind with bad possibilities. Under hot water and tapping together is your best bet.
Partial submersion in hot water was enough to free it. It worked! Thanks!
Annoyingly it will float in many cases like this!
Submersion in hot water works in two ways - not only it expands the glass, it also expands the air inside, creating additional pressure.
Just got the firmly stuck stopper out of my whiskey decanter by using a hot wash cloth. I wet it and wrung it out, popped it in the microwave for 30 seconds, and wrapped it around the neck. Meanwhile, I left an ice cube melting on top of the stopper. After repeating this 3 times over about 20-30 min, I wrapped a towel around the stopper and tried wiggling and pulling. I then heard a kind of pop-crack, and the stopper popped loose without breaking.
Worked great and saved a lot of water and having to find something deep enough to immerse the bottle up to its neck! Don’t know if the ice cube helped, but it didn’t hurt.
An incredibly simple trick is
put on some tight rubber gloves
Just any old kitchen glove, but ideally nitril gloves (the disposable ones), they are the most grippy.
You'll be amazed how much easier it is to get stuck things out.
You can live without the vodka, right?
Best chance is to sink the bottle in a bucket/sink of warm water and let it soak.
Water often will make its way into the fitting and loosen whatever crud is holding the bits together. A little dish soap will lessen surface tension and speed the process.
The warmth of the water will raise the temperature of the vodka within, thus raising the pressure so as to push the stopper out.
Getting the stopper loose may take 5 minutes, it may take an overnight soak. If the later, change out the water for warm/hot on day two to get that pressure effect again.
Whacking the stopper sharply around its sides sometimes works, but solid glass stoppers like to break off when you do that, leaving a glass plug in the bottle that can only be removed with a hammer and punch, or a masonry bit. It's worth it spending a day or two trying to ease it out with a water soak first.
If you really want that vodka bad, run some water over the fitting so it can soak into the joint. Wait a while, then try partially immersing the decanter in hot water, or hot running water and wiggling back and forth on the stopper from several directions, alternating with pulling. If lucky, the stopper'll come out and you can sample the contents.
Great advice. I also put the decanter in the freezer for 20 minutes to chill the stopper, then wrapped the neck of the decanter with a hot dish cloth for a few minutes. Lightly tapped the neck with a wooden spoon and with one twist it popped out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.565256
| 2014-12-06T15:47:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50376",
"authors": [
"Charlene Teller",
"Debasish Roy",
"Doug",
"Elise Bourjaily",
"Erica",
"Fattie",
"Haimanti Ghosh",
"Mandy Powell",
"Meredith Baker",
"Reinmar Bielau",
"Sebastian Palazzolo",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97287"
],
"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
}
|
29598
|
What is the shelf life of my syrup?
This is a continuation of my last question.
the recipe I have is:
2 1/2 cups water
2 cups white sugar
3/4 cup brown sugar
1 moist vanilla bean, preferably Mexican or Bourbon (Madagascar)
Combine the sugars and water in a saucepan.
Boil for at least 10 minutes.
Let cool. When solution has cooled, add the extract and stir well.
After I make my syrup, how long of a shelf life does it have? Do I need to refrigerate it, or can I keep it on my countertop?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.565623
| 2012-12-31T01:21:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29598",
"authors": [
"Heidi McGraw Henson",
"Julie Sigwart",
"RMC",
"Weaver",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68851"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40500
|
How am I supposed to heat a pie-iron-style pizzelle iron?
I found an old pizzelle iron in one of my cabinets. It looks like this:
Most of the pizzelle recipes I found — for example this one — are for a "George Foreman"-style pizzelle iron, and are self heating. What should I use to heat this pie-iron stlye pizzelle iron? An open fire?
This iron is meant for camping food and is buried in a bed of coals. There are still companies which create similar waffle irons, and they offer them in two variations: with long handles for fire/coal, and short handles for stovetop. I have one of these irons in the short handle version.
Of course you can use it inside too. The hinges will obviously be a problem with a contact heating method such as a resistive stove. But gas or induction will work.
You have to first preheat both halves by turning. Then place the dough on the lower, hot plate and close the iron. Bake the lower side, then turn to bake the second side. This method is not as good as the "burry in coals" one, as it doesn't bake both sides at once, so you get a slight texture difference in the sides. But I don't think it is too much of a problem, I enjoy my waffles this way.
If you have never used cast iron, I won't recommend starting with this thing. Start with a pan, which is open, so you have more control over it. If you are accustomed to baking in nonstick pans, controlling the heat and oil amount in cast iron is not easy at the beginning. Also, you will have to season it, and these ridges are harder to get a good seasoning than a flat pan. By the way, once you season it, it will be black and have a slightly greasy feel, so if you plan to use it as decoration, don't start using it for cooking.
It is not originally for camping but for using with a real flame or fire. Used it for years. It is the only kind I have. Works great on gas stove burners.
The standard way is to hold the iron in the flame of a stovetop gas burner, hence the long handles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.565708
| 2013-12-22T20:55:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40500",
"authors": [
"Giuseppe Ricupero",
"IARI",
"Ingme232",
"Michelle Reeter",
"Ronny",
"Sanjay Sinha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94203",
"mtnnewf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28539
|
I have an unopened package of mozzeralla cheese that is a month past it's "Best By" date, is it safe to eat?
Possible Duplicate:
What is the sign of mozzarella being old?
It's vacuum sealed, and the cheese looks fresh. Is a month a big deal?
Welcome to Stack Exchange, Candice. You might try the search function at the top right; highly experienced veterans in here have answered many similar questions.
@ChrisSteinbach: Is it a duplicate? This question asks about judging cheese by its "buy by" date; the other question asks about evaluating cheese on factors other than the printed date. I'd say the two questions are related, but I'm not sure they are duplicates.
@J.R. I guess you are right. It's not an exact duplicate.
Mozzarella costs what, $4 tops? Weigh up that cost versus food poisoning and you have your answer. As always, if in doubt, throw it out.
For me, I don't prescribe to the idea that food is fine right up to, but not including (or 1 day after) any "best by" / "expired" (The later being the one that days after should be taken more seriously, i.m.o) date printed on food. I am sure that companies cover themselves (against legal action) by setting very safe "best by" / "expired" dates. I have always judged food safety of packaged products by how it smells, and have never got food poisoning. Though, even given how I feel about wasted food, I hope people don't use the above as a hard-and-fast rule.
I agree to a certain extent, but a month past the use by date on something perishable like cheese, and a relatively cheap one like mozarella? Not worth it.
So long as it's been kept properly (refrigerated), it should be safe to eat. But it will have a different flavor than you're likely expecting. Not much, for just a month. But cheese flavors evolve as the cheese ages. "best by" dates on cheeses are mostly about flavor changes, not spoilage.
You can abuse this to a limited extent, if you'd like. You can age cheese at home and (for example) create sharp cheddar from mild cheddar. However, the flavors evolve better in larger pieces of cheese; an 8oz piece aged for 90 days won't taste the same as a 40lb block aged for 90 days. Many cheeses also require specific temperatures for the cultures to age properly, which home environments can't control as well.
If there is mold growing on the cheese, or other "ick" factors, you likely want to toss it. Tiny bits of cheese mold can be removed from a piece and leave good cheese behind; but heavy mold growth on a small piece isn't going to be salvageable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.565920
| 2012-11-21T00:24:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28539",
"authors": [
"Ali Iqbal",
"Bubba",
"Chip Burge",
"Chris Steinbach",
"ElendilTheTall",
"J.R.",
"MargeGunderson",
"Peter Hunt",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66130",
"narrowtux",
"user66001",
"user766353"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115089
|
Bitter shortbread - what to do with it?
Yesterday I did a batch of shortbread but the cookies have a tangy, almost bitter after taste. Initially I thought the culprit was the lactose-free butter I use, now I know it's probably because the sides of the shortbread browned a bit.
I think I know what I need to change next time I make this recipe, but now I'd like to know what I can do to mask the bitterness in this batch of cookies. I'm thinking of making a caramel sauce to dip the shortbread in. Will this work?
Also, out of curiosity, could anyone explain what makes shortbread taste bitter when they brown?
For reference, the recipe I used can be found here: Simply Perfect Crispy Scottish Shortbread
Based on my experience rescuing overdone oatcakes, I suggest crumbling up the shortbread, maybe cutting off any obviously burnt edges, adding some sugar and then using it as the topping for a fruit crumble. You could add another complex taste by adding crumbled nuts to the topping. (Mix them in, else they will burn during the baking.) There will probably be some bitterness remaining, but I'd expect this to mask it and make something palatable for most people.
Thank you for the idea. I don't like cake and I have no one to give a cake to right now, but crumbling the shortbread and turning it into something else is something I haven't thought about.
As it's already cooked, you could simply crumble it over stewed fruit (or ice cream for that matter)
I'm afraid there is not really much you can do. I once wrote up a catch-all question on trying to remove an overpowering smell from food; in your case, what I said applies to the bitter taste too. (The exception for taste are foods where you can leach it out, such as aubergines).
You already hit on the one technique that has a chance of helping: adding something else, both to dilute the unwanted taste and to distract the senses with a competing taste. I am intentionally saying "has a chance of" and not "will" work - the results are very subjective. For some people, a given combination will be sufficient so they will no longer be bothered by the presence of the bitter taste, for others, it will not be sufficient. This variability is also the reason why nobody can suggest a magic combination that will mask it better than others.
To your subquestion, there is also no obvious reason for this to happen, unless you are using "browned" as an euphemism for "almost charred". This is a very standard recipe, and with so few components, the probability of two things reacting in unexpected ways is minimal. You can of course try baking it less next time, or changing the butter, but at this point, it is really a matter of wild guessing.
Thank you so much for your answer. The browned is only slightly brown, nowhere near charred, but the recipe does mention you can't let the edges of the dough brown, and I've ready something online that a browned shortbread means the butter is burned and that creates a bitter taste but I couldn't find further evidence of this. Anyway, today I had a piece of shortbread right after lunch and it felt less bitter, probably because I was eating it after I ate something else. I'll still try the caramel sauce, but I'll also try eating the shortbread with tea or coffee and see if that masks the taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.566466
| 2021-04-03T11:49:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115089",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"LissaC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115557
|
How do I make 1/3 cup liquid glucose for toffee apple recipe?
I'm about to make Toffee Apples for the kids and have chosen this recipe:
https://www.bestrecipes.com.au/recipes/toffee-apples-recipe/22mx42pc
I don't have or can buy the liquid glucose.
How can I make ⅓ cup?
see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17106/how-do-i-make-liquid-glucose-from-powdered-glucose
The purpose of the glucose is to make the caramel more stable. Glucose contains sugars that do not crystallise as easily as regular granulated sugar, so adding it will make it less likely that the caramel will fail. Making glucose at home is not really possible: you need a small chemistry lab to pull it off (you can hydrolyse corn starch with sulphuric acid to get glucose syrup). Instead, you can substitute the glucose with another sugar that also doesn't crystallise easily. Which one is available to you depends on your location, but golden syrup, corn syrup, or light molasses would all serve the same purpose as the glucose.
If there's a restaurant/bakery supply place nearby, you can buy "invert sugar". But at a regular grocery you're more likely to find something like Lyle's Golden Syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.566875
| 2021-05-07T05:42:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115557",
"authors": [
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115585
|
Storing Self-Made Cookies/Brittles/etc longer: ingredients and techniques
I like to make a large amount of pan sheet cookies or brownie brittles as something to crumble over my breakfast yogurt. Something in the style of variations on the following recipe: https://www.instagram.com/p/CENLDHlJTp-/?epik=dj0yJnU9aWNEWTNma0ZEdVZsUjN2X2tVd2hSa1BvUVNtZXlBVUkmcD0wJm49V0ZxTlJMakQycmcwWUFWTzBtclZRdyZ0PUFBQUFBR0NYMGZB
I let the brittle bake for fairly long, and let it cool and harden over the entire day so that it has no moisture left. Then I store it in a closed glass container in a shelf at room temperature.
They keep fairly well but after 2-3 weeks, a tiny bit of mold starts to form, faster than I can eat them.
Any ideas on how I could keep it longer? Ideally, they would store for up to 4 weeks.
Any other techniques or additional preservatives I could add?
I would freeze it. Crumble will defrost pretty much instantly when you take it out of the freezer, so you can just pour it straight from the freezer container onto your yogurt. If you freeze it on a tray and then dump it into a container, it should stay crumbly rather than freeze into a block so it's easy to handle.
Freeze them and they should last much longer; wrap them tightly in plastic wrap or foil to avoid freezer burn.
Freezing is easiest but just for novelty's sake:
Mold needs oxygen.
To remove oxygen from glass jar filled with enough room to perform this stunt, a little pure alcohol set alight and lid quickly replaced, should do the trick.
Alcohol rubbed on upper glass, not allowed to drip.
Test on empty jar first as too much alcohol would burn off O2 leaving moisture. Too little leaves O2.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.566995
| 2021-05-09T12:19:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115585",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115589
|
Sugar content of food
This appears to be the most relevant site to post my question about the sugar content of foods. For the various sugar products that I have come across recently, it appears that typically one teaspoon contains 4 grams of sugar. I use this relationship to gauge how much sugar is added to commercial products.
But I'm also curious about natural products. So for instance I currently have a bag of dates (the only ingredient) and the label says that 5 dates contain 29 grams of sugar, so about 6 grams per date. Using the above relationship, that implies that each date is equivalent to consuming about one and a half teaspoons of sugar. So having a few dates is equivalent to consuming several teaspoons of sugar? Is this a correct way to think about it?
There is a lesson here about how you think about food: you can equally say that consuming a few teaspoons of sugar is like eating a few dates. Neither way of thinking is especially helpful. Instead of thinking in terms of 'dates are fruit, fruit is healthy' or 'sugar is unhealthy', you should think about your overall diet and how it meets your needs.
I am thinking about how much sugar is consumed in my overall diet. I'm just trying to understand if, as far as digestion of sugar is concerned, the body distinguishes between eating 1.5 teaspoons of sugar vs. eating one date.
At least in the US, food labeling includes a distinction between total sugar content and “added sugars” - sugar added that is not naturally a part of some other ingredient. This is because the nutritional impact of added sugars is different from naturally occurring sugars. You could go to the physical fitness stack and ask about the differences between natural and added sugars when it comes to nutrition, or do a web search.
That is actually correct - depending on the fruit you may be looking at different sugar component ratios (fructose/glucose), but ultimately, fruit is sweet because it contains sugar.
If you looking at dried fruit, the loss of water means a lot of concentrated sugar remains - and if you remember how sugar is made, it’s to be expected.
So I would not think of gulping down three teaspoons of sugar in one sitting, yet that is what I am doing if I have just two dates. Is there any difference between those two scenarios as far as how the sugars are digested? Can you comment on the fructose/glucose ratio and what impact that might have. Thanks.
I’m afraid I can’t say anything about the physiological effects of different fructose:glucose ratios (and it would be clearly off topic). But some fruits will have more of the former, others of the latter. You can find for example a table here at Wikipedia.
@Not_Einstein do not forget that when you eat the dates you also consume water, fiber, etc contained in the fruit, all of which have an effect on the speed the sugar is absorbed. So it's not exactly the same as chugging a teaspoon of pure sugar.
@Luciano That is what I have read in further researching this subject. So eating a large apple would correspond to chugging about 6 teaspoons of sugar just based on the sugar content, but there is an obvious difference in those two scenarios.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.567141
| 2021-05-09T15:33:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115589",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Not_Einstein",
"Stephie",
"Todd Wilcox",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93831"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103503
|
Are there any dishes that can only be cooked with a microwave?
I read this question for microwaving chicken, and it left me wondering:
Are there any dishes that can only be prepared with a microwave? If such dishes exist, what are their characteristics and why will in this case only a microwave work? What is the crucial difference between a microwave and other cooking methods here?
Searches I've done have come up with dishes that can be cooked using a microwave instead of using other appliances, but what I'm looking for are dishes that can only be cooked in a microwave and can't be cooked by any other method.
I would strongly suggest an edit - as it stands, it’s a list and there’s no “right” or “wrong” answer - or this will be closed by the site’s rules (see [ask]). Asking what properties of a microwave can’t be mimicked by another cooking method or what characterizes “microwave only” recipes or dishes would be perfectly ok.
Note: the answer in question is deleted, because it was an unnecessarily hostile formulation of "no, you can't cook with microwaves". I think this question is clear enough even without that full context, though I do also share Stephie's concerns about the answerability of the question (and its breadth).
Did an edit. Soulis, if you would like to add your own thoughts, feel free to [edit] again. Just make sure that the question remains within the scope of the site and acceptable types of questions. The [tour] and the [help] will explain more. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
That looks good. Thanks for the edit! I didn't really know how to ask it without being too board. A list of dishes is definitely not an exhaustive list.
I would guess some molecular gastronomy recipes only work in a microwave.
Microwave popcorn.
The well-known fast-food dish 'Chicken Ding'. What's that? Put chicken in microwave. Three minutes - Chicken goes Ding!
@RandyZeitman, you can still do the microwave popcorn on the stove. https://www.ehow.com/how_7664178_cook-microwave-popcorn-pan.html
Not a full answer, but I've never gotten as fluffy scrambled eggs on a stove as doing them in the microwave.
Not really an answer, but I know a lot of people who prefer certain dishes done in the microwave to the oven or stove, usually because the more even (or center-outwards) heating impacts the texture of the food. Baked potatoes and scrambled eggs come to mind.
There are 'Instant microwave muffins' - you put the dry powder into a mug, add 2tbsp of milk, stir, microwave for 2 minutes and obtain a mug of spongy cake. I seriously doubt these are cookable by any other means.
Yes!
In 1969, the physicist Nicholas Kurti gave a talk in which he demonstrated a variant of Baked Alaska called "Frozen Florida": a shell of frozen meringue around a center of hot liquor. This was done by chilling the meringue and the liquor together, then cooking in a microwave oven which had a rotating platter and no stirring fan. Because the microwave beam was always heating the center but only intermittently heating any given part of the meringue, and because the meringue was low-density and frozen, the liquor could be heated while the meringue remained frozen.
(The idea was broadly similar to, and presumably inspired by, radiation therapy for cancer, in which a tightly focused beam of radiation revolves around a particular spot which may be deep inside the subject's body: only that single spot is always being energized by the beam, so it receives much more energy than the rest of the body does.)
You'd need to characterise your microwave very well, and it would need to be designed such that an antinode coincided fairly with the rotation axis (IME the axis is usually neither a node nor an antinode, tested using a slab of chocolate). Nice
Was this just a physics experiment done in a lab or a practical application in home or commercial kitchens?
@Stephie It doesn't sound like a particularly practical (or tasty) recipe, and a similar effect could be achieved much more easily by injecting hot filling into a pre-made meringue shell. (That would be cheating, of course.) It is definitely reminiscent of modern molecular gastronomy tableside stunts, though.
@ Stephie ♦: I was a high school student when Kurti, when visiting his home country, Hungary, had a presentation in an auditorium near my school to which my class was also invited (actually, we also had a more direct and personal meeting with him, thanks to my physics teacher's personal contacts with him). This was in the early 1980s. I don't know about the original setup of 1969 but by that time, Kurti had mastered the presentation so that it could be performed live in an auditorium. Some lucky people sitting in the first row had a chance to taste all his creations.
@Stephie ♦: I still remember his words about how much his Frozen Florida creation was different from a lowly Baked Alaska: you burn your lips first but then your teeth start to hurt from the cold. With his Frozen Florida, you first ache from cold, only then you burn your lips. What a difference! I can't remember the exact details of the recpice, though, but I suspect the center was some kind of jam by then rather than liquor, this seems to be easier to handle.
@Chris Appalams make a pretty good test too: https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2011/microwave-oven-diagnostics-with-indian-snack-food/
@Soulis, I'd seen that before but thank you for reminding me. When I've done it with chocolate we removed the turntable (no microwave-redirecting fan) so didn't get the rotational symmetry
This is actually due to physics! Microwaves work great on liquids, but terrible on ice. https://what-if.xkcd.com/130/
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/oct/18/foodanddrink.shopping has a version inspired by that with hot fruit puree inside a sorbet coated profiterole. "The addition of alcohol in the purée, along with the sugar, acts as an antifreeze, so the purée stays semi-liquid even when frozen. This means that it absorbs the microwaves a lot more than frozen ice cream would." (You probably could inject hot puree rather than rely on the microwave though, and just smooth a little sorbet over the injection hole.)
The "instant" sponge cake, innovated at El Bulli, can only be made in a microwave. Here is an example. Basically, a batter is poured into a whipping siphon. It is charged. The aerated batter is dispensed into paper cups. The cake is cooked in a microwave. The cups are removed and inverted. The cake is released. It is easy and fun to do.
And I assume the foam would simply collapse if one tried to set (bake) it in a regular oven, right?
I haven't tried it in the oven @Stephie, but I would assume a slower cook, and, therefore perhaps a less aerated and flatter result.
At least for smallish and thin objects, microwaves heat foods “everywhere and throughout at the same time” (for lack of a better description). Exactly what isn’t desired for a steak, as discussed in the Q/A that inspired your question.
To achieve similar results of heat distribution with other methods, you either
stir the food (for cooking in a pot)
supply heat from all sides (when baking in an oven or steaming)
If both don’t work, because you don’t want to heat from the the bottom or surroundings only and don’t want to stir, your can only use the microwave:
Place a Schokokuss for a few seconds in a microwave to puff it up. Unlike plain (and firmer) marshmallows, they become soft, gooey and semi-liquid. Total guilty pleasure and comfort food, but can only be made with a microwave. Use a low setting and take it out before it disintegrates completely. Here’s a random video (in German, but the text is utterly irrelevant).
@JoL fixed, thanks. That’s tricky to do on mobile...
I saw someone point out the El Bulli instant sponge cake, and it immediately reminded me of a different recipe: The Microwave Chocolate Mug Cake. I know it's not exactly a microwave-only recipe since cakes have been around since antiquity, but this is a specific recipe for the microwave with a couple advantages over an oven baked cake.
A microwave cake is done really quickly: it's essentially just mixing a bunch of ingredients in a bowl, pouring the batter into a mug, and putting it in the microwave for a little over a minute. The result is a surprisingly spongey cake that can be made even by the most inexperienced of chefs in per-person servings, instead of having to make an entire cake that you need to finish in a couple days.. there also is a lot less cleanup to do after this recipe: a mug, a stirring implement and a bowl, compared to 3 separate bowls for the egg components and the cake batter, something to whisk the eggs, something to mix the batter and a cake mould. I have personally made microwave cakes on occassion and it was surprisingly good.
If you nuke an onion half, with an X cut in the middle as deep as possible but not through the outer layer, and seasoned with lemon pepper and a pat of butter on top, until the onion is soft, you have a tasty serving of vegetable
I don't think any other way of preparing an onion would taste less "oniony".
You can bake the onion in a salt crust .
you can bake it whole in it's own skin. I sometimes throw some wrapped in foil when barbecueing, and they come out sweet and not onion-y at all.
Oh, I want to try this.
Possible duplicate of this question. As mentioned there, there is the intriguing idea of a Vauquelin - a heat-stabilized egg-white foam, somewhere in between ice cream and meringue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.567424
| 2019-11-15T15:55:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103503",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Chris H",
"Gábor",
"Laurence",
"Luciano",
"Max",
"Randy Zeitman",
"SF.",
"Sneftel",
"Soulis",
"Stephie",
"Wayne Werner",
"armb",
"computercarguy",
"ggb667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103501
|
Why doesn't my cheese cake rise when cooked in a water bath?
When I cook a cheesecake using the water bath method, the cheesecake does not rise. It stays flat. How do I make my cheesecake rise?
What's the recipe? many cheesecakes don't have anything to make them rise at all
The water bath is doing exactly what it should. Most recipes are designed to make your cheesecake rise as little as possible.
Baking a cheesecake is kind of like baking a souffle, except instead of encouraging rise, you combat it.
Cheesecake doesn't have the structure to sustain rising. Cream cheese can't hold the air, so when it rises, it eventually collapses & cracks.
Overmixing can incorporate too much air, which expands when it gets hot and collapses when it cools. Most recipes therefore advise against over mixing. A too-high temperature can have a similar result, converting too much liquid to steam, which expands, then collapses. A water bath insulates against the heat, allowing the cheesecake to cook more gently to combat that "too hot rise"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.568160
| 2019-11-15T13:19:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103501",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91305
|
I left my non-stick pan in the oven while it was preheating, can I still use it?
Long story short, I left my non-stick pan in the oven while it was preheating. Left it in there for about 20 - 30 minutes, including 15 minutes at 375 degrees Fahrenheit. Just wondering if I can still use it or if I have to toss it. Thanks for your time, any input is appreciated!
EDIT: It's a T-fal Viva Frying Pan.
EDIT 2: Thanks everyone!
From the T-FAL site:
• Oven safe to 500°F/260°C if handles are all stainless steel. Oven safe to 350°F/175°C if handles have any phenolic, plastic parts.
Oven safe to 400°F/204°C if handles have any silicone parts.
So the pan itself should be fine, but the handles can be damaged. No need to toss it just because you're worried about the coating being changed.
Short story, yes.
It should be fine because most nonstick pans can go up to around 500°F (260°C) and still not be damaged. That doesn't mean you should make a habit out of it, you should try to avoid it getting to high temps especially while not cooking something in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.568267
| 2018-07-28T00:22:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91305",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58018
|
Cleaning Range Ventilation
I have a hood ventilation system that vents to the outside. It has removable grease traps, as pictured below. I've put them in the dishwasher, but the grease has polymerized onto them. I'm looking for cleaning tips.
@ChingChong - possibly, but it is tough to get in the crevices with barkeeper friend. In the end, that may be the only solution. Thanks!
Did you do it on the steam setting? If you have one? I feel like when I see them washing them in restaurants, they use high-pressure steam/water cleaning to get them cleaned off.
I have never used Barkeeper's Friend but scouring agents. I would try to get in the crevices with a toothbrush (and have much patience).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.568368
| 2015-06-05T13:21:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58018",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"Eric R",
"Ryan Swanberg",
"Sonya Nipper",
"Sylvia Lowe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115649
|
Cocktail infused Creme Brulee?
I am making crème brulee for 60, I intend to sous vide them (thinking 180 degrees F, roughly 83C?), and I would like to create an "old fashioned" flavored crème brulee. To accomplish this, I intend to add brandy and bitters to the base. Does anyone know if there is a point where too much alcohol could cause problems with brulee? Any advice for appropriate amounts or ratios of alcohol to base?
I am sorry, that is correct, I am using a sous vide method in mason jars with lids. So roughly 83 degrees C.
I'm not sure at what point alcohol may cause texture issues & prevent setting of the creme, but there seem to be plenty of recipes that incorporate brandy or alcohol into creme brulee. Have you tried those recipes/ratios and want to add more?
Isn't an "old fashioned" usually made with whiskey or rye, rather than brandy?
@csk, OP might be from Wisconsin.
100% Wisconsin! Actually, I think in creme brulee, the dark fruit flavors of a good brandy go extremely well.
The alcohol does indeed change the coagulation of the egg yolks, so you have to be wary. Small amounts are not problematic (I have made orange crème brûlée with a tablespoon or two of orange liqueur to a full batch), but if you want more for taste reasons, you should look closer at the recipe. I tried looking this up, but couldn't find an upper limit on the alcohol amount - although note that eggnog can be made without curdling, so there is quite some tolerance in eggs.
For the maximum alcohol that is usable, I would look at sabayon recipes. Pick a recipe that is meant to make a firm enough version, and look at the total amount of pure ethanol. Since marsala has less ABV than brandy, you will be able to add more of the brandy - for practical purposes, you may want to fill up the cocktail with enough milk (or cream) until you are around 17% alcohol, then use this as a substitute in the sabayon recipe. There is a very good chance that this goes well - while the fats in the cream will interfere a bit with setting, the mixture should have less acidity, which will again give you a good overall mixture. It is not predictable how further components in the bitters may interfere, you will have to watch the first few batches and adjust the temperature or ratios if needed.
Once that version turns out well, you will have established a good upper range of alcohol for your crème brûlée, and from there, you can adjust downwards for the taste you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.568476
| 2021-05-13T18:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115649",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"The Photon",
"amolli1",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93895"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115893
|
Does chocolate inhibit cornstarch gelatinization?
I recently made chocolate pudding by putting 25ml of cream, 410ml of 3% milk and 50ml of cornstarch (not a good way to measure cornstarch, I know) along with two handfuls of Callebaut milk chocolate into the bowl of my Kenwood Cooking Chef, set it to constant slow stir (stirring speed 1) and set the cooking temperature (this stand mixer can cook in the bowl, while mixing) to 94 deg C. After a while I reduced the stirring speed to "once in a while" slow stir (stirring speed 3).
The result was really great but I wanted to redo it with even more chocolate to get a more saturated choccy flavour.
This time, same measurements, save for the choccy, of which I put in 169g, which seemed like more than double the last time.
This time I found out the gelatinization temperature of cornstarch is 60 deg C, so I set it to cook at 70 (just to be safe). It did not thicken at all. Thinking maybe it will after refrigeration I put it in the ol' fridge but all that happened was that a very thick surface coating was created. From experience with Creme Brûlée, I think it's the fat in the chocolate that accumulated and solidified at the top.
Put it in again in the bowl, added about 100ml more of starch and set it to stir at 68 deg C.
(BTW from experiments with the same starch and water I can, indeed, confirm it gelates at ~60 deg. C)
It's still cooking but I was wondering - is there some reason adding more chocolate made it harder for the starch to gelate?
The problem is not the chocolate, it is the temperature.
I don't know what exactly you refer to by "the temperature of starch gelatinization" - the gelatinization of starch is a long, continuous process, that happens long after the starch has swollen and thickened. It is the process that is responsible for bread going stale - but not the process of thickening.
To thicken starch, you have to take it to temperatures between 90 and 100 C - the exact temperature differs between starches from different plants, and I believe is also somewhat dependent on processing. Some need 96 C, for others, 94 C is sufficient. The most common thing is to simply let the starch boil visibly, until you see bubbles form and plop, and then take it away from the heat.
The amount of chocolate shouldn't be a problem for the starch, there are many dishes which are slightly thickened with just a tiny amount of starch mixed into a main liquid with lots of fat or other ingredients, and they work perfectly well.
I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch_gelatinization, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/starch-gelatinization#:~:text=During pan bread baking%2C starch,water move to the starch. and https://bakerpedia.com/processes/starch-gelatinization/. Although, I admit I haven't read them just glanced. Also I refer to me putting water + a lot of starch in the bowl and observing how at 60 it turned to a pudding texture.
The first source only says " Some types of unmodified native starches start swelling at 55 °C, other types at 85 °C, without defining a single "gelatinization temperature" - the numbers are about "start swelling", the granules are far from bursting yet. The second one says "The amylose and amylopectin fractions start to solubilize at 158°F (70°C) and 194°F (90°C), respectively." so they agree that you will have to bring it above 90 C to start the process. Also, in the graph, you see that the starch bursts after what they call "gelatinization temperature". Personally, I haven't observed the...
... slurry reaching a peak of viscosity and then thinning before it bursts and turns to actual pudding, maybe there are some minor differences which are measurable but not noticeable. I also don't know what you noticed at 60 C, maybe the transition from a pure suspension to the starting of swelling - but it is unlikely to have been the completely thickened state cooks want in a pudding, that one certainly requires the full bursting at over 90 C.
yeah, increased temperature and it did the trick. -_- Sorry, seems I was fooled by the starch starting to swell at 60 and thought "oh, my, this must be it!".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.568687
| 2021-05-31T18:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115893",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94163",
"mummy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
106003
|
How to set runny paté?
Due to a shortage of ingredients I made pate using odd proportions of ingredients and my pate hasn't set at all. Can anyone suggest ways to help it set? Would heating it up and evaporating off some moisture work?
Butter and cream are what I lacked... I used mascarpone instead thinking that would do as the substitute saturated fat. I don't have any exact measurements but probably around 300g of chicken liver, 1 onion, maybe 150-200g of mascarpone, and a good glug of marsala.
Assuming it’s chicken liver pate, have you tried adding butter, cream or other saturated fat? This can thicken and so firm pate quite well. Or you could use some kind of meal - oat flour or matzo meal, breadcrumbs etc that would absorb the liquid. Difficult to know without the recipe - many use mushrooms but I find livers, leeks and herbs and spice plus some good sherry or port and a tablespoon or so of melted butter /and / or thick cream makes lovely pate which spread very easily and thickens nicely in the fridge. It freezes well too.
The butter content helps solidify a pate once well refrigerated. Think about the difference in consistency between butter that’s been in the refrigerator overnight, and some that’s been left at room temperature. The more ‘liquid’ content in my recipe, the more butter I add, and remember any veg or mushrooms added contain a lot of liquid when cooked too.
If it still looks too sloppy (it shouldn’t be runny or drop off a spoon) then I add breadcrumbs, so if you’re lacking butter, that’s a good (and probably healthier) alternative and a good way to use up bread that’s past it’s best...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.569126
| 2020-03-24T17:38:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106003",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105553
|
Is it ok to cook beef from frozen in a slow cooker?
It's my first time cooking with frozen beef. I'm currently making a slow cooker stew which will be on high heat for around 7 hours.
Is it okay to use frozen beef?
I also add in a kettle of bottle water, before adding the rest of my ingredients.
It's a good question since you need to be careful with keeping food in the "danger zone" (40°F-140°) for more than two hours (or more than one hour at 90°). In a 200°F oven, for example, a large chunk of frozen meat will take a long time to thaw all the way to the center.
Cooking from frozen is generally accepted as safe, and the USDA has an article dedicated to frozen meat. They say it is safe to cook from frozen and will take 50% longer to cook, but it's more complicated than this.
When you're cooking with direct heat transfer (such as sous vide or in a stew), the heat transfer is going to be much faster — especially with sous vide where convection is used. A steak in sous vide will probably thaw within 15 minutes depending on the thickness. In a slow cooker it depends on how much liquid surrounds the steak and what temperature you're using. I would probably add 30 minutes of cook time.
Also keep in mind that with a steak the bacteria is going to be on the outside, so cooking it first (as in searing) will kill most of that bacteria, making a slower cook for the inside safer. This is also a reason not to poke holes in your steak when cooking rare.
Cooks Illustrated also has an interesting article about cooking frozen steak.
That should work fine, it'll just take longer to cook (maybe an hour or so, depending on the cut), so you'll need to check the doneness and not just rely on the time (always a good idea anyway). Generally, stew meat is done when you can very easily pull it apart with two forks. If you find yourself straining to tear the meat apart with the forks, it needs more time.
You can still brown frozen meat : https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/8741-the-science-of-cooking-frozen-steaks . What's going to be a problem is trying to cut up the meat if it's not already in chunks. (assuming that's the type of stew they're going for)
Thanks, that's a good point! Answer edited to reflect this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.569283
| 2020-02-27T13:53:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105553",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"csjacobs24",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71681"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116881
|
Do dried peppermint leaves lose flavor quickly in cooking?
I'm trying to figure out at which stage of cooking should I add finely chopped dried pepppermint leaves to get some minty flavor in my cooking...
I tried a few times and all I get is the smell of mint but not the flavor, so I wonder if I been adding them in the wrong stage.
So do dried pappermint leaves lose flavor quickly while in cooking?
Your question is somewhat unclear. "All I get is the smell of mint but not the flavor" - in the case of dry mint (and also fresh mint added to cooked dishes such as soups and stews), its smell is all it contributes to the dish's flavor. You might have to check if you don't have the wrong expectations. In any case, the linked questions explain all you can do to maximize your flavor outcome. If that's not enough for you, then you will have to consider something other than dried mint.
Generally speaking, music is a useful metaphor for this situation. In most cases, I think of dried herbs as bass notes. The deep, underlying flavor/aroma. Often dried herbs are added earlier in the cooking process, so that have a chance to rehydrate and contribute those underlying flavors to the dish. On the other hand fresh herbs are more frequently the provider of those bright, clean, high notes, especially when added at, or very near the end of the process.
Resinous herbs (rosemary, thyme, oregano) have a higher concentration of volatile compounds than fine herbs (mint, basil, parsley). So, mint, when dried, doesn't hold its flavor and aroma as well as the resinous herbs. It has a lower concentration of volatile compounds to begin with. You probably are not going to get the fresh, minty flavor that you are imagining.
Your best solution, if you want minty flavor, is to use fresh mint. By the way, it's easy to grow, even indoors. If that is not an option, I would add the dried mint at the end of the cooking process. That will preserve what little volatile compounds are left until that final moments.
as suggested, I add my dried peppermint on the final stage of cooking and I got the mint flavor that I'm after. I'm growing my own peppermint and harvest them monthly, but I dont always use mint in cooking, so I decide to air dried them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.569472
| 2021-08-17T05:08:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116881",
"authors": [
"calvin_0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95189",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117839
|
What Non-Sweet Winter/Root Vegetables and Squashes Make a Savory Soup?
I got excited recently because I had a savory 'pumpkin soup' that wasn't sweet at all and googled the recipe, which had Hokkaido squash. Is Hokkaido squash definitely savory? I hate most winter root vegetables because they're very sweet (pumpkin, acorn/butternut/kabocha squash, sweet potato). But I was excited to try celeriac soup, kohlrabi, Jerusalem artichoke puree, and parsley root (in moderation). I'm on the hunt for more savory winter vegetables.
Are there any winter vegetables (other than celery root and kohlrabi) that aren't sweet and are savory/ grown in EU that work for soup? And is Hokkaido squash definitely savory?
Welcome to SA! However, recipe requests aren't allowed on this board, see: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic As such, I edited your question to remove that portion.
I don’t think that the question can be answered as it is not so much a question of vegetable but a question of combining cooking techniques, pairing the ingredients and seasoning. Think of how different an onion will taste depending on how you treat it.
@jmk I have rarely had a dish with acorn or butternut squash where the sweetness didn't come through. I'd like to buy seasonally. I've been looking through recipes and getting very excited about the new root vegetables locals put in soups/mash (such as kohlrabi/watercress.. even chicory). Ordinarily the cuisine is very heavy. On the east coast, most gourds/winter veg, even delicata, are sickly sweet.
There are many varieties of squash and root vegetables, some of which aren’t specifically bred for sweetness.
But how the vegetables are grown and stored play a rather significant role in sweetness.
For instance, if you leave many root vegetables in the ground over the winter, they’ll increase their sugar, which you specifically don’t want. But grocery stores might keep carrots and such refrigerated, which has the same effect.
Sweet potatoes are the opposite— they’re ‘cured’ with heat to improve sweetness and storage life.
Some varieties of squash are sweet when really young (the ‘summer squashes’ like zucchini and others picked when small), while others (the ‘winter squashes’ like pumpkins) are let to fully mature to get their full sweetness.
So my suggestion would be to see if there’s any sort of farmers market near you, and tell them what you’re looking for. They might have some immature squashes that they had to pick early because they were damaged, or be willing to sell you uncured sweet potatoes, etc.
They could also tell you which varieties are less sweet. I know white carrots tend to be less sweet than orange, but I can only get them individually at the farm stands. In the stores, I have to buy a bag of ‘multicolored’ carrots, some of which are sweeter than the orange ones.
From just reading looks like you got lucky as sites suggested the Hokkaido squash could be sweet ( e.g "The golden flesh of Blue Kuri is sweet and can be used in dessert recipes as well as in savory/sweet side dishes"
Read more at Gardening Know How: What Is A Blue Hokkaido Squash: Learn About Blue Kuri Squash Care https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/squash/what-is-a-blue-hokkaido-squash.htm; )
Consider turnips and swedes: the former often have a distinct peppery taste; yams are made into soup in thailand, never made soup with it but lotus root isnt sweet nor is fresh bamboo shoot. Then you can branch out into the more exotic like burdock cassava and the like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.569673
| 2021-11-13T02:48:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117839",
"authors": [
"Drivegg",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96425",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120144
|
A white yellowish filling in my sausage
What is the filling in my sausage? I am thinking fat.
What do you think?
could it be cheese filled?
Looks like cheese to me...at least that's what I'd tell myself.
Does it extend all the way through the length?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.569956
| 2022-03-22T22:49:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120144",
"authors": [
"Greybeard",
"bob1",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67298
|
How should I keep the vegetables from flying off the board when I cut them?
Whenever I chop veggies like onions or carrots they sometimes just fly off the chopping board into the open space of the kitchen. Carrots do that especially often – I cannot chop them (dicing is also problematic) without the occasional pieces flying off the board.
What am I missing here? I try to imitate Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay chopping videos bit by bit.
Literally flying? The problem I've seen more with carrots (if you're just simply slicing) is that they roll off the board.
How big is your cutting board? You're not trying to use a tiny 8 x 10 board are you?
@jefromi flying, rolling, jumping. Those bastards never behave.
Pro cooks on TV have dont-try-at-home skill levels, and use slice-hairs-in-length sharp utensils
Use a sharp knife, dull knives don't slice, they split the same way an axe splits logs and that will generate that sideways force that throws carrot bits.
Also learn to practice your slicing and chopping technique. You shouldn't be dropping the blade straight down like a axe or guillotine. You should be moving the blade in a orbital movement, so that you are slicing in a forward direction while the blade is on its way down to and through the carrot. By slicing properly much less of your veg will have that energy buildup because they won't "snap" apart but will be sliced apart neatly.
Search YouTube for Basic Knife Skills and watch several videos, then practice, and start slowly. You will get faster with time and time only, don't rush it or you'll get sloppy and may hurt yourself.
Actually, there are several ways to chop depending on the country and the knife type (chef, santoku, chinese cleaver, usuba...).
@TZDZ - while that's true, the general chopping motion Escoce mentions (i.e., not straight down to "push cut" alone, but rather a combination of downward with forward or backward motion creating a circle or "orbit") is common to most knives around the world -- including all you mention -- particularly if you want to prevent flying bits. The exact angle and knife grip vary, but the motion is rather similar.
@Athanasius I disagree. If I understand well the motion in question, it works really well with chef knife, but not with an usuba or a chinese cleaver.
@Athanasius : you need a curved front, like a chef's knife to go with a circular motion. It's possible, but more difficult with a santoku as they don't have as significant of a curve. With cleavers you make a more diagonal motion when slicing -- it's not the straight down for chopping, but it's not the circular motion you'd use with a chef's knife.
This all may be true, but I am talking basic knife skills here for the average home kitchen. The general home cook doesn't have cleavers or any other exotic knives except perhaps the santoku which seems popular in standard knife sets these days. All the knives you get in a 20 or less knife block that costs say $250 or less is going to have all curved blades except maybe the serrated bread knife. The average kitchen doesn't have a $1700 block of Shun knives. Shoot I don't even have anything close. Mine are a collection of random cheap knives I inherited and just take good care of them.
@Escoce I have at least one (and maybe a 2nd hidden in the back of the drawer) completely strait bladed cleaver that came from knife sets that were much less than $250. One I paid less than $5/blade for; the second set was a gift but I'd be shocked it it was more than $100 for 6 or 7 blades. Both sets also had at least one serrated utility knife. I think the really cheap one had several. I'm not sure though, in the way of really cheap knives, after 6-8 years of service slashing plastic packages open most of them ended up broken and in the trash.
There's always someone
@Joe - I'm not talking about the "rocking" motion one uses with a chef's knife. I'm talking about the motion you make with a knife that does NOT rest the front of the blade on the cutting board, as with a cleaver or usuba. When you slice with one of those, you push forward or backward as you go down, then on the upstroke you go the opposite direction, overall creating a sort of "orbital" motion if you do it with smooth strokes. This is definitely true for slicing, and also often desirable for chopping, unless the material is very thin or you don't care about irregular results.
I do not believe there is anything more special about solving this than a sharp knife and basic knife skills. I agree with the comment above that I think easily 3/4 of the reason professional chefs have such better luck at this is due to the razor sharp knives they use. Something that is easy for us to do as well.
Both Escoce's and Elendil's answers are great: the key is a sharp knife, and the vast majority of people (in my experience) do not have very sharp knives in their kitchens. When people come over to my kitchen and try to cut something they are often shocked at how easy it is. If your knives slide off of food (like onion skins or tomato skins) rather than cut cleanly into them, they aren't sharp enough to make slicing easy.
The one thing I would add is to start with a long knife, and learn the "rocking" chop motion first with it. That is, keep the end toward the tip of the knife on the cutting board, and only lift the back end of the knife high enough to clear the carrot. With a smaller knife, you need to do what Escoce mentions and make an "orbital" motion rather than straight down. I think that's harder to do properly for beginners, so start with a big knife and rock it until you get the hang of it.
I tend to use a 10-inch chef's knife to chop carrots; minimum of 8-inch. Lots of people see such big knives and think they are too scary to use. But they really make chopping incredibly easy, especially if they are kept sharp. With a big sharp knife, you should barely feel like you need force at all to slice quickly through a carrot.
Use a bigger, sharper knife. If you're having to apply so much pressure to cut a vegetable that it's flying off into the ether, your knife isn't sharp enough. Furthermore, a blunt knife is a dangerous knife, because it is more likely to slip off the surface of the thing you're cutting and end up in your hand.
If you are not bothered about the shape of the vegetables, you can cut the (for example) carrot along its length, then place the flat side against the chopping board. You can then slice, dice or whatever with much less effort, and the carrot pieces won't roll off the board.
It's a good idea to make a flat side of whatever you're cutting, so you don't have to deal with it trying to roll around as you're cutting. This is more important when you're starting out ... skill might help you avoid needing to do this, but you don't save any time if you end up slicing your hand open because the item moved on you.
I agree with the other answers (particularly using a sharp knife). When I'm cutting something that tends to fly away like carrots, I'll keep the tip of the knife touching the cutting board.
It gives you a reference touch point so that you don't quickly cut through the object and hit the cutting board if you apply pressure. It also makes you cut it at an angle similar to scissors or one of those paper trimmers/cutters that you see in offices.
I agree with many of the suggestions above. However, if your carrots are still rolling off the cutting board, consider putting one or more rolled towels around the edge of the cutting board to prevent the "rollers" from escaping their inevitable fate.
It's crucial to consider the chopping surface here. If you are using a glass or ceramic board you will have problems with slippage.
Use a wooden or plastic board, and (as others have said) a sharp knife of a suitable type.
Beyond the comments about knives, which is right on, I use cafeteria trays with sides in place of a standard cutting board for the majority of my chopping and cutting. I've never had the dreaded roll off problem and I can carry the trays from place to place without fear of the same vegetable fly off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.570047
| 2016-03-10T15:17:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67298",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Bar Akiva",
"Carolyn Johnston",
"Cascabel",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Escoce",
"Javed Quantum",
"Joe",
"Joe Montaperto",
"Kantilal Patel",
"Linda Samuels",
"Michael Wright",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"Neil Stanley",
"Paul Hardstaff",
"Shane Hudson",
"Sk Yasir Yasir",
"TZDZ",
"Tiens Cilliers",
"Veronica Harman",
"derobert",
"gaynor ryan",
"geoffmpm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036"
],
"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
}
|
122376
|
A cheap piece of equipment/appliance that can help with reducing stock in a room that is not suited for cooking
I've just reduced a 4l of stock in my "kitchen" to 0.5l by boiling it over an hour.
I wrote "kitchen" with quotation marks, because that room might have been designated as a kitchen when the apartment was being built, but I'm pretty sure I see a lot of sagging paint on the ceiling that wasn't there before, the windows in all the rooms in the apartment look like it's just been raining inside and all the sachets I keep in the spice cabinet are wet.
Is there something I could buy that would collect the steam from boiling and prevent this from happening again? The obvious answer would be to install a hood and connect it to a vent (which is conveniently located at the exact opposite point to where the stove was installed), but that would easily set me back a few $1000 and what I can afford right now is more in the range of $60.
Summary
Is there something I could buy within $60 range that could handle collecting steam from 3.5l of evaporated water boiled within one hour? Maybe a dehumidifier made specifically for kitchen or a special lid that allows evaporation but collects the water? If it helps, I'm located in Poland and the price range is actually around 280 PLN.
Fan in window, drawing air out?
@moscafj that can be a solution for summer, today was 0 degrees C and the temperature is going down rapidly with each day. I don't fancy opening the window for one hour in this temperature.
Do you have a fan in the vent located exactly opposite the stove? Did you use it?
@Ecnerwal there is no fan, but I feel a slight draft when I put my hand to it. I've done a lot of reading since writing this post and apparently it would be illegal to install a fan there or cover it in any way, since there is a gas installation in the room. I don't use gas, but just the presence of the "pipe" and a valve is enough for it to be illegal.
Currently I'm tinkering with some ventilation system that would pull the steam with a fan through a pipe submerged in water, so it cools before exiting and doesn't steam up the room. I'd still prefer a readily made product.
The classic chemistry way to do this is with a vapour trap - basically have the steam pass through a cooled chamber of some sort (usually done with an ice bath and a retort). This chamber would need to attach to the pot lid and vent into the open air. I've never seen one for cooking, but I haven't looked, and it would likely be simpler to just have a tube that vents to open air.
Note that any form of extraction will draw in cold air to replace it (your existing vent will serve for that). You might want to avoid so much cooling
@bob1 it wouldn't be too hard to make something. A hose fitting in a saucepan lid, a 2nd saucepan with the entry pipe going through the lid down fairly low, baffles in that pan made of foil (so air doesnt flow straight to the outlet). That 2nd pan needs another hose fitting for its exhaust, with a fan pulling on that through something funnel-like (or perhaps better a fish tank air pump). In a chemistry lab you wouldn't use a fan but your vessels would be better sealed. 2nd pan sits in ice water bath
Another suggestion that you can use on top of other ideas, cost near zero: As soon as the windows are wet, open those that you can, use a shower squeegee to clear the water, then shut them (one at a time). Hopefully they open outwards but if they open inwards you'll need to catch the drips on a tray. You won't let too much cold air in by such brief opening.
Since it's cold outside, it wouldn't take much more than 2 minutes to ventilate the whole apartment by opening all windows at once. After 2 minutes, you'd have removed a lot of the indoor humidity, and your walls, furnitures and pot would still be warm. Do it every 15 minutes, and you might not have to buy anything. Boiling so much water inside, with no ventilation at all is a recipe for disaster. For your walls and your lungs once mold has grown.
@EricDuminil never tried opening all windows (not just in the kitchen), so I did that yesterday. As always, the draft was blowing the steam inside, not pulling it outside, so I don't think it works.
@ReverentLapwing thanks for trying. Depending on building geometry, wind, temperature and pressure, natural ventilation should flow from some windows to others, and not just from outside to inside. Still, if your very humid air from the kitchen has to flow through other rooms before leaving, it might not be the best solution. Especially if you're always adding more steam. The "still" is probably the best solution.
"all the sachets I keep in the spice cabinet are wet" that's really the only problem here. Put something else or nothing in that cabinet. As a renter, condensation rotting wooden framed windows is the landlord's problem, and if there's no fan that's their fault, as is the uninsulated exterior walls that are cold enough to condense water vapor. Also, that hole you feel air coming in is the fresh air intake; do not cover or modify.
3.5l over an hour? Well, yeah. Simmer, don't boil; give it more time to escape your leaky house.
@Mazura "As a renter, condensation rotting wooden framed windows is the landlord's problem". Wait, what? Indoor humidity very much depends on user behavior. The same flat could have perfectly healthy walls and indoor quality, provided the renter doesn't decide to regularly distribute 3.5kg of water everywhere, with closed windows. I'm all for tenants rights, but in the above case, the landlord would be justified to ask the tenants to repair anything their behavior has caused.
@Mazura "simmer, don't boil" it was a bone broth, so I was actually boiling it on low heat for over 48 hours :D I only had to add maybe a half cup of water over that time to keep the water level. When I actually simmer, don't boil, then over 6 hours of making stock at 90C+ I've never seen the water level go down. It already takes an entire day to make a stock and an hour to reduce on 2000W induction stove, I don't have another day in a day to reduce it on low heat after it's done.
@ReverentLapwing: "Entire day" as in 24h or as in ~8h? 48kWh, or even "just" 16kWh of electricity will get expensive pretty fast.
@EricDuminil for long simmer/gentle boil I'm using a cheap resistance coil at level 2 out of 5. 2kW is only for reduction. Max power over shortest amount of time should save electricity, since at 100C the water is losing heat at the same rate no matter how much wattage I put into it. But I don't really care about saving pennies, I was commenting that even on max power it takes one hour to boil all the water out - stock already takes an entire day (morning to evening), I don't need to make it last longer. Water needs to cover everything as it simmers, so gradual boiling off also makes no sense.
Well, what you’re looking for is called a “still”. It boils liquid and condenses and recovers the vapor. Most commonly (in cooking) a still is used to boil off and collect pure alcohol, but stills I’ve seen are also capable of boiling off water — in fact, in places where stills are legal to own but alcohol distillation is illegal, distilling water is the excuse under which stills are commonly sold. But it really will work for you; you’ll end up with reduced stock and some distilled water.
I can find stills twice as large as my pot for almost exactly $60, this is the accepted answer. My DIY solution is also basically a still, but parts come at 1/3 of the price, so I need to consider which one I would prefer.
It's lucky you're in Poland, where it appears you can buy stills readily. Even searching for just condensors from the UK I'm mostly getting Polish suppliers. But if you can find a Leibig or Graham condensor the rest can be done with hose and plumbing hardware, drilling a hole in a well-fitting pan lid.
@ChrisH that's interesting to hear, since alcohol distillation without a license is illegal here, even for home use. Those I found on the local internet were labeled as double puropse still + "szybkowar", which is a kind of traditional pressure cooker, so maybe their use in cooking is why they are historically more common here.
@ReverentLapwing The off-the-shelf solution doesn’t necessarily offer a lot of benefits beyond the DIY solution. It mostly depends on whether you feel confident in your DIYing skills (and whether the still would be useful to you more generally).
As a bonus, the condensing part gives you a lot of energy back, which is desirable in winter.
@EricDuminil so long as the heat doesn't just go down the drain. (Lab) stills I've used cool the condensor with cold water, then both the warmed water and the condensate drain away
It's probably a little more than your budget, but I run a dehumidifier in my kitchen in the winter. The utility room is adjacent and that's where I hang my washing up to dry so even without long simmering it gets pretty humid in the kitchen. With the dehumidifier I don't need to use the extracting cooker hood for boiling (just for frying).
It helps with keeping the place warm, because as well as reducing the need for ventilation it recovers heat by condensing water. Mine collects 2-3 litres of water per day.
If your apartment is prone to condensation anyway a dehumidifier will help, leaving internal doors open, but in this case I would shut the kitchen with it in there. I might even put it up on the worktop pulling moist air from the area of the stove when reducing large quantities - it's most effective at reducing the humidity of warm, humid air. Even so a small model wouldn't keep up with the boil-off rate you have, but it would make a big difference and bring the humidity down much quicker afterwards. Slowing the rate at which you're reducing the stock would make its job easier.
Mine has a compressor like a fridge, and makes a bit of noise. There are some with thermoelectric heat pumps but I don't expect them to be as good, and you'll still get fan noise.
I tried something else, hinted at in your question, and compatible with the dehumidifier, but it didn't work: A non-stick steel baking sheet angled as if to deflect the flow of steam into a dehumidifier soon collected quite a layer of condensation. Unfortunately it reached an equilibrium where no more water condensed, with just too little on there to run down into the waiting jug. Touching the back it felt like only about 40°C. Possibly a more thermally conductive sheet (aluminium) with a fan blowing room air on the back to cool it would condense enough to drip, and could be used to augment a dehumidifier.
I don't think a dehumidifier will keep up with the pace of vapor being produced.
@GdD boiling off 3.5l in an hour possibly not, though the higher the humidity the more effective the dehumidifier (that's why I'd think of putting the dehumidifier inlet near the source of steam). It will still be far better than the current situation and the humidity in the home will drop far faster after turning off the heat than with nothing. Unlike inefficient ventilation from opening windows you won't waste all warm air
... some data on the effect of increased relative humidity on the efficiency for a model comparable to the rather old one I have. Note that my kitchen rarely gets over 18°C in winter so I won't be able to collect as much
This would be an accepted answer if not for doubling the budget, which is already stretched as it is. I've read about some dehumidifiers from my price range and people didn't have many kind words to say. If I ever have some spare money, I will probably buy it. I didn't mention this in the question, but I keep my kitchen warm for the plants growing on the windowsill, so it sounds it would be perfect condition for a dehumidifier.
@ReverentLapwing, yes, they've gone up quite a bit since I bought mine about 10 years ago - I thought you might have to stretch maybe 25%. That's disappointing for me as well, as mine has started failing to turn on sometimes. The cheap ones I think are the thermoelectric/Peltier models which might just about be OK in a car but not for a house. I'm considering sketching how I'd make the condenser for a still based on what I have at home, but there are probably designs online already
@ReverentLapwing not only doubling your budget now but also costing a LOT on your next electricity bill. Dehumidifiers just soak up Electricity
@Hobbamok I use mine quite heavily in winter and have electricity and gas bills well below average for my size and age of house. They give useful heat (shifting some gas consumption to more expensive electricity) and reduce the need for ventilation, saving quite a lot of energy. They're also far more efficient than electric clothes dryers except heat-pump models, or in my case mean I can dry laundry easily. My climate is a little warmer than the OP's but I still have to heat the house nearly half the year
@Hobbamok: Compared to boiling off the water presumably electically as well (since OP says they're not using the gas installation), an electric dehumidifier is low power (200 W vs. e.g. 2kW for the stove). And OP would operate it under efficient conditions (at very high humidity).
Get a portable induction cooktop. Put it underneath the existing vent and do your high-humidity cooking there.
Why would the cooktop being an induction cooktop be relevant?
@Sneftel, safer than a resistive cooktop.
@Sneftel And because they're portable and can be moved wherever the ventilation is best, or even outside.
@Sneftel They're more popular right now than other types so you can get a decent one with limited budget.
I have induction stove and it was within the specify budget. But moving it didn't work, there is barely any pull from the vent, even after cleaning it.
@ReverentLapwing That is a bummer. I don't think our vent "pulls" that much from the fan but the main pull is when hot air starts going up it (the same way a smoke stack pulls without any fan, etc.).
Is your vent maybe not vertical all the way up? If there are bends in it then it basically stops working, if you can make it vertical until the very top opening then it should work better.
It's a hole in a wall in my apartment that draws air, I don't know what else to tell you. If I can feel it moving air and it passes regular inspections from the chimney men, then I'm sure it's working fine for it's purpose. The purpose, I'm guessing, being not drowning in my own CO2?
Figure out a way to hold an umbrella over the pot, and then either put a cup under the tip of each rib, or put the whole assembly over a large tub or tray
The caveat would be it/they'd need to be high above the boiler (heat and cheap plastic don't mix!), and carefully secured, lest it/they fall and become even more of a fire danger. Plus, the question is whether they'd be able to condense water quickly enough to put a real dent in things before the resulting air moves away from the setup (as convection up and then out will be fairly rapid). But an interesting idea.
This would be nearly completely ineffective.
Got Polish winter? Use Polish winter!
Freeze distillation removes water from a solution. Ice is pure water and as it freezes the remaining unfrozen liquid is more concentrated - with alcohol, or with delicious stock flavors.
From Wikipedia
Freeze distillation is a misnomer, because it is not distillation but rather a process of enriching a solution by partially freezing it and removing frozen material that is poorer in the dissolved material than is the liquid portion left behind
Leave your stock pot outside. Bring it in periodically and remove ice.
Bonus: you will not cook delicate dill and carrot flavors into oblivion with a 4 hour boil.
I must admit to being a little bummed that this awesome stock scheme stands at -1. There must be other skeptics. Here is some back reading as regards the freeze approach for concentrating liquid foods. Maybe they will explain it better than I did.
Freeze concentration techniques as alternative methods to thermal processing in dairy manufacturing: A review
This doesn't make sense. In alcohol distillation, you have two solvents, alcohol and water, with alcohol having a lower melting point. In a broth, you either have a single solvent (the water), or two solvents, water and animal fat. If you have fat: the animal fat freezes at above 0 C, but removing it still leaves you with non-concentrated broth. If you don't have fat: you would have as much taste in the ice layer as in the liquid layer, so you wouldn't be concentrating anything, you would be throwing out parts of your broth.
@rumtscho - suppose we are in Antarctica and the ocean freezes. Is there as much salt in the ice as in the water? No. The ice is freshwater. So too the broth. Ice is pure water that has frozen out of the broth. The broth retains salt and solutes and flavore. Ice is pure water.
The broth that you want to keep has a lower freezing point than the water you want to remove from it. You use that difference to remove the water as ice.
I've never been to Antarctica, and I will admit that the theory of such fractional freezing is not my strong point. But practically, when you freeze broth, you don't get two fractions. You just end up with a solid lump of frozen broth, without any evidence (e.g. a color gradient) that it is somehow not uniform.
@rumtscho - yes you can freeze it solid. Also you can freeze alcohol containing liquid solid. The idea is to skim out the pure water ice as it freezes. As you remove pure water ice the remainder is concentrated for solutes that lower the freezing point - ethanol, or salty stock.
I'd guess this method works because freezing point of pure ethanol is -113C. Chicken stock contains two liquids: water and chicken fat. Chicken fat is solid at room temperature. Most of the solids that give stock its flavour are dissolved in water and will freeze with it. I can prove this method doesn't work by simply placing the stock into the freezer.
@ReverentLapwing - do, but don’t let it freeze solid. Take it out and swipe out the ice needles every hour. Taste the ice. It will just be frozen water, no stock flavor. Ok rinse it off then taste it!
Oh my gosh. Downvotes again. I am going to have to do the experiment and post the results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.570733
| 2022-11-17T23:20:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122376",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dan C",
"Ecnerwal",
"Eric Duminil",
"GdD",
"Hobbamok",
"JeopardyTempest",
"Mark",
"Mazura",
"Reverent Lapwing",
"Sneftel",
"Willk",
"bob1",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122254
|
Is this meat that I was told was brisket in Barcelona the same as U.S. brisket?
I was born and currently live in Barcelona. Here in Catalonia, or in Spain, beef is not butchered in the American style, so I can't get the cuts that are used for American BBQ.
So, after my search and speaking to many butchers, the final conclusion is that apparently, our cattle is very slim and the brisket part is too thin to use as U.S. or other briskets.
I finally found one place where they sell briskets. It is a very specialised shop with lots of rare meats. I ordered two briskets and I'm posting two pictures of each. The meat was just unpacked.
In these pictures I still had not touched or trimmed anything.
The two pieces of meat were apparently very different from what I had seen in videos and pictures. First I even thought it was not a brisket at all (now I'm about 90% confident it is). One of the pieces had almost no fat. There were several cuts, one really big. My general feeling was that both pieces were not treated properly.
Now I want to order another brisket from there and I'd like to ask them to give me a better product but I'm not sure if I'm right and the product could be better handled or if it is just my ignorance.
So, what should I ask them?
What's this meat's country of origin? European countries will have different beef cuts because they also have different cattle breeds, and that's something you should ask your butcher.
lifting this up from a comment on a deleted answer, as info - European beef is very different to American. usually grass-fed, better exercised & slaughtered younger. That gives a very thin, relatively low-fat brisket, completely unlike the American. It's usually rolled & tied here, it's not big enough to do the American slow BBQ thing, it's considered a pot roast here. That does look like an American brisket to me - but being a Brit, I'm far from expert on the matter. The British cut is also a slightly different area - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisket
Hi Albert, the question about identifying the cut is a good fit for the site. I removed some parts which were more of a rant leading up to the fact that cattle is handled differently in Spain than in the USA. This is actually what one would expect, so I think you should be able to get answers as-is, good luck!
@Luciano They say the meat comes from Salamanca, Spain and is Black Angus pure breed, born in Ireland. Each piece was about 5.5kg (12 pounds)
@rumtscho I'm not a big fan of edits, especially of this magnitude. You removed some context but ok, it is faster now to get to the point.
I accepted @AMtwo's answer because it solved my primary concern but I still feel the secondary question in my post was not addressed. I'd be very interested to know your thoughts: good or bad butcher job?
Hi, Albert. In Spain, in general, you can go to an Argentinan butcher. Their cuts are similar to U.S. ones. Explain them what you want, show them some photos and tell how you want to cook it. Their Asados are somehow simillar to Texan BBQs.
That looks like a pretty typical brisket to this American.
The tricky thing is that "brisket" means different things. I'll put aside that butcher cuts are different around the globe, and just speaking from an American perspective.
"Brisket" is both a large primal cut, made up of two smaller subprimal cuts that you would see trimmed and available at the grocery store or butcher shop.
The "brisket plate" is the trimmed cut most often sold in American grocery stores as just "brisket" and what many folks mentally associate with what brisket looks like.
What you have looks like a whole brisket primal, untrimmed.
So what should you ask your butcher?
I'm not a Texas BBQ expert, but I have bought and smoked large briskets, and I think your brisket looks similar to what I can buy if I want a brisket primal. It looks fine. You could direct your butcher to trim it a bit more, to get rid of some excess fat and various "dangly" small bits along the edges. But I personally prefer to do that myself, so I can keep the trimed pieces and eat it myself.
Great! I think my visual reference was always what you called a "brisket plate" and this confused me a lot. You resolved my main concern and now I'm 100% sure this is indeed a brisket. However, my secondary concern is I still feel they should put better care in the product they serve. As you can see there is a huge cut in one of the pieces. And the fat layer of the two pieces is very inconsistent. I also prefer to trim it myself but the feeling is that they removed too much fat already. What do you think?
A whole brisket primal is an oddly-shaped cut. It's not uncommon for it to look like a mitten. That's normal, and not bad trimming. I'll dig though some pictures on my phone and find a picture of a brisket primal I've bought and smoked ...
You call it brisket, we call it Tri Tip . Tho it's probably only part of the brisket.
@Hannover tri-tip & brisket are different cuts, (at least here in the US). Brisket comes from the chest, where tri-tip comes from the back half. https://barbecuefaq.com/tri-tip-vs-brisket/
American butcher here. Started as a youth dressing out beeves with grandpa and uncles, studied meat processing as a vocational training in 11th and 12 grades (in the early 90's), and have worked doing individual animal for private clients using US/Canadian and Japanese dressing styles.
I have also a little time working commercial meat processing including grocery store meat counter, which includes reducing primes into retail cuts.
Which is a long way to say, I'm competent to say, "Those are fine quality brisket prime; not unusually trimmed or careless in handling from the appearance of the pictures."
The 'loose layering' is typical of brisket primes with fine meat and not over-thick extra-muscular fat.
At home you can trim it to more uniform dimensions in order to smoke or bbq more evenly, or leave it intact and get 'burnt ends' which some BBQ houses sell as a premium treat.
The brisket plate is the portion closest to your fingers on the underside as you are holding it. A quick trim along the long axis edge about 3cm in from the 'flap' cut and then trimming a little of the 'cap' os fat from the top will yield one quite large 'brisket' for bbq. That is commonly split across the grain into half or thirds for a 'corned beef' size brisket for retail grocery in the US, and is often pre-treated with nitrate salts for home users who dont want to wait for a long cure.
A couple of days to weeks curing in controlled humidity and temperature conditions; either as is or possibly dry rubbed with salt/sugar and spices can really maximize the umami available in this already tasty piece.
Can't wait to see pictures of the roast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.572312
| 2022-11-06T13:33:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122254",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Albert",
"Hannover Fist",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Luciano",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75381",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103335
|
How to improve my Lemon Pepper Tuna?
I am a tuna fan. I usually pour it from a tin onto a sandwich without cooking it. Yet there is one kind of tuna that is a problem for me: tinned "lemon pepper" tuna. I don't mind a bit of pepper kick. But a certain well known brand makes lemon pepper tuna that to me is uneatable; the pepper is so strong and abrasive that my mouth is on fire but in a really nasty way.
In my kitchen cupboard I must have about 20 tins of this stuff. I have a tin in my hand now. Ingredients: skipjack tuna, 59%, water. lemon juice, 10%, sunflower oil, black pepper, salt, traces of wheat, milk, egg, crustacea, soy and sesame. [yes, I know I also wonder what formed the 31%]
Is there any way of making this stuff less of a nuclear bomb taste? I have to have any one tin at the time for food safety; I don't keep anything from a tin stored in a fridge. So any idea of having a little bit with something else doesn't work. Is there any strategy? Reducing the taste somehow? Masking it with something else? Reducing acidity if that helps?
I can't throw it to the birds or cats. I have found that animals don't touch tinned fish of any type. Don't know why.
Why would you need to eat it all at once? Have you opened all 20 tins?
All the tins are not opened. Having it all at once? That would make Hiroshima into a sneeze by comparison. My plan was to have one a week. Modified somehow to stop it being a weapon of mass destruction.
I think you need to clarify your question, as you state that you have to have it "all at one hit." Further, I'm not sure your question will remain open. We generally don't allow questions that result is lists of equally valid suggestions. Reducing the taste, masking it, or reducing acidity are all options. Maybe focus your question on one main issue, such as, which additional ingredients would reduce the acidity of lemon pepper flavored, tinned, tuna? Also important to consider: do you eat it straight from the can, or have you tried mixing with other ingredients first?
I meant having one of the tins at one hit after it's opened; I didn't mean eat all 20.
Hi, it seems that you're looking for a way to reduce the hot/spicy level, which is covered by the duplicate target (it is about chilli, but the answers simply list typical foods that reduce the hotness sensation). If it is not about the hotness and you're simply asking for things to pair it with, then it would have to be closed for another reason - we don't do pairing questions, because they're opinion based.
I really doubt that keeping an open tuna can for one night in the fridge makes it unsafe. Especially when it's a significantly processed variety as this seems to be. I've many times eaten tuna that had been open for a couple of days already, though then not without cooking anymore. (I know, cooking is always sufficient to make spoiled food safe, but it certainly kills salmonella etc..)
Create a patè by mixing it with a good store bought mayo (or cream cheese), scallions and parsley. Or drop directly into a big bowl of pasta with some fresh tomatoes&basil and let the steam do it's job.
I don't know, but usually that's how I eat tuna.
I might go with the pasta route!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.573126
| 2019-11-07T14:05:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103335",
"authors": [
"Snack_Food_Termite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76240",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100232
|
Is this yeast on my sauerkraut?
Iv'e been researching what this white substance on my sauerkraut is, and I'm thinking (hoping) that it's the kahm yeast I've see talked about on forums such as this. But I'm not sure. It looks like a white powder/snow on the surface of the kraut, and also in the brine. I'm using a water filled bag to keep the kraut submerged. I used the method of salting and kneading the chopped cabbage to create the brine. My concern is that it's slime related...how will I tell?
This is my 3rd attempt at making my own sauerkraut...sigh. Appreciate your input.
So, 2 weeks later and I decided to see if I could skim the substance off the top and figure out what it was - except once I removed the water weight the white substance was gone, the brine is a murky light colour which I think is ok, but after a taste-test I realise there is way too much salt, the kraut is crunchy but not much fermented. I think I added extra salt to ensure I didn't experience my previous failed attempt and must have added too much.
Now I have to decide whether to chuck it and start again, or dilute the brine and let it ferment more.
It may be salt of lactic acid if it's only on the submerged cabbage. If there is white coat on brine there that might be mold.
The concern here is that this is something unexpected and potentially harmful. The general rule is - if in doubt, throw it out!
Many microorganisms will grow quite happily and form a whitish sediment below a liquid layer. The liquid you have is also turbid, which tells me that you most likely have some suspended microorganisms as well, but this could also be caused by residues from the chopped cabbage.
Some chemicals will precipitate out of tap-water under certain conditions, particularly calcium, if they are in the presence of conditions that make insoluble salts. Calcium salts are also white, but could be discolored by dissolved colored substances from the cabbage.
However, basically there is no way to tell without doing some basic tests and a bit of microbiology. If you happen to have a microscope you could put some of this on a slide and see if it looks like yeast.
Yeasts will be round or oval and large enough to easily see at 100x magnification (i.e. use 10x objective with 10x eyepiece), and will be visible at 40x too. Classically they will show a budding form; where smaller ones come off the side of the full grown yeast cell, but this is might not be present too. Bacteria are generally much smaller (need at least 100x mag) and come in a variety of sizes and shapes from long rod-shapes to round balls and a whole bunch of others. You would generally fix bacteria onto a slide and stain to make more visible. However, there are few (if any) bacteria that bud like yeast do - off the side, budding bacteria usually do this from one end of an elongated form.
Having said all that... the question still remains; are these what you want them to be? Unfortunately, there is no way to tell.
The only advice I can give is to make sure you sterilize the jars before starting your culture, and make sure that you wash your hands and other implements thoroughly before starting to make the sauerkraut. You could also start with bottled water or water that has been boiled and then cooled, to help eliminate any potential contaminants.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.573413
| 2019-07-16T15:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100232",
"authors": [
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46610
|
Getting a cast iron skillet surface smooth
I've had a Lodge cast iron skillet for about a year. A few months after I bought it I seasoned it with too much oil (I learnt later) and the surface developed some 'bubbles' that later started flaking. I've used it almost every day and while it is fairly non stick (I can fry eggs in it) I never managed to get a smooth surface on it. Here's a photo of how the surface looks
. While the surface might look like it's flaking, I do not see flakes in the food or when I'm cleaning it. Do you suggest I sand it and reseason it, or will the surface eventually smoothen out if I just keep using it?
Personally, I would just keep using it. The surface will take care of itself over time. I've got a couple cast iron skillets that haven't seen soap or a scrub brush in decades and they look a bit like that. They're not perfectly smooth, but that doesn't seem to affect their non-stick qualities.
are you using metal utensils on it? (you actually want to, as it'll help take off any high points in the seasoning, and will help it get smoother faster)
You cannot expect to ever have cast iron perfectly smooth. Its surface is uneven due to the manufacturing process, what producers like to call "pebbly" in marketing materials.
The pan in your picture has not taken the seasoning in the best possible way, it could have been smoother without the thicker parts. But these are not the dreaded "flakes" of failing seasoning, just buildups which are strongly bound to the pan.
If you insist on perfection, you could strip the pan and reseason it from the beginning, but it's lots of work, and there is no guarantee that your second try will work better than the first, you typically need to go through more seasonings before you get a feel for the craft. I'd say use it as it is, there are no noticeable downsides in the prepared food.
I like using a metal spatula with a flat front and slightly rounded corners. I use this for most of the cooking I use in my cast iron pans.
A quick scrape frequently will knock the high points down in the pan over time.
This will never 'smooth' the pan, but it will keep it from getting rougher.
I do the same. You can see that the center is much smoother than the sides (as that's where I'm scraping more often). You'll never get a smooth pan if you only use plastic or wooden utensils. You also need to use a fair bit of oil to help fill in the low points -- if you're using a non-stick spray or oil sprayer, you likely won't have enough.
I am convincing myself that a slight 'pebbly' surface is actually better for non-stick than a perfectly smooth surface. I've sanded some casting imperfections out of some cheaper pans, and they just like sticking a bit more on those sanded surfaces.
You may wish to sand/grind the cooking surface of the pan using a rotary drill with a sanding/grinding disk. See YouTube for videos describing the process. You must, of course, reseason the pan as if it were brand new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.573703
| 2014-08-23T18:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46610",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Christian Rodriguez",
"Daniel Reed",
"Fred Jones",
"Ivette Soto",
"Joe",
"Tesfaye Melesse",
"creuzerm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18022
|
What can I use a tempered glass pot for?
I've recently been thinking about what I can get rid of in my kitchen, and I've been debating throwing out a tempered glass pot like this (without the lid):
It's a piece of Pyrex Visions that I've had since college, that I've mostly kept for sentimental reasons. I really only use my cast iron in the kitchen these days, with the occasional copper clad pot thrown in for good measure and I can't really think of a good use for this vintage pot! Except perhaps living in fear of it exploding while on the stove.
Is there a good use for a pot like this, or should I just trash/donate it?
I see two sides of this question. First, should you keep a redundant tool in your kitchen, and second, is there a specific purpose to this pot.
I may be biased because my kitchen is small, but my point of view is to get rid of any redundant clutter. Get a few pieces of quality cookware and use them every day. There is no sense in having 3 pots which do the same thing, even if one is half a liter bigger than the other one. (The worst situation is when the small one is decent, and the big one is bad quality, but sometimes you need the volume, so you still keep the big one around). If you don't use a thing, remove it from your kitchen. (Of course, donation/ebay is better than trash from a sustainability point of view).
The second question is, even if you don't use it now, is there an occasion where you might want to use it? It so happens that there is.
Generally, it is a bad idea to use Pyrex on the stove (see this question), and the handle makes the pot impractical to use in the oven (you don't give a size, but I bet you can't place it in the center, if you're able to close the oven door at all). But there is something else you can do with it. This thing makes an awesome double boiler.
If you don't have a professional double boiler, the usual way to "build" one at home is to find a bowl and a pot so that the upper rim diameter of the bowl is slightly bigger than the pot's diameter. You put water in the pot, put the bowl on the pot so that its bottom is suspended in the boiling water, and fill the bowl with your ingredients. It works with any moderately heat-resistant bowls (including glass, but don't use nylon), but I prefer to use glass.
First, glass is a bad heat conductor, which means that it heats more gradually and you have more time to work before your ingredients overheat. This makes it much better than steel. Second, glass is transparent. This means that you can see the boiling water and adjust the temperature according to how strong your boil is. You can't do this with a metal or ceramic bowl.
The drawback to this setup is that at some point, your ingredients are close to overheating. You have to remove the bowl from the heat, and do so quickly. Well, by then the bowl is very hot, it is slippery on the outside because of condensed steam, and your mittened hands slip on the rim withot findind purchase, while the hot steam penetrates through the cloth to cook your skin. The best solution would be a glass bowl with a handle, and that's just what you have here.
The problem in using the dish as a double boiler top is that its bottom is rather flat, making it less suited for small amounts of ingredients. Depending on how much you cook at once and how big the pot is, this may or may not an issue. The second problem is that you can't shock cool it to stop an uncontrolled overheating. But being as easy to grab as it is, you can just keep a cool bowl on the counter and dump the ingredients into it in case of emergency.
Conclusion: if you think you need a double boiler often enough to warrant the room occupied by this thing, you can keep it. But if you don't use it often, there is no point keeping it around as just another pot.
Thanks, that's a really good idea! The pot definitely doesn't take up much space (nestled within another pot), so I think I'll keep it after all. I was actually making a lemon meringue pie the other day, and lost control of the lemon curd while heating it in a steel pot, so maybe this can help with that in the future. Thanks!
That's a really good idea @rumtscho. Now I want to see if I can find one at a thrift store.
Got a microwave?
If this fits, it's ideal for either steaming frozen veggies or cooking a small quantity of rice. I'm a fan of this way to cook rice because it always works once you get your ratios and timing down. This will eliminate the need for a separate rice cooker appliance too.
My rice recipe (that works in my pot, in my microwave) is 1 cup of rice and 1.5 cups of water. Cook at high for 6 minutes (watch carefully the first time to get the timing, you want to catch the water at just the point it begin to boil, then write down that timing), and then 15 minutes at roughly 50% power (for me "simmer or stew" setting), and then 10 minutes of resting. Usually, if I put the rice on first I can finish chopping and cook the stir-fry in the time it takes to cook the rice.
You will get a good match to carry-out sticky style rice if you use something like the inexpensive goya brand medium grain rice.
edit to add: you really need the lid. Sorry, I just saw that in your original question that you may not have it. You really need the lid for the rice to turn out OK. The steam will condense on the lid and drip back down.
I would trash it. As rumtscho pointed out, glass is a very poor conductor. The only situation in which it might be a passable cooking vessel is braising/stewing in an oven, but even then I'd only use it if I didn't have something better (enameled cast iron, for example), and you do have something better. I don't agree that it's good for double-boiling, its shape (the flat bottom and the handle) is rather ungainly for that purpose. A glass bowl would be better. So as you said, you don't really need it to cook with.
The main reason I'd get rid of it is safety. When one of these things breaks, it does so in spectacular fashion, sending microscopic shards of razor-sharp glass flying pretty much everywhere. They seem to almost explode when broken, if you happen to have any exposed skin near it when it breaks, you can be pretty badly cut by the shards. I knew someone once who attempted to catch one of these pots as it fell off the counter, they got their hands on it right as it hit the floor and they needed stitches to close the cuts. It's not worth it for a pot that isn't the best at any particular cooking job.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.574010
| 2011-09-26T18:38:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18022",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Rose Lynn Embry",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7493",
"linuxdan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116200
|
Best time to benefit from dough mixed with baking soda
I am preparing a dough with all purpose flour, salt, sugar, oil, curd, lemon juice and baking soda. I am not using baking powder. Within how much time should I complete my baking to reap maximum benefit of the leavening effect? I know that dough with baking soda needs to be cooked sooner, but is there any specific time that my baking should be completed?
No, there is no such time. The formulation you used, "needs to be baked sooner" is indeed the correct one. If you bake it without any delay, it will be better (the baking soda will have more effect) than if you delay for one minute. If you delay one minute, it will be better than when delayed two minutes. And so on.
At the other end, there will be a moment at which the baking soda turns from having almost-no-effect to having absolutely no effect at all. But since nobody would want to eat the food even if the soda had next-to-no-effect, trying to predict this moment is not really relevant to cooking.
I upvoted this not only because of it's content but because I dislike accepted answers with a score of 0, if it is good enough to be accepted it is good enough for an upvote, even if it is only from the asker
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.574678
| 2021-06-24T11:29:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116200",
"authors": [
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116267
|
How do you cook a hard cheese to dry it out without melting it in a home kitchen? Which cheese is suited to this purpose?
How do you cook a hard cheese to dry it out without melting it in a home kitchen? Which cheese is suited to this purpose?
Is there a way to achieve a crunchy texture with a cheese by cooking it, or a certain technique to drying it out?
Hi, I am a bit confused as to what you are imagining. Can you tell us which food you have in mind? Do you mean something like the pieces of dried cheese you sometimes get on pizza, or something like cheese-tasting chips, or something else?
I don't see how you can make cheese crispy without first melting. You can, however, easily make a cheese tuile from a hard cheese, like parmesan. The cheese is grated, then baked, where it melts. It is removed from the oven and crisps as it cools.
Here is an example with a description of the process, and a picture of the result. There are plenty of others, just google "cheese tuile."
you would need to use a grill or a broiler to crisp up the cheese (look up "gratin" )
Some cheese are better at it than other.
Parmesan or cheddar can be use to make parmesan or cheddar chips.
be careful, there's a fine line between crunchy and burnt.
This looks to me like 2 (and a bit) questions: one on drying, and one on making it crispy. But they do overlap.
You can apparently - I've never tried it - dehydrate cheese in a food dehydrator; I don't know what texture you'd get, but I would guess not crunchy. I have bought dried grated pseudo-parmesan (good for camping). Because it's grated it's hard to tell the texture, but I doubt bigger pieces would go crunchy This rather long post does imply crunchiness is possible.
In summary they suggest drying it cool and slowly. If you're starting with a hard cheese made from pasteurised milk, it can be stored at room temperature anyway - max 30°C, which is often the lowest temperature on a food dehydrator. Much warmer and it goes oily (cheddar, in my experience).
Hmm… tough choice on which I'd go for there - the powdered feet, or the British Rail sandwich ;))
@Tetsujin yes, though the Napolina dried cheese is OK stirred into pasta sauce if you're hungry. I have a dehydrator and like cheese, but I'm not very tempted
Have yet to try it with my nutcheeses: Tribest Sedona Express only one I found with 77f setting
@PatSommer I'm not sure about storage conditions for nut cheeses; that article was about dairy cheese and specific types at that
comment was only to note a low temp dehydrator. (but some nutcheese rinds surprisingly similar to dairy counterparts ie camembert)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.574814
| 2021-06-30T23:27:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116267",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Pat Sommer",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116282
|
How do I modify my sourdough rising/proofing time to account for not using enough starter?
This is my first time trying to bake sourdough bread after feeding a mature AP/wheat starter I got from a friend. I fed the starter a 1:1:1 mixture with AP flour and let it rise in a very warm room(~84F) for a few hours. It nearly tripled in size, then I put it in the fridge, and took it out the next morning to bake with. I let it warm up on the counter for a couple of hours before making the dough.
I didn't realize until I was scooping the starter from the jar that I did not have nearly enough for what the recipe called for. I could only use slightly over half the amount called for.
How do I account for this? I assume the yeasts and bacteria will need longer to raise the dough since there's not enough of them? Can I simply double the rise time? Do I need to double the proofing time as well? The recipe also calls for stretching and folding every 30 mins. Do I have to modify this as well?
I bake with a sour dough starter frequently, and run into this often, mainly because of lack of planning. When I solve for this, I first make up for the missing starter mass by adding equal parts flour and water during the initial mix of the dough. Then, I just continue as normal. I usually do 3 or 4 sets of stretch and fold, 30 or so minutes apart, depending on how the dough feels. Proofing time is a different story, and highly dependent your environment, and the strength of your starter. You probably will not need to double it, but it may take a bit longer. After my stretch and folds, I do a bulk proof for a few hours, then shape, transfer to basket, and proof for another hour or two. There are no clear rules or time tables here because you are working with a live product that is functioning within your specific environment. What I've learned over time, is that I can understand how things work in my kitchen. There are "tests" you can do to gauge proofing, such as giving your dough a poke. If it springs back right away...let it sit a bit longer. A slow spring-back means you are probably good to go.
I would encourage to make lots of bread. Some of it will not look pretty. Sometime the texture will not be what you are going for. Most of it will be edible. Over time, you will develop a feel for it, and achieve the kind of bread you have in mind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.575034
| 2021-07-02T18:10:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116282",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113966
|
Why do my English muffins have such a tough crust?
I'm new to the baking of English muffins. I follow the recipe for sourdough English muffins published on YouTube by Culinary Exploration. After accounting for the 100% hydration of the starter, the recipe calls for about 62% hydration. The procedure involves pre-baking in an open skillet to form a light crust followed by oven baking to finish the center. I use Sir Galahad flour from King Arthur, which contains 11.7% protein.
My EMs taste great and the crumb is exactly what I want, but I get a paper-thin outer crust which is very tough to bite through and chew. The crust seems to be the same on both sides of the muffins; i.e., there's no distinction between the side that was exposed vs the side that was against the parchment paper during proofing. Lowering the heat of the skillet and the oven has no discernible effect, other than reducing browning. The crust does soften a bit with storage, but it's still too rugged.
I fear that changing hydration will alter the thickness to diameter proportions of the muffins. Any other suggestions?
English muffins are supposed to have a chewy exterior crust, particularly sourdough ones. How do your compare with handmade muffins from professional bakeries, if you can get such in your area? Trying to figure out if yours are different from what the recipe intends.
I... think I disagree about English muffins supposed to be chewy on the outside. I think they're supposed to be soft and a little squidgy on the sides. I've never heard of an English muffin recipe that was baked, the ones I've seen all cook solely on the griddle/frying pan. I don't know for sure, so just a comment, but I wonder if its that trip to the oven that makes them chewy.
@FuzzyChef Chewy, yes, "impervious" no. I can easily bite into and through top-named over-the-counter EMs, but mine put up a fight. Judging from Culinary Exploration's video demonstration, I meet a lot more resistance than he does.
@senschen I meet substantially more resistance than the recipe's author demonstrates in his video, so I'm not ready (yet) to chalk it up to the oven. I'll try a low-skillet-only approach to test for differences.
What kind of oven? Gas or electric? Did you use convection?
I strongly suspect that it's the trip to the oven that's making those muffins tough.
My personal recipe for sourdough muffins does not involve baking them; they are cooked entirely on the griddle. I checked three different sourdough muffin recipes (1, 2, 3) and none of them used the oven either.
So my suggestion is that you try cooking them entirely on the stovetop and omit the oven. This will require longer cooking on the griddle to make sure they're done all the way through; I suggest checking with an instant-read thermometer (should be 90C in the center). I don't suggest lowering the griddle heat, which should be around 175C ... cooking them longer may actually toughen them.
The second thing I notice is that almost every sourdough recipe I've checked has some kind of fat in it, usually butter or whole milk, and the recipe you linked does not. The recipe I've tried that doesn't is Arizmendi Bakery's, which are also very chewy and tough to bite into (I like them, but I suspect you wouldn't). So adding some kind of fat to the recipe would probably help your crust texture; it generally does with bread.
There's other general tips to peruse, just in case you're running afoul of something else like using way too much flour during kneading.
It's also true, though, that different sourdough cultures can result in chewier (or less chewy) crusts. So if eliminating the oven step and adding fat doesn't work, I'd suggest testing a non-sourdough recipe to see if you're having the same issue there.
I recommend that you brush your English muffins with milk/butter before baking them in the oven. This slows down the drying process of the surface of the dough, making for a softer crust.
You can also bake your bread with a water bath; that is, you place an oven-safe container of water into the oven along with your pan of dough to generate steam in the oven, moisturizing the surface of your English muffins.
Out of a desire to alter the cited recipe as little as necessary, I arrived at a combination of small procedural modifications that produced the result I seek:
Lightly oil the skillet before adding the muffins (note: I did not add more oil when flipping the muffins)
Cover the skillet, though not tightly, as the "pouring ears" on the rim of my cast iron skillet don't permit a complete seal
Cover the cooling muffins
The oil may be tenderizing the crust slightly during the browning phase, while some "oven spring" may result from trapped steam as evidenced by condensation on the underside of the lid. Cooling under cover allows residual moisture in the muffins' interior to prevent the crust from hardening.
Result: same savory, nicely browned English muffins, but now I don't have to stretch out my jaw muscles before tearing into them!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.575244
| 2021-01-26T17:37:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113966",
"authors": [
"Brian K1LI",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102594
|
Coffee Grounds and Gritty Butter Cream Icing
Is there any way to dissolve coffee grinds once added to a butter cream frosting?
I used instant coffee crystals in the past and they have always dissolved when simply added to the butter cream during the mixing stage — without having to dissolve in any sort of hot liquid prior to adding.
I have made this mocha butter cream frosting several times in the past, but didn’t think it through when I decided to use regular coffee instead of instant, which I discovered — albeit too late — that I was out of.
hmm chewy frosting. Kind of like chocolate covered coffee beans. Just eat it and enjoy.
Instant coffee is "soluble solids of ground coffee" - ie, they made coffee, then they dried the result.
Actual ground coffee will never dissolve.
When you make 'real' coffee you run/pour/pass water through the ground coffee, then throw away the solids. There's no getting around the 'throwing away' part.
Would a very fine mesh filter catch the coffee grounds? It may be worth a shot if there is one, but otherwise it's chuck it and start over.
@GdD I can't see that working. The sugar in buttercream is solid and would also be caught in the filter, even if you melted it enough to flow.
It's a bit late now, but if you've only got real coffee and want to make buttercream you can still do it. I made a latte buttercream by brewing very strong coffee in hot milk, then straining it and adding the liquid to the plain buttercream ingredients, tasting and adjusting the proportions for texture. It worked well.
I did this by:
Brewing 1 Tbsp of ground coffee in 3–4 Tbsp of hot milk for a few minutes and straining,
Beating together 250 g slightly softened butter and 500 g icing sugar, adding most of the latte.
It must have been about a year ago when I did this – they were pumpkin spice latte cupcakes because of a discussion caused by the drinks of the same name, but I've found my notes with the real proportions.
It's much easier to use Stack Exchange's "Markdown" formatting than HTML. I edited that as an example, since I was editing anyway (your last sentence was a bit mangled).
Thanks @DavidRicherby. I pasted from the source of my recipe notes, which are in html, and was so surprised it worked that I forgot to change it to markdown.
Aha. I think all HTML that's equivalent to some markdown works, along with HTML character entities and things like that.
@DavidRicherby what's annoying is that character codes work in answers but not comments.
As discussed here, the human palate is remarkably sensitive to granularity. Even particles as fine as 2 microns have an effect on the subjective perception of food. This means it's going to be very hard to grind something fine enough by hand that it doesn't significantly affect the finished product.
You can get away with adding cocoa powder to frosting because it has grains on the order of 10 microns in diameter. For some perspective, this is about the size of what gets through a coffee filter. Some googling suggests that the grounds themselves are on the order of 100 microns in diameter.
The particle size of regular ground coffee is too large to use in icing, as you’ve found; you’ll be able to see and feel the individual particles. But coffee specifically ground for making espresso is much finer — it’s much closer to a fine powder than “grounds” — works nicely. It still won’t actually dissolve, per se, but the individual bits are undetectable. Tastes better than instant, too.
You're still going to end up with that funny 'squeaky teeth' feeling, though - like those new "barista-style" instant coffees with added grit… I mean 'real ground coffee' ;)
probably the same fine grind: https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/22416/12619 If I end up drinking some it's just a little grainy, I haven't noticed squeaky teeth. If it were dispersed in food I'm pretty confident it would be completely unnoticeable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.575659
| 2019-09-28T12:30:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102594",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"GdD",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61071",
"uhoh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85244
|
Why can I have an indoor pizza/wood oven, but not a BBQ or smoker? (or can I...?)
I know people have indoor wood-fired pizza ovens. I also know that in general people cannot have barbecues or smokers indoors, presumably because of the potential for leakage of dangerous or deadly gasses. I am confused because both of these methods involve burning wood indoors, but only the pizza oven is considered appropriate or safe.
My guess at this time is that pizza ovens have sufficient ventilation to let out bad gasses and such, while barbecues and smokers traditionally do not have good ventilation.
Why can I have an indoor pizza/wood oven, but not a BBQ or smoker?
Would having a valve that partly closes the ventilation of a pizza oven "turn" the pizza oven into a smoker? And if so, would this also be considered dangerous?
I want to make it clear that I don’t plan on poisoning my family and won’t be building something unless if is deemed safe by professionals.
I think you are working from a faulty premise. Who do you think (besides those you live with) is going to STOP you from having a smoker or bbq inside. Yes, it is a bad idea but if you want to do it. On another note: there are a number of gas ranges that do include an open flame grilling area as well as a small portable smokers that can be used indoors.
http://www.kitchens.com/blog/kitchenology/pro-style-cooktops-with-grills
https://www.amazon.com/Gourmia-GSM160-Portable-Convenient-Cookbook/dp/B01LZ8I8Z5/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1508961886&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=portable+smoker&psc=1
Things like Jenn-Air hibachi grills and several competitors are not uncommon. These are gas/electric for quick on convenience, but the key is always ventilation control. I even knew someone with a spit in their fireplace straight out of the 17th century or so.
There might be local by-laws for safety and fire hazard in play, better ask around (fire-dept, city, ... ) also, there might be insurance issues.
P.S. I have a log cabin. If I ever decide to take pellet stove heat out, I will put old fashion hearth with kettle and grill in. ;)
I'm not allowed to have either where I live. Commercial restaurants can have both in my area, because they are able to build the proper heat containment and ventilation systems. It might make more sense to include your jurisdiction and living situation in the question.
that is not a smoker, @stacey, as meant by the questioner
@dlb spits are completely simple, it's just "a fireplace". it has nothing to do with a SMOKER example: https://www.amazon.com/Traeger-Grills-Junior-Pellet-Smoker/dp/B019IH27ZG
In my country (Brazil), several homes have indoors "churrasqueiras" that serve both as spits and barbecues when coupled with the proper add-ons. There are several building restrictions regarding then if you want to build one on your house, but they are somewhat standard. Some can even be fitted to work as smokers with the proper engineering!
To all those in comments and answers saying that carbon monoxide accumulates in low places, sinks, is heavier than air, no it isn't, doesn't etc. "Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air" [emphasis added] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide
By far the biggest issue here is the fact that fireplaces and pizza ovens (and stovetop grills) provide free ventilation to the fire, allowing complete combustion. The results are almost entirely CO2 and H2O, plus a small amount of visible smoke. In a smoker or BBQ, the ventilation to the fire is deliberately restricted, leading to incomplete combustion and a vastly increased production of CO and VOCs (volatile organic compounds, the components of smoke), which is what makes controlling them in a living space a much, much bigger problem.
I see that Tom has just made this same point.
Why pizza/wood ovens, but not BBQ/smoker?
Fire is not fundamentally a problem indoors; there are certainly safe ways to do it, like fireplaces.
The things that make fire dangerous are lack of containment and lack of ventilation coupled with significant size. If it's at all uncontained, it's a fire hazard, and if there's not enough ventilation then you can get a smoke-filled home, carbon monoxide poisoning, and all manner of unpleasant/deadly things.
Wood-fired pizza ovens are much more like fireplaces than anything else. The fire is well-contained. They have chimneys, so that all of the byproducts of the fire are safely sent outside, and new fresh air is pulled in.
Standard barbecues/grills/smokers usually fail on the ventilation aspect. They don't have a way to attach a chimney so that you can reliably send all the nasty stuff outside. They may also be insufficiently well-contained. For example, a lot of charcoal grills make it relatively easy to throw sparks outside the grill, which is pretty bad indoors.
Indoor smokers do exist, though. Generally they're either large, with serious ventilation, or they're small stovetop things that just burn a tiny amount of wood chips in a tiny volume, so it's safe without ventilation but not exactly comparable to a full smoker.
The reason the big ones need serious ventilation is that you're deliberately holding smoke (and associated gases) inside, and you can't let that slowly build up in your home. On top of that, it's at a much lower temperature, probably 225-250F compared to a wood-fired oven at probably 600-900F, so a chimney won't even be as effective because you don't have as strong convection from all that hot air trying to rise.
Can I just seal off an oven and turn it into a smoker?
No. If you don't send the smoke out through the ventilation system, it'll be going into your home. (You might have experienced this yourself, if you've ever started a fire in a fireplace and accidentally left the flue closed. It can fill the room with smoke impressively quickly.)
I know you said partially close, but if the oven hasn't been designed for it, you're just asking for trouble. You don't really have a good way to make sure that smoke (and probably carbon monoxide) is held within the oven enough to make it a good smoker, but is not pushed out into your home. This is fire/home safety. You really don't want to be asking for trouble here, and depending on where you live, it may well be illegal.
So it's really unlikely that you can even make this conversion, and if you're doing it yourself you can't trust it anyway, and the absolute best case is that you manage to somehow build yourself an indoor smoker and you've probably had to make compromises that make it not work as well as a pizza oven. So you might as well just buy an indoor smoker. (But you still might not be as happy with it as with a regular outdoor smoker - see dlb's answer.)
You say "You don't really have a good way to make sure that smoke (and probably carbon monoxide) is held within the oven enough to make it a good smoker". Would there be a reasonable way to build it this way? If I have a custom-made wood oven in the house, I am wondering if I could also make it into an indoor smoker sometimes. If I have a good chimney and all that.
It might be possible to build, but it would be a very custom thing - it sounds pretty difficult to get it right so that when in "smoker mode" it retains sufficient smoke inside but no smoke (or CO) goes out the air intake, only the chimney. You'd have to ask the people who are custom-building it for you if they know how. I don't think I've ever seen one.
There are big, commercial indoor smokers, but you are looking at room sized systems there. I love smoking meats, even and planning a full smokehouse, but still would not even consider indoors a real option in my mind. CO, CO2, airborn oils and particulates, dripping oils. I use water smoking so add the certainty that there will be spills. So many drawbacks that it would have to be complete custom job other than the lesser options, and might be a major liability issue.
@dlb Yeah, didn't mean to imply the entire concept is impossible, just coming at it as a conversion to a pizza ovens won't work well. Let me know if there's anything you want me to adjust in my answer to make that clearer (or just edit yourself, really). I do kinda wonder, if smoking were half as trendy and upscale as neapolitan pizza, maybe we'd be seeing indoor smokers more on the fancy residential price/size scale? But that's not the world we live in just now.
@Jefromi nope, was agreeing with you/adding to your more complete answer than mine. I am not even sure in today's lawsuit driven world a custom builder would be willing to tackle such a job. Just too many areas something could go wrong and come back to bite them.
@dlb What makes it so dangerous or risky compared to a typical pizza oven? Having the smoke stand around in the oven, rather than quickly escaping?
@Behacad I thought that was addressed by the answer, but yes, holding the smoke (and associated gases) around means you're partially cutting off the ventilation that's a key feature of keeping you from pumping your home full of carbon monoxide and other nasty things, and that's not an easy problem to fix.
@Behacad Primarily, yes, the gases and such. In smoking especially, you want food exposed to things which are not good for breathing, and really not especially good for your house, drapes, etc. Smoking food and air quality in a confine area are two opposing goals. If you have used smokers much, you should have seen some of the soot build up that tends to occur, which tends to be flammable, another hazard indoors.
@Behacad, one of the problems with holding the smoke is you are also holding the really dangerous stuff, like carbon monoxide and some nasty particulates. Carbon monoxide is heavier than air and if not drawn out by the convection action of a normal chimney, it will pool at the lowest possible point. at best it will snuff the fire, at worst, it leech out of your smoker and fill your house with a suffocating gas until it kills you. You need air to carry on the combustion required for smoking, and that means the box cannot be sealed. so the CO won't stay contained. DANGEROUS!
Please, Please, Please do not try to do indoor smoking without equipment made for it. It is Dangerous! DANGEROUS
Devices that use open flame inside your house take advantage of a chimney to let the smoke out. Pizza ovens are just funky shaped fireplaces. In a fireplace, the hot fire causes the smoke and nasty gasses to rise up the chimney, drawing in fresh air from the front. This creates a one way flow. It is similar for just about any combustion driven heat device. Block that flow out of the chimney, and the smoke and Carbon Monoxide stay around. Since they are heavier than air, they will settle at the lowest point as they mix with cooler air and cool down.
Smoking meats requires lower heat than is normally found in a fireplace. A lot lower. At this point the smoke is not going to rise as readily or quickly. Here is where you face a second problem: A column of cool air blocking your chimney. If this happens, NONE of the nasty stuff escapes and your house fills with particulates and CO and CO2. THIS CAN KILL YOU!
I love smoked meats too, but I would not put yourself or loved ones at risk for it. It may be inconvenient to use an outdoor smoker, but its a lot more convenient than suffocating on Carbon Monoxide.
Please don't attempt to smoke meats indoors unless you have a specifically designed indoor use smoker that has stuff to help clear the nasty stuff out and not kill you.
Now for BBQ: There are ways to do BBQ indoors. so long as you are not trying to trap combustion by products, and follow safety rules, you can do some pretty tasty stuff. I use an induction cooktop and a cast iron grill to sear the meat and get the lovely hash marks, then finish it off in the oven broiler. That's just me though. There are gas ranges with grills, there are oven BBQ recipes and techniques. You can spend hours on allrecipes looking at different techniques for this meat or that. That said, ALL of them need adequate kitchen ventilation. Not as much as my prior apocalyptic ramblings, but you do need to ventilate the kitchen.
TL:DR Smoke meats outside and stay safe!...oh, and enjoy
I like that you added a detail regarding the impact of burning at lower temperatures, thank you.
I learned a great many things about how chimneys work the hard way with a wood stove in my house. Fill your basement with smoke once and you be come a keen student :) Be careful and have fun cooking :)
Indeed. If you search for 'carbon monoxide tent' you will see an endless list of tragic stories where famiies have been killed by bringing their bbq inside the tent because it's raining or to keep warm.
There's no reason you couldn't have an indoor BBQ or smoker, but you're going to have to either design it for such use, or buy one of the (rather expensive) commercial options.
A pizza oven is basically a wood stove where the exhaust gasses go around a box on their way out the chimney and heat it up. You can find a wide variety of wood-fired oven and stovetop designs over the last few hundred years that were fine to use indoors, they all work pretty much the same way.
A barbecue has the difficulty that it's not sealed. As such it has a few problems for using it indoors, none of which are insurmountable, but they do need to be taken into account. Firstly a barbecue can throw sparks. You don't want sparks landing in your shag carpet. Your indoor barbecue will need to have a hearth of brick, stone, concrete, metal, or some other non-combustible substance out to beyond the maximum range it might throw a spark. You can reduce the amount somewhat by putting a shield or spark curtains like you see on open fireplaces around it, but you're going to need at least a little bit. Secondly, a barbecue indoors will need a chimney. Said chimney will need to be designed to draw properly with the amount of heat your barbecue produces. Depending on where you want the barbecue and what the venting options are, this can prove quite a challenge. But, never fear, modern technology to the rescue! Rather than relying on natural convection, you can install a high-temperature exhaust fan. You can test that it's actually pulling all the exhaust gasses out of the room with a little powdered chalk. Needless to say, unless you're an experienced tinkerer who's got a lot of practice with fires and fans, by the time you get it right it will probably have been quicker and cheaper to just buy one of the models designed for indoor use.
An indoor smoker is rather easier, you just need one that seals up air-tight. Have it draw its fresh air from outside and have its chimney go outside. Get one of the models that uses a fan to control the airflow anyway and it should work fine. The only issue is going to be the smoke escaping into your house when you open the door to check on the cooking process. There are two solutions. Either don't open the door until the cooking process is done and the fire is out. (Difficult, but likely not completely impossible) Or install the smoker in an enclosed room with a good exhaust fan so that the smoke can be cleared out quickly before it leaks into the rest of your house. Once again, unless you really know what you're doing, building this will likely cost you more than just getting one of the units designed for indoor use...
For either type, you're definitely going to want a Carbon Monoxide detector nearby. But then, it's usually good to have those anyway if you ever burn anything indoors... Or even if you don't.
If you can find a surplus laboratory fume hood somewhere and have that installed, that would likely provide adequate ventilation for a barbecue or small smoker, plus whatever other projects you might have that could produce unsavory gasses. It would probably cost you as much as an indoor smoker, but would give you more flexibility in terms of how it could be used.
"An indoor smoker is rather easier" and "fresh air...chimney...outside...fan... should work fine" -- well, maybe it's easier than a barbecue, but the obstacles are pretty serious, and summarizing it as just a few things to do to make it all fine is a bit of an understatement. Fresh air from outside, chimney to outside, and a perfect seal is already not trivial. And it takes more than just an exhaust fan to effectively clear a room of carbon monoxide (it sinks to the floor). I know you eventually say it's difficult in the last sentence, but I might try to put those cautions more up front.
Carbon monoxide sinks about as much as carbon dioxide does. I'm guessing you've never had a problem with CO2 settling in your basement and suffocating you. If you dump a mass of pure CO gas out of a bucket it'll sink to the floor, sure. But it doesn't take much agitation to mix it around. Walking into the room is more than enough. As for the difficulty, it would be about as difficult as installing a wood stove. In fact, if I were going to build one from scratch for myself, I'd probably do it by retrofitting a wood stove since those tend to be easy to find on the used market.
I think that the nature of the (larger) commercial ones is plenty of evidence. They have ridiculous ventilation systems because they need them. They are substantially more complicated than a wood stove, because they need to solve all these problems. And the CO2 comparison doesn't really make much sense to me. We're talking about adding a large source of CO (and CO2 and other things) to a room. We don't get CO2 build-up in our basements because we don't normally pump a bunch of it into our houses, not because it wouldn't be possible if we did.
Upvoted for being the only answer to mention a CO detector.
I just went through one of the worst fire seasons on modern record in my area, with most days having to breath air that was orders of magnitude worse than US air quality standards. I cannot honestly imagine subjecting myself to the risks of an indoor smoker beyond the level used for stove top or oven tea smoking. It just my opinion, buy no, it would seem a horrible idea to subject myself and family to the risks and liability and hope that a AAA battery and $20 detector would warn me if something was going wrong.
Sorry, I was mistaken, CO doesn't sink, only CO2. It's still dangerous without that, though; if it's well-mixed into the room you have to be replacing the entire room's volume of air quickly enough to not allow build-up.
Opinion, but there are multiple indoor options, like stove top and oven smokers, gas and electric grills with stove top ventilation systems such as those by Jenn-Air and other makers. These are not really that uncommon.
They do however come with drawbacks such as better ventilation requirements and many are relatively expensive. They are limited use items that are space eaters, you give up space for something which often is not actually used enough to justify. I owned one, and the result was I had a stove-top the size of an 8 burner stove, with a very loud exhaust which was always oily, and could only use either the burners or the grill, not both at the same time due to power draw and the grill top always seemed to cause burns. I an not sure why it was easier for people to understand not to touch burners, but they could not understand the grill might also be hot, but that was the case. When you add in the mess, for most people, the outdoor option is simply cheaper and more convenient.
Cooking fires are set up to achieve complete combustion of the fuel, producing the maximum amount of heat from the minimum fuel, by burning efficiently at high temperature and supplied with plentiful or even excessive oxygen. Complete combustion of carbon-based fuel is effectively smokeless and produces mostly carbon dioxide and steam. Too much CO2 indoors will displace the oxygen in a room and asphyxiate you to death, but small amounts leaking into an otherwise reasonably ventilated room will just make you feel drowsy, so a properly managed cooking or heating fire can tolerate a "good enough" but imperfect chimney and hearth that are open to the room.
To produce smoke, on the other hand, you need deliberately imperfect combustion, at lower temperatures and with insufficient oxygen. This will tend to produce carbon monoxide, which is not just an asphyxiant like CO2, but is highly toxic, and the nasty thing about toxic effects is that they build up over time. Any attempt to run a process that produces it in an enclosed space, where gas can collect*, is thus inherently very dangerous. Carbon monoxide is a silent killer and any amount of leakage back into the room, no matter how small, can gradually build up and poison you to death, and you won't even be able to tell whether or not it's happening until it's too late and you doze off forever.
In a reasonably ventilated room with a proper chimney, a well-built fire producing CO2 that hasn't killed you within twenty minutes likely won't ever. On the other hand, a smoky fire producing CO that hasn't killed you in twenty minutes might very well do it in twenty-five.
*Forget anything you've heard about being lighter- or heavier-than-air. This is technically true but, in practice, gases also mix.)
Imperfect combusion is indeed the key difference between the two kinds of fires.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.576052
| 2017-10-25T19:54:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85244",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Dave Tweed",
"Fattie",
"Mathieu Guindon",
"Max",
"Paul TIKI",
"Perkins",
"Shannon Severance",
"T. Sar",
"Todd Wilcox",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"worthwords"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121135
|
How did replacing flour in muffins go so wrong?
I had a whole bag of Cocoa Puffs that had gone stale, and thought it would be fun to mess around and see if I could bake something with them. So I aimed for muffins. I more or less based it on a banana muffin recipe I make all the time:
2 1/2 cups ground Cocoa Puffs (I used this to replace both flour and sugar)
1 tbsp baking powder
1/4 tsp salt
1/3 cup vegetable oil
1 egg
1 cup milk
1/2 cup vanilla yogurt (I figured this plus extra milk would make up the mass, pH, and moisture content of the bananas)
I didn't really expect it to go well, but I figured I'd probably have bad muffins, not this:
The batter was stretchy, like less-sticky bread dough. I spooned it into paper cups and baked it at 400ºF. At first they looked like they were puffing up as expected, then they looked a little imploded in the center and shiny on top, then one by one they burst and started dripping everywhere. I expected 20–25 minutes but had to pull them out at 15. The aftermath was soft but cohesive and a little rubbery, not at all hard to clean.
So, lesson learned: Cocoa Puffs are not flour. But what chemical reaction happened or didn't happen to make it go this wrong?
As GdD points out, you can't recreate the same gluten-based structure using baked flour. But you can use other things like potato starch, tapioca flour and eggs to create a similar structure that incorporates the cooked flour. This is essentially what's involved in Passover baking. So, if you want to try this again, look at Passover recipes that include matzo meal.
Unrelated to your question, but these look like if you stuck them in the fridge, they might make delicious ice-cream bowls once they hardened. In which case, that recipe might be worth saving! :D
Here is an idea: Instead of 2 1/2 cups ground of Cocoa Puffs, use 1 cup of ground Cocoa Puffs and 1 1/2 cups of flour. I am no expert here, but it seems to me that would work.
@DewiMorgan you stole that thought right off my tongue. It could be good with chocolate sauce too, something decidedly messy in a plate. Eating the "plate" helps with cleanup too, so a win/win !
@DewiMorgan Nice thinking! They're not as deep as they look, plus I'm not convinced they would harden or come out of the wrappers in one piece. Could be fun to play around with though!
But more importantly , how did it taste?
Muffins and cakes rise because of chemical leavening agents and the expansion of hot gasses, they stay risen because the flour and sugar forms a structure which traps the air, then solidifies enough to hold its shape once the expansion has stopped. Cocoa puffs are made in a process called extrusion, where batter is pressurized and shot out in little spurts. On the release of this pressure the little squirt of batter expands and almost crystallizes in the same way as a muffin or cake, in other words puffs are cooked by a different method, but the processes which make them hold their shape is the same.
These processes aren't reversible, you can't turn a cake back into flour, milk, sugar and eggs. Grinding up cocoa puffs is essentially the same thing as grinding up dried cake, they may absorb some moisture but as the chemical and physical changes involved in crystallization have happened it won't happen again.
What it looks like is that your batter expanded enough to go over the top of the muffin pockets and then outward, then collapsed because there was no structure to keep the shape.
what chemical reaction happened
It wasn't a chemical reaction, it was a physical reaction.
Everything you describe sounds like your batter was able to trap air much better than a typical muffin batter - you say yourself it was sticky. When it started baking, the air expanded, due to the baking powder, the production of steam, and the plain old gas laws (expansion under heat). But you did not have a muffin batter, which creates a porous inner structure and sets into it under heat. Instead, it was like a balloon inflating. And then the balloon wall was not strong enough to contain the hot gas, and it burst.
You can see another argument for that theory in your own observation that the cooled-down results were "rubbery". It seems to have been stretchy and rubbery like a balloon, and to have acted like an overinflated balloon.
But why do cocoa puffs do that I wonder?
@CoryKlein the correct-but-not-really-explaining-it answer is that apparently, the spatial distribution of molecules in a mixture of ground cocoa puffs and the other ingredients happens to have the right amount of elasticity and other parameters (I don't even know enough engineering to name them). For an answer that is more of an explanation, one would need a degree in chemistry, access to a lab, and a few months to years of spare time.
Flour is not merely a carbohydrate-rich powder used to add substance to a batter or dough. It contains gluten which is essential to the structure of most baked goods. Your cocoa puffs are processed puffed grain, which is not flour and shouldn't be expected to behave similarly.
I believe the OP understood that when seeing the results, but is asking for an explanation of the exact mode of failure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.577750
| 2022-07-25T06:10:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121135",
"authors": [
"Cory Klein",
"Criggie",
"Dewi Morgan",
"Giacomo1968",
"Jon P",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"rumtscho",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110300
|
What makes egg whites and almonds a good combination
Macarons, financiers, ricciarellis are all made from egg whites and almond flour.
Is there a reason why egg whites get along so well with almond flour, and why yolks do not have a place in these recipes?
It is easy to see why in macarons since macarons are meringue based cookie, but financier does not use meringue and still calls for egg whites only.
Maybe the fat in the almond suffices to make the products rich, or maybe the coarse texture of almond needs to be countered with the moistness of egg whites, but they are just wild guesses I am making up.
I would like to know if there is an 'official' reason why egg whites and almonds go together.
There is nothing special about the combination, you seem to have stumbled over a case of confirmation bias :)
Here I made a table with examples. The table is by no means complete, it contains the first things that came up in my head. As you see, all other combinations of whole eggs or egg yolks work with almonds, other nuts, or no nuts at all. If the combination you noted were somehow special, I wouldn't have been able to find examples for other, not-working categories.
So, combining almonds and meringue is the perfect combination for a macaron, and combining almonds, egg whites and flour is the perfect combination for a financier, but only because that's what makes a macaron a macaron and a financier a financier. You can use any combination out of {egg whites, eggs, egg yolks} and {almonds, other nuts} and each of them tastes good and has been used for something in the kitchen.
Thank you for a very illuminating table. What about frangipane? As you'll know, it's normally made with whole eggs and almonds, mixed into creamed butter/sugar.
@MarkWildon yes, that's another great example. The table doesn't aim for completeness - it is sufficient to show that there are examples in every category, so that all categories "work" in the technical sense.
The delicious "Badem pita" (almond pie) from the balkans is another example of a traditional almond cake where both the egg whites and yolks are separately used. Almonds, egg whites and sugar for the filling, butter, flour and egg yolks for pastry. Nothing is wasted. http://tortatorta.blogspot.com/2011/03/badem-pita-almond-pie.html
Thank you for the answer! Actually, then, I might have another rather naive question. What is the purpose of using 'only egg whites' in financier? Is there a specific quality that needs to be achieved which will be broken upon addition of yolk?
Adding to @rumtscho's excellent answer, you can in fact substitute almond flour with hazelnut or walnut flour (those are the ones I've tried) in macarons and still end up with a very similar result. Almonds are the traditional one to use, but there is nothing magical about almonds specifically.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.578215
| 2020-08-19T21:04:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110300",
"authors": [
"Mark Wildon",
"fogeidaihok",
"gdir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87264",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18233
|
Will my pasta taste fine 5 days later?
Possible Duplicate:
How long does cooked pasta last in the fridge?
I work Monday to Friday, and dont pack very good lunches, I recently bought a bunch of pasta and sauce, my plan is to make 5 days worth of pasta for lunches on Sunday night and keep it all in the fridge and bring one portion for lunch each day, will my pasta still taste fine for my Thursday and Friday lunch?
You can keep pasta in the fridge for up to 5 days, but it may well be beginning to go off at day 5. If it smells musty discard it. Another option would be to freeze it; you can drop it into boiling water straight from the freezer from what I've read.
I also found this earlier question here How long does cooked pasta last in the fridge? which is pretty much what you're asking
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.578457
| 2011-10-06T13:18:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18233",
"authors": [
"A Ford",
"Alex",
"Sam",
"bent nickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39402"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18537
|
How to ensure a fried egg's yolk doesn't break?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I flip an egg when preparing it “over easy”?
Perfect Fried Egg
I wanna to cook a medium fried egg, but every time I try to turn the egg over, I just break the egg's yolk. Is there any technique I can use to keep the yolk intact when I flip it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.578545
| 2011-10-24T10:10:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18537",
"authors": [
"AReubens",
"Andrea",
"George",
"Steve K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40242",
"user40163"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23870
|
How can I avoid limp strawberries?
When using strawberries to make a preserve (canning process), they become limp and lose colour
Is there a way to avoid this?
Just to clarify because of misnomers floating around; Are you referring to preserving whole strawberries or are you talking about strawberry jelly/jam with chunks of strawberry?
I'm assuming that it's jam, as I've never heard of whole preserved fruit being called "a preserve". But, to the OP, if I'm wrong, feel free to make the appropriate edits to your question to correct this assumption.
Sorry, guys, for the confusion. Obviously this procedure for preserving whole or large junks of fruit is only known here in South Africa. Or perhaps we call 'a Preserve' for which you in the USA have different name or description.
@Clara Preserve is a common term in most cultures (translated). North America seems to have develop it's own lingo, and uses canning to refer to the process, and not just the container! The French inventor Mr Appert referred to it "Conserve" or "Preserve", and in France it is still referred to as L’appertisation
These would be "canned" or "bottled" strawberries. Searching for canned strawberries returns a ton of results that look very similar to Doddsie's answer below. Macerate in sugar.
Thanks, TFD and Sobachatina for good advice - the link Doddsie pasted sounds very promising. Clara
Apparently, macerating the strawberries beforehand can help. As well as this, the shorter they are boiled the firmer they will stay [1].
If you wanted, you could create one jam base and add in extra whole strawberries at the end which will be firmer. Or even still, add them towards the end of cooking so they break down a bit but not as much as the rest.
Source:
[1] http://ewainthegarden.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/recipes-for-strawberries.html
Thanks, Doddsie, think I have arrived. Have gone to the link you provided and will try this method - once our strawberry season rolls around, in October. Clara
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.578623
| 2012-05-20T20:40:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23870",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Clara",
"Jacqueline Pruden",
"Jay",
"John Fricks",
"Marko Jezernik",
"Sealander",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"filhit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"patricecooper",
"user54165",
"user54817",
"user54818"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28710
|
Uncooked meatballs out in crockpot all day?
Possible Duplicate:
Is it safe to cook a steak that was left out (raw) for 7 hours?
My boyfriend and I prepared a delicious meatball dinner but forgot to plug in the crockpot !! we left them out all day while at work (9 am - 6 pm) in a sauce. It was cold out that day and I left the thermostat on 62 F (16 C). Should we throw them out?! There were 20 meatballs in total and I'll feel awful wasting all that food!
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12992/why-is-it-dangerous-to-eat-meat-which-has-been-left-out-and-then-cooked and
@J.A.I.L. I approved your edit after closing the question. The edit had been based on the old version before the automatic addition of the duplicate link, and the timestamp of your "edit" is actually the timestamp of when it got approved. Hope this clears it up for you. Thank you for noticing the inconsistency and reverting it.
They were in the danger zone of 40 to 140 degrees for more than 4 hours.
If you were in restaurant, you would have to discard them.
Sadly, I recommend the same at home.
Same advice here. The poster would feel more awful eating it and feeling the food poisoning thereafter
Yeah, chuck them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.578853
| 2012-11-28T00:09:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28710",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eric Hu",
"GdD",
"John B. Lambe",
"Myra Dudley",
"Norm",
"SAH",
"Tristan Bird",
"Ygg",
"cindy king",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24874
|
What oven should I buy, which is appropriate for baking?
Three months ago I moved to a new apartment. In my old apartment with my old oven, my baked goods turned out pretty well. However, since I moved, my baked goods vary from almost-good to throw-it-in-the-garbage instantly. First I thought I had to get used to the new oven, so I made adjustments to the temperature and so on. Still I just get very sad every time. The oven is over 30 years old, so I think I have to conclude; I need a new one.
I looked around on the internet for a while, and I did not really get an idea of how to choose one. A couple of things are important to me:
It must be appropriate for making pastry
It will be used a lot (almost every day), so for home-use it will be used pretty intensely
I can not install a built-in oven; I rent this apartment and may not change anything
It must be big enough; I have no problem with taking a lot of my space
Here in the Netherlands combo-ovens, which are an oven and microwave in one, are very popular. I'm not interested in the microwave part, so the quality of the microwave is not essential assuming one is in the machine.
I am willing to spend some money on it because I use the oven every day. (Note: The owner of the building is probably not going to help me pay for it)
When looking around for a new oven, a couple considerations were raised for me:
The free-standing ovens have different powers. Which power must I have at least? (I have seen variations from 800W to 1500W)
Prices vary widely, while specifications do not. Are there some brands or types which can be recommended?
I would like to show you the options that I've disregarded, yet I don't even have a clue where to start at all! I am hoping to hear some good advice on how to select an oven to fit this criteria.
-edit-
I start doing some more research. And this is one criteria that must be met for me:
I want top and bottem heat. However, this is not the case in most ovens I can find, and sometimes it is not specified. Maybe I should conclude that it is not the case then?
Does anyone know the influence of only top heat?
Furthermore my research ended in some options. Prices and types vary, but I can not really tell the difference from the specifications. For example, what does the number of WATT says about the specification of the oven?
However, next to my confusions, this are the options I selected to give you an idea about what I am thinking about:
http://icecat.it/us/p/delonghi/eo3275/freestanding-cookers-8004399181762-eo-3275-10726854.html
http://www.tristar.eu/en/Home_Appliances/Cooking/Ovens/OV-1417/3/3195
Well this is to give you an idea what I am thinking about. I hope to get some feed back about a possible mistake I make with this kind of oven, or what is good about them. If you would compare them, which one to choose? The price is around the same and within my budget. (less then 250-300 euro's is fine, and this is around 150-200 euro's)
Why did I choose these two? The main two reasons:
-They have top and bottom heat
-They have a volume of around 35 liter. I make pretty large plates, especially cakes. I want enough space in my oven, but maybe I am exaggerating and 24 liters really is enough for home use?
I know this are a lot of questions at the same time. Basically I want a good advice, and feedback about buying an oven. I want to know I a forget any criteria that are important. Also I want to know how you can know ffrom specifications what is a good oven. Can you know quality difference from it? Or is the only way read experience from other people and base my opinion on that? If someone can tell me how I know which oven is a good one, you helped me a lot! Thanks a lot!
Before you go out and buy a new oven, there might be some things that you can do to make the current one ... less bad. If it's cooking inconsistently (sometimes too cool, sometimes too hot), you can try add a baking stone (sometimes sold as 'pizza stone') to help regulate the heat. If it's always too hot or too cold, you may be able to re-calibrate it.
Well I thought about that. These kind of 'tricks' worked a little bit until today. I was baking this chocolate cake, based on lot's of eggs and only a little flour. I know the recipe very well because it is my favorite. However this time the cake stayed almost liquid inside. I normally bake it for 35-40 minutes. Now it stayed liquid inside, so I baked it longer, and after more than an hour i quit baking and decided: This is not working anymore at all. I need a new one. (when i cut the cake open, the inside was 'flowing' out like lava out of a vulcano.)
It would also be interesting to know how much space you will need in your oven. A regular combi can take two medium-sized oven pans (ovenschalen) if you put in a rack, which normally comes with the oven. I bought a very modern oven for € 75 on Marktplaats, and it has worked very well for the past two years. Baked all sorts of pastry. Unless you need too much space for a combi-oven, or you don't care about money at all, I highly recommend Marktplaats.
Cerberus, can you tell me what oven you've got, because you are so happy without it? It is important to me that it is big enough. I do not care about space. I only care about getting a good oven. I use it every day so cooking is no fun for me without one.
While I recently concluded my oven shopping, I can't really help you ... ovens in the USA are very different from ovens available in the Netherlands. Possibly others could help you more if you posted some links to the kinds of ovens you're talking about.
Note that your question was on the verge all the time, because we don't do shopping recommendations here. It is fine to ask what criteria to use when choosing, but not to ask people "which model should I get", see http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/. I removed the flags the question picked, but maybe you can clean it up so it asks more clearly about the criteria.
I though I was clear about asking advice about the shopping process all the time. However, you are right you can interpret it differently. So I added some sentences which hopefully made it clear. Thanks for the feed back.
You probably have already purchased an oven at this point, but this video from America's Test Kitchen seems to explain a lot of things and offers some purchasing suggestions.
The model they recommend is the Breville Smart Oven, however it is made for the US and I could not seem to find a version made for 230V outlets. A reviewer suggested using a "step down transformer," but I don't have any experience with using US appliances in other countries so use your own judgement here.
If you've already purchased an oven, please let us know what you got and how it turned out! I find the idea of using a small toaster oven for heavy duty baking fascinating and would love to hear if you were able to make it work.
Thanks for the video. I did not buy an oven jet, because I was able to borrow one from a friend. In this way I have some time to maybe make my housekeeper buy me a new one. However I'm still looking for something new for a reasonable price in the mean time. I'll let you know.
I was always told that electric ovens bake better that gas. They have a more even heat since they have a heat element on the top and bottom. Gas heats from the bottom, making my baked goods cook on the bottom faster and leaving the middle taking longer, then I end up with dark crusts and dry casseroles. An appliance older than 15 years is probably due to be replaced anyway.
Please keep in mind that this is a Q&A site, not a forum, so answers should try to address the question directly. In this case, the OP can't actually replace the existing oven, and is looking at stand-alone (not built-in) ovens, so I'm pretty sure that already excludes gas. The decision is about various stand-alone electric ovens. I think the options are a bit different in the Netherlands, but a lot of them are probably like what we call toaster ovens and microwave/toaster ovens in the US.
I remember from other questions that there are electric ovens with a signle heating element too, so the generalization is not completely correct. But yes, it is certainly better to have an oven with both top and bottom elements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.579136
| 2012-07-05T18:25:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24874",
"authors": [
"Adam Goodwin",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Chris Qiang",
"FuzzyChef",
"I. Conlon",
"Joe",
"Lotte Laat",
"Michale",
"Sebastian Gonzalez Franco",
"Siddhant Saraf",
"givnv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23744
|
What is the danger of salmonella in 'home laid eggs' and how should I clean them?
I have a question additional to this question How does salmonella get into eggs. This tells me that salmonella is mostly found on the shell of an egg. However, eggs are treated (typically washed) such that most egg shells do not contain any salmonella anymore.
I eat eggs which I get from my mother-in-law who has her own chickens, so these eggs are not 'treated'. I was wondering a few things:
What is the risk that these eggs contain salmonella? Is this risk negligible?
Should I use supermarket eggs to make food with raw eggs in it, for example chocolate mouse, and only use these eggs for food which is heated?
If there is a risk, how should I clean the shells? (using hot water is not an option for eggs, of course).
A related question might be Is it safe to eat raw eggs?. The answer seem to be yes, but here it also seems that it is about 'supermarket eggs'.
Check with you local government food safety people. The answer for this is different in each country
If you need the eggs raw, you could submerge them in boiling water for 5 sec. That would kill any bacteria on the shell and the egg would still be raw inside. Put the eggs in cold water right away to prevent the egg from heating up by the residual heat in the shell. I have tried this many times and the eggs do not cook.
If you are serving the eggs to very young children, pregnant women or someone who are sick, you should buy pasteurized eggs instead. But normally it's safer to eat eggs from chickens you raise, than the ones from a factory, because they are more healthy and their immune system is well developed enough to kill the salmonella itself.
The danger of bacterial contamination is much lower in home laid eggs than in commercially produced eggs exactly because of the washing process that eggs go though in the US.
See the accepted answer to this question:
How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
Eggs are naturally laid with a protective coating on them that will keep out bacteria. An egg keeps for a long time in a nest after all.
Commercially produced eggs are washed- I assume for cosmetic reasons- which destroys this coating and makes the porous egg shells very susceptible to bacteria.
You should discard eggs that have damaged shells but other than that you can consider your mother-in-laws eggs much safer than any you could get at the supermarket.
There is a second way of salmonella transmission to eggs: from the ovaries of an infected hen, before the eggshell has been formed. Wikipedia says that the probability of this happening is 3% with artificially infected hens and even lower "in the wild", but I guess that the relative safety is also dependent on how well your mother-in-law can recognize an infected hen in time (but then again, infection rates in a backyard coop are probably lower than in egg mass production).
I always wash the eggs from the neighbor's chickens in soap and warm water, right before breaking the shell and using them.
Eggs are washed because chicken poo is not a desirable additive to most foods.
@Marti- Chickens don't defecate in their nests if they have a choice. Eggs are usually pretty clean.
Your risk is likely lower than that of Americans, as your user info lists you being in the Netherlands.
European chickens are often innoculated against salmonella, which brings down the risk significantly. I would ask your mother-in-law to be certain if this is the case, especially if she's in another country (eg, if you're near the Netherlands / Belgium border).
As for supermarket eggs: if they're sold as unrefrigerated, then they'd have also been from innoculated chickens, and still have their bloom intact. The risk may be slightly increased from your supermarket eggs, as they're likely slightly older, and likely have been raised in more crowded conditions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.580005
| 2012-05-13T14:23:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23744",
"authors": [
"Angela Wright",
"Christine Rodamer",
"Henry",
"Josh W",
"Lois",
"Marti",
"Mitch",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Una Uy",
"Willk",
"Wrzoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"jamie pena",
"kre8iv1",
"lmms90",
"rumtscho",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114416
|
My oven seems to cook the outside faster than the inside
I'm not in any way any kind of good cook, I just eat a lot of chicken breasts.
I used to have a bargain basement janky gas oven that I would run on full heat, and I would put a Costco precooked frozen chicken breast in ("cooking time 35-40 minutes fan oven 180 degrees") and after 43 minutes it would come out absolutely perfect, with crispy skin and not too dry or tough.
I moved house and now have a more expensive oven, which is electric.
I have tried to cook my chicken breasts but the results are always disappointing. Generally, the skin seems to cook then burn. The instructions say 180C so I have used a laser temperature probe pointed at the chicken and adjusted the dial so that this value is 180C.
I find that after 33 mins the skin starts to burn. So I often cook it for around 30 minutes but it's a little bit tough and doesn't taste as great as my old oven.
I can't really tell what I should change to improve it. I feel like I need to cook the inside longer without burning the outside, but I am not certain.
The variables I can think of are to increase/decrease the temperature and increase/decrease the cooking time.
Is there a general rule of thumb about temperature vs time based on what aspect of your food is cooking incorrectly?
What does the dial say the temperature is set to after this adjustment? Is it a fan oven or conventional?
Fan oven, dial is on around 160 but it's very inaccurate as it's not clearly defined or labelled.
Then that 'should' be right, rule of thumb is knock off 20° for a fan oven. Seems like it does run hot, You'll have to experiment, as 180° is pretty much 'standard temperature' for many things, so once you get it, it ought to then become repeatable. If the oven was 'inherited' with the house, it might be worth investigating a replacement thermostat… or even just put an accurate thermometer inside & manually recalibrate the scale with a Sharpie;)
oh,. you already quoted the fan oven temp, forget that bit ;)
Just checked it's actually pointing to 140 lol
Instructions for chicken are 200 but 180 fan oven
Calibration is a good idea, I will try to do that. Because it's electric though I suppose there's never any equilibrium, should I measure the peak temperature or something in the middle?
tbh, I don't know. I've never had one that was so far out I had to compensate for it, sorry. I'd be tempted to ask the manufacturer. They might even have a better idea.
@NibblyPig If you have the budget for it, consider getting a sous-vide circulator. You'll be able to get consistent results with no guesswork. They aren't super expensive these days.
so I have used a laser temperature probe pointed at the chicken and adjusted the dial so that this value is 180C
That's not how you are meant to do it. 180 C is the oven temperature, not the temperature of the chicken skin. If you turned it up until the chicken surface became 180, that's way too hot, and of course it causes the exact symptoms you describe.
You should just set your oven dial to 180 C and use it that way. If it continues to burn on the outside, go down in the temperature until you find one at which, when you wait until the inside is done, the skin is not burnt. Then write down the time and (dial setting) temperature it needs, and continue using that, no matter what the package says.
Thanks, that is basically what I did, but the duration also comes into play. On 180 it burns at the 30 minute mark. Since the package says 35-40 minutes, I could say, stick with 35 minutes and keep lowering and lowering until it's not burned at 35 but I can't help but think if I did that the middle would still be frozen. I suppose I can try it... but I suspect the answer is a combination of duration and temperature. I assume putting something in an oven at 180 will eventually result it in reaching 180 degrees which is why I thought measuring the surface of the item would be accurate.
@NibblyPig I would do the opposite: Start lower until the chicken is almost cooked (but the outside is not browned) and crank the heat up for the last few minutes to brown the skin.
I dropped the heat a bit more and added 2 mins to the cooking time and it seems to work great. It's alarming to have the dial set to around 130 for cooking at 180 but if it works...
Oven thermostats are wildly inaccurate. The variability across ovens is great. What was "full heat" on your earlier oven, might not be anywhere close to what your new oven is achieving. You are correct about temperature and time.
Additionally, oven temperature is not the temperature at which your food is actually cooking, due to evaporative cooling. So, your laser pointer is not helpful in this situation.
Chicken breast need to be cooked fairly precisely, otherwise they dry out. If the outside is burning before the inside is cooked, turn the heat down to begin with. However, to get the best results, purchase a probe thermometer so that you can monitor the internal temperature of your food.
In the US, the FDA recommends cooking chicken breast to 165F (74C). You can remove it from the oven at 160F(71C), or slightly higher,and let it rest for 10 minutes, as carry over cooking will bring the temperature up.
It's important to keep in mind that chicken cooked to 160F will most likely be overcooked. The 160F value means that chicken is safe if it's held at that temperature for less than 30 seconds (aka almost instanteneously). You can get the same level of safety by holding the chicken at 150F for 3 minutes, without ending up with a dry puck of meat.
You might try putting a pan of water in the water oven to create a more humid cooking environment. One of the by products of burning gas is water vapor, which may have slowed down how quickly the skin of the chicken was browning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.580357
| 2021-02-20T11:28:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114416",
"authors": [
"JS Lavertu",
"NibblyPig",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114703
|
Cooking French fries with strainer from IKEA's Idealisk
I want to make French fries, but I don't have a proper deep fryer, but just a dutch oven and a strainer from IKEA, Idealisk.
Is it OK to leave the potatoes in the strainer and submerge them in the hot oil? Like leaving the strainer in the hot oil. Will the strainer be damaged from the heat?
If the strainer fits your pot so that it works as a fry basket, then it's fine to use it as such. As long as:
It'll sit flat in the pot so it doesn't spill all the potatoes out;
The handle is long enough that you can pick it up without burning yourself on the oil;
You're not concerned if the strainer gets burned-on oil which might make it less useful as a general-purpose strainer;
The strainer is all-metal, which that strainer is.
If any of the above don't work, consider just dumping the fries in the pot and using the strainer to fish them out, but not leaving it in the boiling oil.
also that strainer's handle / loop is hollow, so a bunch of oil and gunk might collect in impossible-to-clean places.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.580802
| 2021-03-09T22:27:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114703",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91321
|
How to remove the distinct flavor of vital wheat gluten when making faux meat?
How do I remove the distinct protein flavor of vital wheat gluten when making faux meat?
Can you please [edit] to add more information about your ingredients and technique?
One way to avoid the vital wheat gluten taste is to develop wheat gluten directly from flour (a somewhat popular food in China). To do so, make a dough of bread flour and water, knead it well, rest 2-3 hours, then "wash" the dough in water until most of the starch has been rinsed away. The result is a high protein/water mass that I assume could be used in faux meats, that will taste highly umami (from wheat protein's glutamate), but not unpleasant like vital wheat gluten.
To wash the dough, submerge it in a bowl of water in the sink and rub it (like handwashing clothing). Change out the water until it turns clean. This process can take ~15-30 minutes and 10+ changes. It's a hassle, but the result, if done well, will have an amazing chew and flavor.
This method has a low yield. One method to increase it involves adding a small percentage of vital wheat gluten to the flour. This increases yield without really effecting flavor, though adding too much can make the dough unpleasantly tougher. Another method to increase yield may be to add salt.
The process you describe (washing away the starch) is precisely how vital wheat gluten is made. I don't understand how painstakingly producing the gluten yourself is supposed to result in a different taste than a manufacturer doing the exact same thing?
Strange, right? But the taste is totally different. Would love to someday learn the chemistry behind it. If you're interested and live in a big city, I'd recommend visiting a Chinese grocery store and taste the wheat glutens they offer. Should give you a good sense of how it differs from seitan.
Speculating here. This could be a rare case of efficiency not being our friend. The starch may be what keeps the unpleasant gluten taste away and we just might not be as efficient as the mass production devices.
I doubt you can remove the flavor of the vital wheat gluten (most commonly found in the form of seitan) itself, which some describe as tasting more like meat than other meat substitutes, probably because of the protein flavor you suggest. Perhaps a better approach is to use other flavoring ingredients (onions, garlic, spices...sauces...broths...) to mask it's flavor.
Also, up the umami and use the flavor as path of a meaty taste - use soy sauces, smoky flavours etc...
I have had great success by adding balsamic vinegar.
I also discovered smoking a cooked loaf at 200F for an hour also hides/removes the off flavor. To keep the loaf moist during the smoke, increase your liquid to vital wheat gluten ratio, smoke at a low temp and place a container of broth/water on the rack below the loaf.
Cheers
Many use apple cider vinegar (around 1 tablespoon) in with the with wet mix when forming the dough. I've also used sherry.
When mixed it's then best to let the dough rest to allow the gluten to develop but also allow the apple cider vinegar do its job. (It won't taste of vinegar when its cooked.)
I remember my science teacher from middle school telling us that acids taste sour where bases taste bitter. I used this logic to neutralize the bitter gluten taste by using lemon juice. Not a good decision. Nobody try it. I definitely wanna try the acid base neutralization thing again. Vinegar seems like a good idea. I'll try and share my experiences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.580920
| 2018-07-29T12:30:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91321",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"George",
"NSGod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91971",
"rackandboneman",
"timuçin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116135
|
Can I add lentils to a baked chicken-and-vegetable stew?
I plan to prepare healthy lunch quickly by having everything tossed in to oven together. I have even brought an IKEA tray (with grate) for this purpose - https://www.ikea.com/de/de/p/koncis-ofenform-mit-rost-edelstahl-10099053/
If I also want to bake some lentils together with it, can add some water + lentils in the same tray?
I can highly recommend 'The Roasting Tin' by Rukmini Iyer for the sort of cooking you're interested in.
Hi ishan, we work with the same rules as all other Stack Exchange sites. First, we don't take multiple questions in one. Second, out of the four separate questions you had, the first two were list questions, which would have been closed if they had been asked on their own. The fourth would have been a duplicate, search for tough meat or tough chicken and you will find a lot. So instead of closing, I left the third one only.
I would strongly suggest boiling the lentils first and then adding them to the bake or to the semi-finished product.
Keep in mind that when baking at 325 F lentils may easily take 30-60 minutes.
Adding the lentils separately, once cooked, will let you control the flavour and texture of the respective dishes as well. For example let’s say you were to bake for 60 minutes to ensure the lentils are cooked. However your other meal ends up possibly over cooked, and it could easily ruin the meal’s nutritional content and unique textures, especially for denatured protein such as chicken or pork.
Regardless of cooking via stovetop or in the oven it will be critical to know what type of lentil; different varieties can range from 30 minutes at 325 for red lentils to as much as 60 minutes or more in cook time for brown lentils.
If you’re mixing everything in the stove it’s hard to control water content
Lentils absorb water quickly when cooking, up to 100% of their volume in water. If you’re just throwing them into a low-moisture dish in the oven they may not cook at all, and trust me, it’ll back you up if you eat uncooked lentils.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.581223
| 2021-06-18T21:24:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116135",
"authors": [
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116671
|
How to use a ridged cast iron griddle?
While shopping the other day, I purchased a cast iron pan that has ridged griddle lines in it. I thought "oh, this might be nice for cooking meat!" but I'm not actually sure that's the case.
How to use a ridged cast iron griddle? Or rather, is meat the only thing I can use with such ridges built in? It seems like food will just get stuck in the deep ridges and be annoying to clean off / not that helpful when cooking. Did I make a silly purchase, or is there some sort of benefit to the ridges that I'm not seeing?
Welcome to SA! FWIW, as a comment on the answers below, I find that grill pans work better for vegetables than they do for meat or fish.
I would not recommend to make risotto in it.
If your alternatives are an oven or non stick pans, these sit perfectly in the middle. They really shine at high temperatures, and with marinated foods.
I personally mainly use mine for meat, as my SO is vegetarian, and doesn't like their vegetables cooked in a meaty pan. However it also works nicely for bread products. I toast my burger buns in it before making burgers, my flatbreads when making kebabs, wraps, naans, all these get a nice toast with grillmarks when I use them. It adds a nice partial char to the food that you can't get another way without burning larger parts of your bread.
You can use it with vegetables as a low-fat solution to frying, or use it to make nice smokey gravies.
However where it really sings is indeed with meat. It can go up to soaring high temperatures, where non-stick pans tap out long before. This is ideal for cooking steak in particular, but also smash burgers (they are thin and need the outside cooked fast if you want any kind of darkening). It is also ideal for cooking anything marinated. If you use a pan or broiler, it could char and burn large parts of your marinade, especially if you use herbs. With this grill pan, it will only burn (char) the lines, and steam in between leaving the dynamic of your marinade intact.
The only downside I have found for this kind of pan is the maintenance. It should be kept well seasoned like all cast iron pans and woks. After cooking, clean it by adding one or two pints of water and a teaspoon of salt, and simmer for 15 minutes to an hour. This will dissolve the non-oil particles and leave the non stick seasoning intact as opposed to using soap. Then dump out the water and wipe the pan with paper towels. (Note: I have found that different foods need different simmer times. Breads need next to no cleaning, and fatty means tend to clean up quite quickly. Leaner meats like chicken etc. tend to get charred more and stick to the pan, and will need longer simmer times - yes, up to an hour - to loosen up, even in a well seasoned pan.) It also gives off large amounts of smoke and steam for an inside pan, and you will need to have your extraction fan on high and preferably a window open as well.
Good answer. And as I said in another comment. Remember to turn your smoke detectors back on after you use the pan.
You cook smash burgers in a grill pan? And you simmer water in it for an hour after cooking?
@Bert Yes I do, and with stellar results. As a matter of fact I did both these things less than an hour ago, as writing this answer made me hungry. I am more than happy to share pictures of the results if you want?
@Plutian, I'm also interested in how you do smash burgers. Do you smash them into the ridges, or do you smash them between parchment paper beforehand and then transfer them to the pan? Do you have a special tool to flip and handle them once in the grill pan?
@MaxTilley I normally pre-smash them, and use a metal spatula or fish slice to handle them in the pan. This works best with a fattier mince than normal (around 25%) as this prevents it from drying out too much or sticking to the pan. They cook in no-time flat, and only need flipping once. They are hard to handle uncooked (parchment paper is a good idea here), but once they hit the pan they get rigid enough to flip quite quickly. I'll add some pictures to my answer as well.
What you have is a ‘grill pan’
They work well for meat, but the real advantage is that if you have something that gives off a fair bit of liquid, the food doesn’t end up swimming in it.
Mind you, the liquid is still there, and doesn’t drain away, so it’ll still cool off the pan from evaporation, and slightly steam your food, but if it’s pre-heated, you’ll still get decorative grill lines.
My mom used to use it when cooking burgers inside in the winter, or she just didn’t want to be bothered with the outside grill. It’s also useful for cooking vegetables that have been marinated (and left in large slabs).
I have one, but honestly, I tend to put things under the broiler (top heat only in the oven, I know that’s called a grill in other places) for the type of scenarios where you might use this sort of pan.
I would also recommend looking in kitchenware stores for the grill pan scrapers from lodge. (You can get them on Amazon, but they’re often 2 to 3 times the price to cover shipping). There’s also a set that has one of the grill pan scrapers, and one of their regular scraper (which has lots of curves to match multiple pans)
I can 10/10 recommend it for fish (skin on), firm tofu, tempeh, halloumi, and mushrooms
Your typical camping store, or even Walmart, often has a section with a bunch of Lodge cast iron pots, pans, grills, and even these pan scrapers.
I've had one of these for years, but usually can't be bothered to dig it out.
The only real gain I can see is … it makes nice stripes.
I've seen people claim it's for "lower fat" cooking, but I think that's… ermm … tosh.
It does also, generally, keep proteins above the fat, more closely resembling a grilling situation, rather than a frying situation.
@moscafj - maybe so. From a UK perspective, ie UK barbecue vs US grill, we get so few opportunities in any given year to use one that it doesn't really sit in our cooking psyche ;) Personally, I don't think I've barbecued anything in at least a decade, so one of these is about the only way to get the stripes, which to me is really only a visual thing. I've tried it for steaks [not really successful] haloumi & polenta [better]
Please dig it out more often and experiment a bit. The other answers should have given you at least some inspiration. I love mine for both meat, fish and bread. Of course sometime the oven needs to complement the actual cooking. Remember to turn your smoke detectors back on after you use the pan.,
According to https://www.foodandwine.com/cooking-techniques/grilling/this-summer-go-ahead-and-skip-the-grill-marks, grill marks are an indicator of untapped potential flavor.
Regarding being low fat, most recipes suggest oiling food before cooking on a grill pan (unless it's something very fatty already) so I doubt there's an improvement.
Panini press
You can make grilled sandwiches, panini style.
While a real panini press cooks with two hot sides simultaneously, you can come close to that effect by flipping your sandwich while using a heavy lid or foil-wrapped brick to maintain pressure. Or purchase a grill press, preheated to help cook the sandwich.
I use my George Foreman as a panini press/'Breville' toaster. Both sides at once. Remarkably versatile ;)
You can use it for most foods you can grill on a barbecue, like sliced or whole vegetables and fish on (or in) the skin.
Oil the food and have your pan hot before you add the food.
Or what my mother did with hers, she kept it clean, heat it on cold nights, put in the bed before bedtime and take out before tucking the grandkid in.
This does have risks, if too hot the bed can burn.
Putting anything besides dedicated bed heater in your bed can result in a fire. Even supposedly safe bed heaters based on cast iron were known to burn a hole in the sheets.
Yet, it happened to the most experienced maids still. I can't find advice like that anything but needlessly dangerous. We have a huge variety of safe, affordable heating options.
@Mołot I modified it to an annecdote with warning.
Maybe the bed burning can be avoided using an infrared thermometer. Anyway +1 for you.
@Mołot bottles of boiled water are unlikely to cause fires.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.581431
| 2021-08-02T18:04:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116671",
"authors": [
"AI0867",
"BaffledCook",
"Bert",
"Captain Giraffe",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Max Tilley",
"Mołot",
"Plutian",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stuart F",
"Tetsujin",
"Tim Sparkles",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95024",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100673
|
Prepare something with unopened milk that sat outside the fridge?
Unopened pasteurized milk sitting outside the fridge for 12 hours. It's now in the fridge and not yet open. To be on the safe side, will not be consumed as normal. Can something be made out of it? It's not a matter of cost - just of principle.
The question is not at all a duplicate of How long does it take for milk to spoil unrefrigerated? because it's about a way to make use of milk that won't be used in a normal way due to potential spoiling. Are there not dairy products that make use of fermentation? Is that not "spoiling"?
Possible duplicate of How long does it take for milk to spoil unrefrigerated?
What is "spoiled milk"?
"spoiled" milk is not a thing, that needs to be avoided, in most cases. As long as it doesn't have any mold growing or something, it most likely just started fermenting in the warm temperatures outside the fridge. However, it is perfectly possible that your milk didn't even start to ferment after 12 hours, depending on the room temperatures where you are. In case it has started fermenting it should smell sour and contain clumps. If it smells normal and had a normal consistency you can use it as normal.
What to do with fermented/soured milk?
Milk that has started to ferment is called soured milk. It is used in many places in Europe, though most commonly in eastern Europe as far as i know, but probably in many places around the world, too.
I'm from Germany and my mom always used sour milk wherever you would use buttermilk. It has a similar tanginess and texture, but of course contains a bit more fat. You could use it in cakes and pancakes, but also in brines or marinades, as well in a base for breadcrumb coatings or similar things. Speaking as a german, there are a variety of mostly forgotten regional dishes where soured milk is the main ingredient, mostly desserts and soups.
Some people even drink it as is. I've heard, before lactose free milk was a thing, many lactose intolerant people prefered soured milk over normal milk, because of its lower lactose content due to fermentation.
Make cheese!
You'll be heating the milk, which should kill any harmful bacteria, but essentially you need soured milk to make cheese anyway.
There are countless recipes online, but ricotta is the easiest (in my opinion) cheese to make at home.
Source: Food52
The typical use in our family for spoiled/soured milk was to use it in baked goods. Typically, it got saved for the weekend when my mom would make pancakes or waffles with it. (It was put back into the fridge with a 'Mr. Yuk' style face drawn on the side of it as a warning not to open it)
... but we weren't typically dealing with a whole container, maybe a quart at most at a time. Although you could make up a larger batch and freeze them for some other day.
If the milk got the point where it started to make cheese on its own (ie, it started to separate and get chunky), we disposed of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.582229
| 2019-08-11T01:53:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100673",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102687
|
What is the Best wash or glaze for bread when trying to achieve a crunchy crust on Rolls
i would like to know if there is a way to get a crunchy yet golden glaze on Buns/rolls... kind of like bread you would get out of a dutch oven
I am making everything from braided knots to dinner rolls...
I also make other breads...multi grain with seeds on the top... foccassias... ciabattas...etc... i know most breads to not get glazed/washed
Hey, Tarus, you need to provide a LOT more information in order for us to answer your question. Mostly, you need to define what "works best" means; what are your criteria and what results do you hope to achieve? SeasonedAdvice is not a discussion site, to asking for "experiences and opinions" is off-topic, see: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
There is no magic bullet that will work with all of types of breads. As per comment above, SE is to solve problems, not to share experiences or opinions. If you can edit your question to make it a specific problem, that's better.
got it ... thanks... will re-phrase the question
You are asking specifically about washes, so not a duplicate, but the real solution to your problem: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1535/techniques-to-get-a-nice-golden-brown-crust-on-bread?rq=1
You may have to compromise a bit here, I am assuming you want both a shiny and crunchy finish to your rolls.
Traditionally, the crunch comes from a longer period in the heating oven with lid removed from the Dutch oven to crisp-up the outer layer. A different technique is used with baguettes, where they are sprayed with fine mist at 5 minute intervals over a total cooking time of 15 minutes. Both of these methods will give an excellent crunch, although the final finish will be dull.
An egg or milk wash will give a lovely final sheen to your rolls, but in my experience this prevents the development of a really crispy crust if you use a whole beaten egg. Apparently, just using the egg white diluted with water will achieve more crunch, but I doubt if it will be as intense as the traditional DO or spray method.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/egg-wash-yeast-breads-rolls-3057783
okay... thanks for the help.... basically what i came to but was wondering if there was something i was missing...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.582495
| 2019-10-02T17:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102687",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Tarus Baldeschi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78799",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102662
|
Teaching Bread Making to a young student- need new reasources
Hi Seasoned Advice Forum Members
I am a semi experienced Artisan Bread Baker. I am currently teaching a 9 year old boy the basics of bread making and would like to see if anyone has any suggestions on where I can find free educational material on Bread making that is not too heady, that would benefit my student
Hello Tarus and welcome! I'm hoping that you or I (or another user) can edit your question. Recipe requests are off topic for the site, but I think an appropriate edit can maybe get you some answers.
Sorry. Tried to edit but can't find a way out of the recipe request that maintains the idea of the question. But i have to say, if you're a semi-experienced Artisan Bread Maker, where did you learn from? That may well be your answer.
my step Father worked as a professional baker for years... He has passed along some of his knowledge and i am proficient in the execution of bread making in his style... however passing along these methods may not be the best for the student i am working with as he is 9 years old... and the ratio method of bread making seems to not work for him... just looking for good simple recipes... King Arthur Flour has some good simple ones but wanting to expand...
Take a look at the Josey Baker Bread book. He is a former elementary school science teacher turned professional San Francisco baker. The lessons start with the simplest no-knead bread and progressively add to that foundation with new concepts and techniques. In a number of ways it feels like an elementary school science textbook. It might be the best match for what you are looking for.
http://www.joseybakerbread.com/the-book
I am a huge fan of the modernist cuisine series including modernist bread, I have them all except the photography one. There are curious omissions, for example they have a photograph and description of every type of mixer including the uncommon Ankarsrum/Electrolux and diving arms but they somehow missed fork mixers. Nevertheless, it is astonishingly complete. They have performed ridiculous amounts of testing across everything bread related that they knew about including water of varying hardness, varying ph and every combination of home equipment they could think of. The recipes have a lot of information about adapting them to different baking situations.
If like me, you were sick of not being able to search your paper copy, I might point out there is a chrome extension that can search certain libraries that American politicians are not fond of and perhaps some other options.
Having said that I am not a huge bread baker and there are doubtless other excellent resources.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.582708
| 2019-10-01T18:13:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102662",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Tarus Baldeschi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102748
|
Tapioca flour pizza crust is gummy?
I'm not sure if it's either too thick, not baked alone long enough, or a reactuon to adding a hand made sauce....
What are the ingredients in the crust?
In addition to @moscafj, do you have any experience handling tapioca flour? That flour has the expected property of getting gummy when heated, especially when it is in a large proportion vs. the other ingredients
Are you pre-baking the crust, or baking it after adding the toppings?
Liquid coming off tomatoes, peppers and such would tend to make tapioca gummier.
@moscafj I added the ingredient and directions in the pictures.
@Juliana Karasawa Souza this is the first time I've worked with tapioca flour and was wondering. It just caught me off guard.
@Joe its a bit of both. You pre bake for 16-18 min then add the rest.
@Wayfaring Stranger that's good to know.
Wow, where did you get that recipe? Tapioca gets gummy, potato starch gets horribly gummy, and gelatin... is gummy. I can’t in my wildest dreams imagine those ingredients turning into anything remotely resembling a pizza crust!
@Ernest Friedman-Hill - It was from a paleo magazine a friend gave me. It sorta worked.
Well, first things first... as I mentioned in my comment, tapioca flour gets gummy when heated. That's expected.
In Brazil we do have something called just tapioca, and otherwise known as tapioca crepe that's made with hydrated tapioca flour spread on a pan and heated until all it sticks together and forms a "crepe" of sorts Picture here, so you can see the gummy inside
One more thing about expectations: your recipe is for a crispy crust, it will not get to the same texture as "regular" pizza crust (elastic and fluffy).
A few ways for you to lessen the gummy texture
Add a leavening agent like baking powder or baking soda. This will aerate the mixture and prevent the tapioca flour from gelatinizing;
Flip the dough and add the toppings on the side that was in contact with the pan. You know how the cake usually crusts on the bottom and the sides? That will protect your dough from moisture a little bit more.
Thanks! I was just caught off guard. I'll try adding a leavening next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.582970
| 2019-10-07T03:43:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102748",
"authors": [
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Megan Schroer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78882",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103168
|
How do i make bubbles on surface of chips?
I've never asked a question on here as i'm a new user, I was just wondering if someone could explain how to put bubbles into chips. Ours is a protein based chip and we had a batch that fried and had a lot of bubbles causing a different texture and more crunch but we are having troubles replicating that.
Admins you can delete this if it's not uniform enough.
We fry with Sunflower oil. The protein is mixed with tapioca starch and seasonings
Are you aerating your batter (e.g. whisking in air)? Are you keeping your oil temperature constant?
You wouldn’t have a photo of the desired result (or something similar)? And a rough description of your recipe - not necessarily spilling your trade secrets, but enough to help our users to understand what you are doing?
And in any case: welcome to Seasoned Advice! The [tour] and [help], especially [ask] should explain more about how the site works.
@Stephie How do i attach photos? I've looked in the help section. Sorry if i'm being a bother.
No problem - if you [edit] your post, there’s a photo/picture icon in the little menu bar. The pop-up should guide you through the steps. Just note that the size limit is 2MB per picture.
The bubbles are formed by gases expanding inside the chip as it is heated.
Do this slow enough and the bubbles will escape before the chip hardens (giving it that chip crunch).
Do this fast enough and the bubbles will be trapped.
You could try higher heat for a shorter period of time - or even very high heat to "seal" in the bubbles then finish at a lower temperature.
@SnakeDoc hit the high points of how the bubbles form. I would add that a slight increase in moisture may help create more of a tendency to form bubbles so experiment there, a few drops at a time to keep the consistency you want to work with while getting slightly more moisture for creating the steam expansion.
Here is an article on a somewhat similar technique for inducing potato chips to puff. With them of course you cannot control texture and such, and if they puff you tend to get a single large bubble, not multiple small ones like you seem to be after, but the technique may point you into the direction. Details may require you to experiment. Summary in case page is not accessible: They recommend frying at 320F while gently shaking back and forth until a good portion of the chips start to slightly puff and rise. Then transfer chips to 365F oil. They should promptly puff more fully. Cook until crisp and to desired level. The exact details are probably not what you want, but as a starting point could help with experimenting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.583209
| 2019-10-29T21:49:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103168",
"authors": [
"Dugan ",
"Ilias Anastasiadis",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79248"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119984
|
What are the ingredients used in this issen yoshoku video?
Hello everyone :) I'm looking for help to identify the ingredients that go into the preparation in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWRZUa2wAZE
This appears to be a type of okonomiyaki, however the recipe seems rather different from the ones I can find online. Below I will list the ingredients in order of appearance. Around 1:58 there is a cut in the video but they also show the okonomiyaki up close. I would be grateful if any of you could provide some assistance. :)
EDIT: This appears to be an unusual type of okonomiyaki known as issen yoshoku (壹錢洋食). Using this name I could find this post, where they have a list of ingredients. However I'm not sure if/how they correspond to the ingredients in the video.
Okonomiyaki batter Batter: wheat flour and water (?)
Just on top of the batter: Katsuobushi (?)
Spring onions or maybe leek (?)
Eggs
White stuff: Some kind of cheese or maybe tempura scraps (tenkasu) (?)
Red stuff: Benishoga or sakura shrimp or both (?)
Black stuff: perhaps seasoned konnyaku (?)
White rings: perhaps kamaboko (?)
Meat
At the very end, I imagine okonomiyaki sauce or maybe .
I don't think those are okonmiyaki. They look like crepes (which are also popular in Japan). Look how they roll them up for serving; I've never seen that with okonomiyaki. We have a couple Japanese members of SA, though, so hopefully they'll speak up.
You definitely cannot roll okonomiyaki.
Thank you for your comments. It's been pointed out to me that this is called "issen yoshoku" and it's basically only made in one shop in Kyoto. See edit in the post. I'd still like help in identifying the ingredients.
by the colour and consistency when ladled and spread, then colour and crispness after cooking, it appears to be a type of Dosa batter, maybe made with rice flour. the sauce at the end looks like japanese gravy like served on Omurice.
this menu image might help: https://hirakata46.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/1561e66babb62d126d37586915a694c7.jpg
@GdD, the Japanese girl in this video making Hashimaki (Okonomiyaki roll) wouldn't agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18sADTpIuA
The dish is '''issen yōshoku''' (一銭洋食), literally "one-cent Western food", since a ''sen'' is one-hundredth of a yen. The Japanese Wikipedia has a good article on this which is fairly legible even in translation, but to summarize, it's basically a predecessor of okonomiyaki that dates back to the Taisho era days, when grilled wheat pancakes were still considered an exotic, Western food.
I can't speak to the ingredients in that video, and I'll admit the black stuff is a bit of mystery, but here's what a typical Japanese recipe uses:
☆キャベツ 50g cabbage
☆紅しょうが 適量 beni-shoga (red pickled ginger)
★水 120㏄ water
★小麦粉 50g flour
★片栗粉 小さじ2 katakuriko (potato starch)
★塩 小さじ1/4 salt
◇天かす 適量 tenkasu (deep-fried tempura bits, basically panko/breadcrumbs)
◇たまご 2個 egg
サラダ油 適量 vegetable oil
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.583461
| 2022-02-27T22:02:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119984",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"John Donne",
"Mr Shane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103561
|
Leaving empty cast iron pot on a gas stove
I left empty enameled cast iron pot on medium high flame on gas stove top for about half an hour to an hour. It was actually filled with water which should be brought to a boil but i forgot about it, so after water evaporated it stood empty on a stove top. I don't see any cracks or any other signs of physical damage, it only darkened and it smelled burnt. I washed it with regular dish soap and use abrasive sponge (which I usually don't) but and enamel is still dark grey inside (it was white before).
I've read about other users similar experiences and it turned out not to be a big deal, but those pots weren't enameled inside. Since mine is I wonder is it health safe to continue using it for cooking. Any chances of something toxic could leak into food or something similar that could be health hazard.
I think you should be safe, but depending on the abrasive pad (plastic or metal?), you might have scratched the enamel.
Try the different methods to clean a burned enamel cast iron; most methods used boiling water with baking soda.
https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-clean-burnt-stains-off-enameled-cookware-cleaning-lessons-from-the-kitchn-217457
or
https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-clean-stained-enameled-cast-iron-pot-article
A similar option is to fill the pot with hydrogen peroxide, cover it, and leave it somewhere cool and dark for a few weeks. Since it takes some time, it might not be ideal though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.583719
| 2019-11-18T19:20:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103561",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2243
|
What is the difference between Yoghurt and Curd
They taste almost same. Are they different?
I feel I'm on the receiving end of a cross-cultural dialect issue :) What geographic location is this relevant to?
A curd is a transitional element obtained, once milk starts to coagulate, the other being a water substance called whey. These are separated and cheese can later be made from the curd, via the addition of other ingredients, such as rennet. Or in the case of cottage cheese and paneer, an acid.
Yoghurt is a finished product, produced by by heating milk, then adding a live 'starter' culture. It's then kept at a stable warm temperature for a number of hours, followed by cooling.
This answer is relevant to the USA. In many other countries, what USA calls "yogurt" is referred to as "curd". (e.g. India. and, I am guessing UK)
@joyjit "Yoghurt" would be the UK term; Curds would either be the solids used to make cheese from, or fruit curds which are dairy free (made from egg yolks, sugar, citrus juice)
@RowlandShaw Yes, 'curd' is what its called on the sub-continent.
Like you said, they almost taste the same, but aren't exactly the same. Both are fermented dairy milk, but the level of fermentation varies for both.
Boiled and semi- warm milk is mixed with fermentation bacteria and allowed to set in a matter of 3-4 hours. This is yogurt. It is not sour, bu you can scoop and enjoy it.
Once this yogurt is kept aside in a warm place for more time, it curdles even more and that is when you get curd. It is more sour than yogurt. Hope this helps!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. ;-) Could you please [edit] your answer and specify that what you're talking about is localised to South East Asia (including India?)
Hi. Do you have any reference for your 1st paragraph? (3-4 hours thing)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.583867
| 2010-07-20T02:24:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2243",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Dan Grossman",
"David Murdoch",
"Dindar",
"Fabby",
"Jake McGraw",
"Marek",
"Patricia Hitchings",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Shimmy Weitzhandler",
"Vikas",
"camurgo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8803",
"immutabl",
"joyjit",
"m0rec0wbell"
],
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20361
|
Is mixing coffee with milk directly unhealthy?
Scientifically speaking, is there a reason not to mix coffee with milk directly?
I remember reading once, that milk is like the antidote to coffee and there is a bio-chemical reason why this makes an unhealthy mixture.
A reference would be appreciated.
"Milk is the antidote to coffee" implies that coffee is toxic - a very bold statement.
This sounds like an off-topic health question.
Welcome to the site Nick. Questions asked here should pertain to cooking. General health and nutrition questions are not acceptable topics here. This and other guidelines are noted in our [faq].
Not really, but there haven't been that many studies in to the issue. An abstract of the most significant one can be found here.
To summarise, the study tested people who had drunk black coffee, coffee with milk, and coffee with non-dairy creamer to see how much of the phenolic acid (one constituent of coffee that is supposed to have health benefits) entered the bloodstream in each case.
The study found that adding milk had no effect, but adding creamer affected the maximum concentration of the phenols in blood plasma, and the time it took to achieve that concentration.
This kind of toing and froing over the health of certain foods is rife today. One minute coffee is bad for you, the next it's good for you, and so on. For example, the study above assumes that the phenolic acids involved, being antioxidants, are good for you because they reduce free radicals in the body.
Free radicals in too high a concentration can indeed be harmful. However, they are also an essential part of the immune system - when a harmful bacteria is found in the body, phagocyte cells will surround it and destroy it with free radicals, for example. Things like this mean that there is rarely a simple answer to questions of food health.
Likewise, it has been suggested that people with a certain set of genes may be adversely affected by drinking too much caffeine, which may cause bone loss, unless they also have a source of calcium, like milk, in their diet as well, which would rather suggest that milk is definitely a good thing to have with your coffee!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.584184
| 2012-01-11T10:10:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20361",
"authors": [
"CAP",
"Marthinus Wessels",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58425
|
I added too much corn starch into my potato cutlets - what do I do now?
I wanted to make a dough so I added cornstarch in my potato cutlets dough and now it tastes like flour.
Add more potato?
My advice is to throw it away and start over. You could possibly salvage it by adding more potato and other ingredients, however this is not likely to work and you'll end up throwing more food and time away. If you are going to use more ingredients you're better off trying again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.584376
| 2015-06-21T23:56:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58425",
"authors": [
"Bruce Fischer",
"Hester Meade",
"Julie Atkinson",
"Kristi Cooper",
"Ming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114164
|
Which non-rice grains cook up most like sticky rice?
I enjoy sticky or sushi rice but have pretty much stopped eating rice (including wild rice) because of concerns with arsenic.
Which grain, when cooked, tend to be the most "sticky" like sticky rice?
From a purely sticking perspective, I would say golden millet. When I leave a cooked batch in the fridge, it goes to a single slab within a few hours. However, tastewise, it is much more reminiscent of wheat than of rice. It is very mealy in texture, too.
Alternatively, you might want to experiment with adding tiny amounts of starch to a different grain, to make it stick, or maybe using pap instead of rice, possibly embedding some other grains (or maybe something like tapioca pearls) to have some variety in the texture.
In addition to the range of starches you could add (tapioca, corn, potato, arrowroot - all of which will create slightly different results), you can whiz up a few spoonfuls of dry porridge oats in a blender and stir these in late in the boiling/ steaming process. If you haven't oats to hand, you can also try doing the same with a fraction of the main grain you're cooking, effectively making a mix of whole grains and their own flour, which should yield the sticky properties you seek. As observed above, it won't turn out the same as rice (but then, nothing's quite the same as anything else), and you can experiment with different whole/ ground ratios till you find a balance you like.
Adding your freshly ground flour too soon will increase the risk of something burning on the bottom; too late, and it won't absorb enough water to cook properly - so the time at which you add the flour also affects the result.
I think I've also thrown a thinly-sliced potato into my rice cooker at some point, which made things hang together creamily. As does simply adding more water and cooking your grains for longer.
P.S. Are you sure the rice-in-arsenic thing is really a thing? I recall reading about this a while back, and I think the conclusion was pretty much the same as that regarding radioactivity in bananas - yes, it's there, but to a degree so infinitesimal in the context of all the other dietary and environmental sources of the thing we seek to avoid that it won't have a measurable effect. Unlike, for example, mercury in salmon. Every case is different, interesting, and merits investigation.
Honestly I think you'll struggle on this one. Sushi rice gets its stickiness from amylopectin. Starches, generally, have some amylose and some amylopectin, but certain varieties will have different proportions. "Waxy" potatoes, waxy corn, and sticky rice are all much higher in amylopectin than other varieties, which give them their distinctive texture.
I think @rumtscho's suggestion is good, but simply adding extra starch really won't replicate the texture of sticky rice.
I tried to find information related to the amylopectin content or other cereal grains, but unfortunately found very little that considered the grains comparatively. Bur it seems like tapioca starch generally mimics the behavior of waxy starches, so the tapioca pearls mentioned before might be a good experiment on their own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.584462
| 2021-02-08T11:04:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114164",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115936
|
How to properly fill the ice and salt into an oldfashioned ice cream machine?
I am making ice cream with an inexpensive electric machine that uses a dasher. For a test I put 2 quarts of water in the inner pot. Then I added 8 trays of ice to the space between the inner and outer pots. I am figuring 5 part ice to 1 part rock salt. How do I combine the ice and rock salt for the most uniform cooling?
I tried combining the ice and salt before putting the mix in the machine but that did not work.
Are there instructions for your machine? What is the brand and model?
I am somewhat confused about what your question is. The one sentence that is formulated as a question is "how do I combine the ice and rock salt for the most uniform cooling". What options are there besides "pour both into the outer pot"? How did it "not work" when you combined them before putting them into the machine?
From what you say the salt and ice mix together as the inner-pot spins?
I think the concept I was missing is "packing the pot". Such layering creates "salt water slush". This make sense to me because it distributes the salt and ice to achieve the needed temperature reduction. I found this page very helpful: https://www.texascooking.com/features/june2004icecreamfreezers.htm
I have come to understand that "packing the pot" (dispersing the rock salt) is analogous to throwing rock salt on an icy sidewalk. Each rock salt pellet individually melts a small piece of ice and that produces the needed the necessary freezing point depression.
Mike, if you figured out the solution, you can help others with the same issue by posting an answer to your own question.
Water is not a good test of an ice cream machine. Pure water freezes very differently from ice cream custard. If you're going to test with anything, use whole milk.
Here is the chart that was included in the instructions in Mike's link. It suggested layering the ice to 3-4 inches deep and then adding 5oz of rock salt or 3oz of table salt and repeating until the bucket is full to the brim. Adding a cup of cold water at the halfway mark and again when the tub is full is recommended to help the ice settled and keep the motor from binding.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.584715
| 2021-06-04T16:59:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115936",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"James McLeod",
"Mike",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114698
|
Lasagna in a sandwich maker
I have some lasagna sheets that I would like to use, and our oven is rather unreliable.
Is it possible to prepare lasagna using only a sandwich maker? How could I go about doing this?
Fresh or dried? Either way I don't see it as being much fun to clean up after;)
@Tetsujin You mean the sheets? Dried / uncooked.
Why don't you just boil the large noodles and toss them with sauce as you would prepare any other type of pasta?
@AdamO They're in sheets; are you suggesting I cut them into strips or pieces after cooking?
@ZevSpitz Sure, you could cut them into strips, or you can serve them with knife and fork to cut off bite size pieces. I would try a taragon cream sauce, or boil the noodles with some baking soda, and toss them with oyster sauce and sauteed brocoli like a poor mans pad see ew.
Why not; it can be a fun project.
It will need a lot of experimentation to make it work and it will not be a lasagna.
I'd completely cook the noodles, spread them on the sandwich maker, put a little bit of sauce and cheese in the middle, put another layer of noodles on top and press it down.
Depending on the size of your sandwich maker, you could even try multiple layers.
But it will be a kind of a pizza pocket.
I would imagine that it'd be something like a cross between a toasted raviolo and a baked empanada. More empanada-like if you made it with fresh, uncooked pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.584930
| 2021-03-09T19:34:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114698",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"Zev Spitz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84008"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113622
|
Does beef round have a lot of collagen
I think it is well accepted that beef round, which comes from a working part of the cow, is thus tough and needs to be handled properly.
From various sources, I've read that beef rounds (some say all three top, bottom, eye, some say just the bottom round) have lots of connective tissue and braising is a good choice of method for cooking them.
However, it seems that the braised round cuts feel a lot different from chuck, shank, or ox-tail, which really seems to get fork tender and gives unctuous mouthfeel, and still feels quite tough.
That said, is the source of toughness of round cuts same as that of chuck, shank or oxtail, which is a large amount of collagen that will eventually turn into gelatin? If beef rounds do have lots of collagen, then is the perceived toughness due to drying out easily due to lack of fat, which the other cuts seem to have plenty of?
Another thing that confuses me is that some sources say the telltale signs of collagen are thick muscle fibers (easily seen on beef rounds) and multiple muscle groups held together by natural seams. (easily seen on chuck or shank)
Are those two factors, the thick muscle fibers and bunch of muscle groups held together, going to play out differently when braised, which one giving a better mouthfeel than the other?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.585057
| 2021-01-06T22:14:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113622",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115007
|
Does boiling water deactivate malt enzymes?
Will mixing boiling water with malt flour deactivate the malt enzymes?
I’m trying to adapt a recipe for mämmi that involves mixing mixing a combination of malt+regular flour with boiling water in a 1:2 ratio (by weight) and need to understand whether the point is to stop the enzymes or to encourage their action.
Overall it is add 3 parts boiling water to 1 part malt, then 2 parts regular flour, off the heat. Mix and let sit.
Hard to say - how hot is the remaining mixture. Looks like amylase is most active between 55 and 65 C.
@bob1 2 parts water to one part flour , so it might be mixture temperature might be as high as 80C. More worried about the initial shock
Yes, heating to boiling temperature will destroy amylase.
Depending on the ratio, the goal of that recipe may be to destroy the enzymes, to gel the starch, or to help the enzymes be most effective. It’s not uncommon for particularly old and traditional recipes to use a combination of boiling water, ice-cold water, and room-temperature ingredients to reach a particular temperature, as the ratio of inputs will determine the final temperature pretty accurately without a need for a thermometer. If the water to malt/grain ratio is about 1:1 by mass, that would put the enzymes at their optimum temperature for converting starch to sugar. If it’s a lot more water than malt/grain (again, by mass) then the purpose is more likely to deactivate the enzymes and/or gel the starch.
According to this article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4mmi - the enzyme activity is importnat, so presumably is it important not to get the mixture too hot. However, maybe the maltase isn't harmed by high temperature while it is dry, so perhaps the water has time to cool while the malt-flour is soaking? (as an aside, note the links at the bottom of that article, they may be useful)
@j4nd3r53n Dry heat denatures enzymes just as surely as wet heat does (and it doesn't need to be boiling temperature. Most proteins are reliably destroyed once they reach 65 °C, only very few, most from specialised organisms, survive higher temperatures).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.585177
| 2021-03-28T20:59:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115007",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"j4nd3r53n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23691
|
How can I let fruit ripen faster?
In addition to specific fruits like avocados and bananas, and the specific trick of using a brown bag, I would like to know if there are ways to let fruit and vegetables in general ripen faster. Are all fruits the same, or is it different for every kind of fruit/vegetable? If there is some general way or mechanism, what methods generally work to expedite fruit ripening?
possible duplicate of Is it scientifically verified that bananas will ripen faster when kept in a bowl with other fruit?
But there can be some other ways to?
Well, it doesn't need to be a banana. It's just the ethylene you need. You can use an apple, tomato... See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109/why-does-a-brown-paper-bag-speed-ripening for more information.
@Mien , feel free to see if this edit reframes the question effectively to make the duplicates into relateds; @lotte, I have edited your question pretty heavily, but I don't think that I have changed the substance of your question. If you feel I have, feel free to roll it back.
@mfg sure :) Also, this is related as well: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/154/how-do-i-ripen-unripe-oranges-and-grapefruits
As I was explaining in my answer to this question about figs the "brown bag" trick, works for any climacteric fruit.
A list of some climacteric and non-climacteric fruits can be found here.
It is important to note that some non-climacteric fruits (such as bell peppers or strawberries) will not respond to an ethylene treatment at all, and will not ripen further after being picked from the plant. Other fruits (such as citrus and grapes) will show ripening responses to ethylene, although they do not have an auto-catalytic production of this molecule1.
1Ripening of citrus and other non-climacteric fruits: a role for ethylene
Avocados ripen in about 3 days (from rock hard) in a sack of flour vs up to a week sitting out.
Covering completely in flour has the advantage of preventing pressure bruises.
Forgetting them for a month can be icky...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.585372
| 2012-05-10T12:52:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23691",
"authors": [
"Anne Fraser",
"Azade Farshad",
"Kelly C.",
"Lotte Laat",
"Mien",
"Steve S. from Princeton NJ",
"Terry Wang",
"cajun girl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53819",
"kallie",
"kkmm",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118090
|
How can I make a really gingery cookie?
I have tried various ginger cookie recipes over the years, for gingersnaps, gingerbread cookies, pfeffernusse, and most recently pepparkakor. I never find the cookies to be spicy enough—I assume, not gingery enough. What can I do to bake a really spicy cookie?
By way of prior research: I am often generous in the measures of the spices; in particular, I often put in more cloves than the recipe calls for. (And when I made candied orange peel for the first time a few years back, I thought that might be part of the solution. Once I tried adding it chopped to the gingerbread cookie recipe above, but the result was equivocal.)
Maybe add some crystalized ginger pieces into the recipe? I've also heard of black pepper used in addition to dried ginger to make it spicier. Never tried it though.
I often find that fresh ginger tends to lose its freshness over time when heated, and this might happen here. So I suggest ginger powder. Similar to garlic powder, this is a very fine powder made probably from the dried fruit, and surprisingly intense and close to the original. It might be difficult to find; I buy mine at an Egyptian spice dealer. (It's also awesome to put into hot chocolate...)
In addition, you mention an extra dose of cloves. Maybe try reducing that, as cloves tend to have a somewhat numbing effect in the mouth.
+1 specifically for cutting back on the cloves. Eugenol (the primary flavor component in cloves) is actually a local anesthetic, and part of the ‘spicy hot’ flavor of ginger (and anything else with capsacinoids in it, such a chilli peppers) is actually inflammation of the mouth/tongue, which the local anesthetic effects of the eugenol rather effectively counteract.
Maybe a dumb question, but is the ginger powder you're referring to here different from ground ginger—which for me is a very common spice. (The length of your description makes it seem to me that you're introducing something new or unusual?)
Is ginger powder different from the spice ginger? May be worth clarifying. It seems they'd get easily mixed up if they are different things.
Good question, probably a translation issue, I'm not an native speaker of English. By "ginger" alone I only understand the fresh fruit. "Ginger powder" is my translation for the powdered, dried fruit -- quite likely what you refer to as "grounded ginger"? But can't the English "grounded" also be used for mashed fresh ginger? // And the dried powder is indeed something much more unusual where I live.
@phipsgabler Ground (from grind) rather than *grinded or *grounded, and in English would always refer to a dry powder. Mashed up fresh ginger (which you can purchase in a tube to keep in the fridge) could be known as ginger paste or ginger purée or crushed fresh ginger or something like that.
Oh, well... unless that ginger is connected to a grounding electrode :D
Raw Ginger Juice.
Some of the ginger flavour is lost in the cooking process. To get more flavour you can, similar to a lemon drizzle cake, pour some raw ginger juice (liquid from grated ginger) over the cookies after they are cooked. Unfortunately this runs the risk of soggy cookies.
Another option is to add some form of icing that contains raw ginger juice. This prevents sogginess.
A friend had a gingersnap recipe that called for dipping them half into white chocolate. You could probably use a royal icing made with ginger juice instead. And maybe then sprinkle with some chopped up candied ginger
@Joe I can also vouch for making icing with the syrup from stem ginger in syrup. It may not be enough in this case, but if you've used of the ginger in the cookie as well, it's a nice finishing touch
Ginger gets its flavour from many compounds, but primarily gingerols. These are converted by cooking into the less pungent zingerone and other compounds. Separating 'spicy hot' from 'spicy flavour', cooking will inevitably reduce the former. If you really want this kind of heat, I suggest adding a very small amount of chilli flakes.
Since gingerols (like capsacin) are short chain hydrocarbons, they are most soluble in fat. So I suggest you might increase the fat content slightly.
From my experiments trying to up the ginger flavour, one of the problems with ginger cookies can be that the flavour is too 'one note'. That is, even if one makes a really gingery cookie, the ginger hit diminishes quickly with each bite because of palate fatigue. This suggests adding a different form of ginger, e.g. the crystallised ginger suggested in a comment, or a small amount of a different spice, maybe cinammon or mixed spice.
“Since gingerols ... are most soluble in fat” – are they, though? Ginger infusion in pure water (“ginger tea”) can be pretty spicy. Gingerol seems to be much better soluble than capsaicin in water. (Both are of course not just short-chain hydrocarbons, though especially capsaicin does have a pretty long hydrocarbon “tail”, more so than gingerol, which may account for this discrepancy.)
My wife makes incredibly gingery cookies, and what she does is makes a very condensed ginger syrup first. She makes that in very large batches, I'm not sure exactly how much ginger root goes in (a lot!), but she gets out maybe a liter or two of syrup, then freezes it in small 0.5L jars. She then uses that to make the cookies, replacing some of the sugar. Not every cookie recipe can do this, of course, but any that take molasses for sweetener could use this instead of some of the molasses, for example.
The other bonus of this, of course, is that same ginger syrup can make excellent homemade gingerale to have along with the cookies (but it's very spicy, so be cautious!)
Notes from my wife: spicier ginger syrup comes from cutting the ginger more finely before cooking it down, and probably from older ginger (though it may also depend on the ginger quality more).
As far as cookie recipes, use one with less sugar if possible or even replace some of the sugar with applesauce to avoid cutting the spice with sugar. She usually makes a ginger molasses cookie that’s on the chewy side, not a true snap but often mislabeled that in recipes.
That sounds very promising. Is there a recipe you could suggest?
Pureed whole fresh root
The farmers market near me in Atlanta had fresh ginger root. I washed one (scrubbed it), pared off some dry outside skin, and put the whole thing in the food processor. Other stuff went in to join it and ultimately it became banana bread. It was good and gingery!
This ginger root had magenta colors and was wetter inside than the brown roots from the grocery but those are wet too. I think a ginger root might be too much for a blender but the food processor was fine with it.
The form of ginger you use matters, see this excellent video on the subject.
My recommendation: use all forms of ginger! Perhaps in this order: Dried, crystallized, and fresh.
When I want to make extra-gingery sweet things, I add stem ginger (the sort sold in jars of syrup). I chop it fairly finely and add it to the mixture. It's in pieces, roughly spherical, about 20mm to 1" in diameter. A couple of those added to a batch that would fill 1-2 baking sheets should do the trick.
This is in addition to ground ginger, of which I normally use a little extra (say 25% more than stated for decently gingery); I also often add some ground mixed spice, 10-25% of the original amount of ginger.
The infused syrup from the stem ginger can be used in place of golden syrup or even honey in the recipe too (or stir it into hot chocolate, but anyway, don't waste it).
Don't forget to add salt!
Salt brings out many flavours, and adding 0.5-1% of the total weight in salt doesn't make it noticeably salty.
It goes for most cakes/cookies, but especially if you want to bring out the spiciness of e.g. gingernuts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.585583
| 2021-12-04T05:59:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118090",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"adam.baker",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"leftaroundabout",
"phipsgabler",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104130
|
How am I meant to use these trays that came with my oven?
A Turkish oven we recently purchased has no thermostat, but it did come with two metal trays. They are like (American) broiler trays but without a cooking rack.
I could believe that they are just broiler trays, but (1) there are two of them; (2) I believe I have seen people adjusting the position of these trays in similar ovens when making bread.
What are they for, and how can I learn to use them appropriately?
Picture of an oven with and without the aforementioned trays
The trays you mention don't really show up in the photos. The one on the left might just be an ordinary shelf, and the one on the right might have some depth to it but that's all I can see. It looks like a gas oven with an uncalibrated temperature control running from little flame to big flame.
I've pushed the shadows hard in Photoshop to make the interior more visible & exposed the previously hidden picture cation. Looks like a standard rack left & two roasting trays right; though I'd have expected at least one to have a grill rack in it.
A) do you mean "Broiler trays"? B) If you are asking about the tray on the right it's "Cooking trays" which is used in most american houses. Cooking rack is just cooling rack that can be also used in the oven.
Why are there two?
@adam.baker so you can have two trays in the oven at the same time or if you are making e.g. cookies you can fill one tray while the other bakes, then swap...
Unlike American ovens, some European ovens come with built-in baking trays. These are designed to slide in and out using the oven rails, and take the place of sheet pans that you would put on top of a rack in an American oven.
They're actually quite convenient, except that there's only two of them.
For example, if you watch this Spanish cookie video, you'll see that Albert is using one of those pans to bake cookies.
Yes, I often use the one built in tray that came with my oven, and another tray on a normal shelf, especially at this time of year when I'm making a lot of roast veg dishes. Two would be handy. Because they're sized to the oven, they make better use of space than a generic baking tray
here. I never knew that there are first-world countries where people don't know how baking trays work. Great to learn!
Eckes: they really aren't a thing in American ovens. No idea why.
@FuzzyChef they're just full size, whereas 'Muricans can use full baking sheets, half-sized baking sheets and even quarter-sized sheets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.586438
| 2019-12-16T05:54:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104130",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"RonJohn",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tetsujin",
"Tinuviel",
"adam.baker",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80033"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104350
|
How to keep seasonings from separating in soup
I’m cooking soup that consists of chicken broth, water, heavy whipping cream, butter, and puréed vegetables.
When I add the seasonings (black pepper, sage, Tony Chachere’s Original Creole Seasoning, etc), after a while the seasonings all float to the top.
I was wondering if there was anything I could add that would keep the seasonings from separating, but not drastically alter the flavor?
If you boil them in a bit of water and pour it in the soup, that should get enough of the oxygen out. leaves are like little sponges, they either hold air or water.
As the herbs cook, they'll absorb water, so most will stop floating. Also, grinding them finely will allow them to incorporate into the soup more quickly without significantly altering their flavors.
@gidds Totally fair questions, I should have clarified or spelled correctly. I've edited the original post to address those questions, but I was referring to heavy whipping cream (auto correct must have spelled it creme), and Tony Chachere’s Original Creole Seasoning. Thanks for pointing that out!
You could use a bouquet garni.
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Bouquet-Garni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouquet_garni
The bouquet garni... is a bundle of herbs usually tied together with
string and mainly used to prepare soup, stock, casseroles and various
stews.The bouquet is cooked with the other ingredients, but is removed
prior to consumption...
There is no generic recipe for bouquet garni, but most French recipes
include thyme, bay leaf and parsley.[2] Depending on the recipe, the
bouquet garni may also include basil, burnet, chervil, rosemary,
peppercorns,[5] savory and tarragon.. Sometimes, the bouquet is not
bound with string, and its ingredients are filled into a small sachet,
a piece of celery stalk,[3] a net, or even a tea strainer, instead.
I have usually done this with cheesecloth. If your herbs are dried as in this picture that would be how you do it too. Make a bag of cheesecloth, fill it with herbs and tie it with string. Remove from the finished soup and throw it away, so you do not eat it by accident.
They're mostly “wood”, so unless they're particularly dense (like peppercorns), they want to float on water. But their flavors will have been mostly extracted by that time, so they've done their job.
A more viscous soup will slow their rise. A finer grind will improve wetting, and solvation by other molecules in the mixture, will slow aggregation and the resulting additive buoyancy that helps to overcome the viscosity. Just think of them like bubbles in a drink. The smaller they are, the slower they rise, and the better they stick to the glass.
Sorry I don't have a source right now, but I believe this would be explained by fluid dynamics.
My preferred method is to use a thickener or emulsifier to bind the seasonings to the liquid and prevent them from moving freely. This also makes the soup feel more filling. Depending on what kind of flavor or texture you'd prefer, you can use finely chopped/shredded potatoes or carrots(any starchy vegetable will work), cornstarch or potato flakes, or some combination thereof. Add the finely chopped or shredded starchy vegetables at the beginning of cooking to ensure that they fully dissolve into the stock by the time you're done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.586800
| 2019-12-25T17:45:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104350",
"authors": [
"Creoix",
"Suncat2000",
"bandybabboon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109205
|
What are these white spots in my bread dough?
I'm making hot cross buns following this recipe: https://domesticgothess.com/blog/2020/03/09/vegan-hot-cross-buns/
About an hour into the first rise, I'm seeing these alarmingly mold-like dots in the dough. I didn't see these when I was kneading it.
The only things I might've done abnormally for this recipe were:
My soy milk might've been a touch too hot when I added the yeast. I was afraid it would kill the yeast, but it looks like the dough has risen normally. Not sure if that has something to do with the appearance of these spots.
For the soy milk, I made it using cooked soybeans blended up with water. It was done in a high speed blender and the soy milk appeared quite smooth, but could these be unblended soybean chunks?
I used kosher salt. Perhaps the salt was not fully dissolved by the time I let it rise.
Are there any other possibilities for what these spots could be?
Please edit and post your entire recipe and method.
Understanding your recipe and process will help, but it could be salt that was not mixed in well enough.
Oops sorry I realized I forgot to link the recipe. I followed it exactly, with the same ingredients as directed, except the exceptions noted above. I also remembered I used kosher salt instead of the fine salt I usually use. @moscafj, that does seem likely that undissolved salt may have been the culprit!
It's impossible to say what it is - but I am quite sure what it isn't. I have never seen or heard of a pathogen (mold or otherwise) which is able to build visible colonies during such a short time at room temperature, especially in the presence of yeast. And your yeast was not dead - the dough rising proves it.
This is almost sure some ingredient not being mixed well. There are a few alternative explanations such as you covering the bowl with a nonpermeable lid and having enough condensation to drop onto the dough surface, or maybe (and we are getting into really weird/rare territory here) the vegan substitutes acting in unusual ways and managing to clump somehow. I would bake and eat - it is one of the exceptions where I can't connect this unusual photo to the "when in doubt, throw it out" rule.
Thanks, I did feel it was unlikely that a pathogen could grow so much in such a short time but I'm glad to hear someone else's opinion. We did end up baking and eating it and had no issues with taste or texture...or bodily functions.
@therealdeal sadly, the value of taste, texture or bodily functions issues in food safety is very lopsided: If you see problems there, the food was certainly unsafe. If you don't see problems, this doesn't mean that the food was safe. As I said, I'm quite sure it was something else this time, so enjoy your buns!
Try feeling the texture of the spots. If they are clumpy when you press down on them, it might be a case of flour clumping together when mixing. Otherwise, if the texture is smooth, it might be something else.
Based on your response to my comment, it appears that you have undissolved salt in your dough. I've seen this before. You can use kosher salt when baking bread, just be sure to add it at a stage when there is enough liquid to dissolve it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.587094
| 2020-06-22T02:07:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109205",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80467",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"the real deal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68695
|
What is this metal utensil tool with wooden handle?
Saw this at a flea market with other kitchen tools and do not know what it is. The end of the tool that is pictured is attached to a wooden handle, not a gear or some other mechanical attachment.
Update: I'm still Google searching periodically. Other ideas include parts for a cookie/pasta press.
This is what the handle looks like:
(source: bullbbq.com)
I think I'm on a lead with these grill scrapers.
I'd love to see the whole thing. The single angle leaves a few details out. Is there anything on the other side of the "blade"? Any grooves, humps, pockets or little raised hooks? Is this blade flat, convex, or slightly concave? Is the "typical" whisk handle wooden, wire coil, or solid shaft? Does it have any engage points where it might be inserted into something or paired with another utensil? I have two gadgets that might be related to this, one for whipping cream and one for making butter, but neither seems to be exactly like that one and both have more details than are seen in your photo.
The disk is in one 2D plane. I don't think it meant to mix anything. The complete lack of symmetry make me think that it is done sort of "selector", maybe fit some sort of extrusion(pasta?). the handle was wooden like it was meant to be held. I'm wondering now if it isn't for the kitchen at all.
Odd utensil/tool. The 2D thing doesn't make sense for food prep, but your "selector" theory sounds good. On the other hand, a selector that has a wooden handle and isn't connected to whatever is being selected is kind of strange, too. I hope you don't mind, but I am going to print out this photo and see if my neighbor has ever seen something like this. So far, he has ID every other odd contraption I've brought him.
You should post an answer of grill scraper - I think that's actually the one that makes sense, though it's in a format that suggests other uses, but then the tool does not make sense for various reasons in the other uses. For a grill scraper, it all makes sense...note that answering your own question is perfectly fine on Stack Exchange (though it votes better when not contrived as some folks like to do.)
That yellowish, iridescent finish looks like it could be cadmium plated - not something you want near food or heat.
Just because is was at a flea market with kitchen tools does not mean it is a kitchen tool.
In what universe is that handle type typical for whisks? Just wondering...
@Marti, agreed, that wasn't a good way to describe what I meant. Since I meant to convey that it was handled that is now what I actually say.
You really need to take that thing off the handle and make a necklace pendant out of it. Or better: a string tie!
I'm fairly confident that the tool is in fact a grill scraper. The handle matches the wooden one shown below. I can't think of any other explanation for the one indent on the tool that is like a hook. You ban see it matches the one in the two metal scrapers. The idea behind the design is to scrape both sides of the grill rung at the same time.
I am sure it is a blade of some sort that is attached to a machine that makes it turn. Since it is made of wood it could be that it is a hand held device.
theonlymo, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I see you have posted quite a few answers already. I'd like to encourage you to take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more about this site and the Stack Exchange system.
I don't think it is a blade. It is not sharp at all. Also, the asymmetrical nature is a contraindication for a blade.
Zak, don't discount "blade" too early. It looks quite a bit like an emulsification blade as used in some blenders for making mayonnaise (and probably has been used by manual mayonnaise beaters before blenders became commonplace). The asymmetry is indeed a point against it, but people create unusual tools sometimes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.587388
| 2016-04-30T19:02:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68695",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Marti",
"Shalryn",
"Stephie",
"Willk",
"Zak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58137
|
Is smoking with 'barked' wood dangerous?
I have been told that smoking with fruit wood that has bark on it is poisonous. I also have been told that there is nothing wrong with using 'barked wood'- that it is only a matter of personal taste.
Which is true?
It depends on the wood if it is desirable or not to smoke with the bark still on the wood. I have had good results smoking with apple wood bark, but disgusting results with birch (birch bark gave off heavy soot).
Is it poisonous? Well, I am still alive, but that's anecdotal.
Yeah, I'm gonna need some evidence before I'll accept that you are alive.
Not an issue that it's an anecdote, but that n = 1. Try it a dozen or so more times on yourself or feed it to a few dozen other people and we can get some good stats.
I have been smoking meats for some time now (the really hard part is keeping the rib-eyes rolled up tight and lit). But seriously, I have yet to be poisoned by any bark from any of the wood I have used, and I have used them all. I have heard that there are some potential carcinogenic issues if you are constantly eating heavily smoked meat, but I do not have any facts to base that on. I think the primary issue with tree bark is that it will typically add a bad flavor to the meat and make it taste much more ashy and sooty (not very technical terms). Also, if you are in a competition, the bark tends to make much more smoke which can throw the look of your meat off when presenting as well.
Overall, I would say it is a best practice not to use the tree bark. However, I cannot say that it is due to specific health risks.
I have used bark on and bark off and I have never tasted any difference other than (of course) from the different types of wood. Also, I see loads of bark-on wood at most all of the smoke house/bbq restaurants around me and their stuff is fine. I think that if bark-on was any kind of health issue then they would be required by fda to remove the bark before using the wood.
Either way I don't believe it can be any worse for you than what you get in prepackaged foods from the grocery store.
In my humble opinion bark on or off shouldn't make any difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.587742
| 2015-06-10T14:43:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58137",
"authors": [
"Bob Wells",
"Earl Lord",
"Han W",
"Karen Newman",
"Nick T",
"Peggy Wiliams",
"Philip Holt",
"Shog9",
"a j",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86"
],
"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
}
|
116302
|
Sourdough pizza crust for wood-fired oven
I can consistently make a nice, well-blistered, chewy pizza crust in my wood-fired oven. My recipe is Caputo flour (the red bag), 60% hydration, 2.5% salt, 0.25% instant yeast; knead until smooth; form into balls; age at 9 C for four days.
I've tried to expand into sourdough, and I can't get satisfactory results. My best approach has been to use the starter (also at 60% hydration, doubled every day and kept at room temperature) for 1/4 of the dough volume. This produces a reasonably okay dough, but without much sour tang, and with less elasticity (difficult to keep the thickness consistent, and stretches out of shape when pulled onto the peel). I've also tried fermenting at 35 C initially and reducing the fermentation time, as well as a long ferment at 100% hydration and adding flour to bring it down to 60% hydration an hour before forming.
In all cases, whenever the dough develops significant sourness, it also becomes completely unworkable for forming and transferring to the oven floor. I assume that the acidity is simply destroying the gluten structure, which wouldn't be a big problem in a pan but is impractical for baking on the oven floor.
Any secret technique, for getting a pronounced sourdough taste in a pizza crust without it turning into goo?
For me, yeast behaves more predictably in this application than sour dough...and yes, I agree that acidity is a significant factor. Acidity is probably a main component of the flavor you are looking for, so that is working against you. Doesn't the 4 day rest impact flavor? Have you experienced a tasty and successful sourdough pizza anywhere? (I have not).
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53442/will-my-results-differ-when-using-a-sourdough-starter-vs-poolish-for-pizza-dough?rq=1
@moscafj The four day rest produces a reasonably nice flavor, but it’s not hugely distinct from the instant yeast with the same length ferment. I’ve definitely had great sourdough pizza, but it all came out of pans in a deck oven. The WFO factor seems to present unique problems.
@Sneftel WFO = wood fired oven?
@Stephie yes, that.
I have no answer on this one other than expecting less, the sourdough pizzas I've had were never super thin crust. The crusts were chewier, which is okay but may not be what you are looking for. Look at this for acidity and gluten: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43884/the-role-of-the-gluten-in-an-acid-environment
(Somewhat) chewy is fine, as long as I can still work with the stuff. I know I’ll never manage a crust with a sourdough taste which is identical to commercial yeast crust in all other respects. But the actually-sour sourdough crusts I’ve made have been literally unusable.
I’ve not used a wood fired oven so won’t attempt an answer. I do make sourdough pizza though. I note that your caputo flour seems to be on the lower side for gluten. I use a mix of flours including very strong Canadian bread flour. Perhaps experimenting with Caputo Manitoba Oro farina forte might help you. I can’t find a protein % for it but generally Manitoba =stronger.
OK, now I need to try making a sourdough pizza in my oven.
@FuzzyChef I do sourdough pizza in a domestic oven on a pizza stone, it comes out pretty well, although not the same as wood-fired. I use relatively high gluten canadian bread flour and semolina in a 7/1 mix and make a 65% hydration dough. My starter lives in the fridge and just gets replenishment feeds. My kitchen is rarely warmer than 18C so I mix the whole lot the night before, divide into balls and cover the next morning and bake in the evening. In the warmer months I might make the dough first thing in the morning and knead it briefly before dividing and covering for evening use.
@FuzzyChef FWIW, the pizza from the Cheese Board Collective in Berkeley, California is shockingly, hauntingly good, primarily thanks to its sourdough crust. They have a recipe book, if you don't already have too many cookbooks. (I assume you already have too many cookbooks.)
My 20-year-old sourdough culture originated from a CheeseBoard sample, so I'm familiar. I've done many sourdough pizzas in the regular oven, but I haven't tried making one in my pizza oven yet, or I'd have advice for the OP. Oh, and yeah -- 410 cookbooks, including the CheeseBoard one.
I have done some experimentation very similar to yours and ended up with the same observations. I also can confirm your assumption that the acidity breaks down the gluten is right. Creating a sourdough pizza with good taste that is still good to stretch is an art that is not easy to master but it can be done (though I have given up this path for me at least for now).
A 4-day rise at 9°C seems to be very long and warm to me, which probably also contributes to the transformation to goo.
I suspect that most folks doing sourdough pizza are maintaining their starters at rather warm conditions, which should result in a milder, more lievito madre (LM) like composition, which is more on the yeast/lacto-acidic side, than on the acetic. But given that you are striving for a pronounced sourdough taste, this also seems not to be the right approach for you. Maybe it is possible to use a regular yeast dough as base and work in sourdough for the tase just before the final ball rise.
Sorry, what’s ’LM’?
LM, means Lievito Madre, it is a mild italian sourdough made from wheat flour.
I have the same experience. Did you try using a preferment that is half yeast preferment and half sourdough preferment? It is a technique used in Tartine and I have had some promising results with this.
At the Bavarian bakery where I apprenticed long ago, sour doughs were only stretched and rolled tighly before proofing.
Mostly round wooden baskets, some batton shapes too, they were jiggled-hopped onto baking stone directly or via floured belt contraption.
They didn't like being flipped upside down.
I know because some that got too stuck in forms were gently inverted; those I got to eat. Bit compacted.
So, if you have a flat plate size form to proof in and a nice flick of the wrist... wouldn't be thin neopolitan but poking a few spots like foccacia may be worthwhile
The problem is, you can’t jiggle the dough into the baking surface in a wood-fired oven at pizza temperature. At that temperature, the basket might catch fire while you were doing it. As would your hands, while you were adding the toppings.
Ah. now I see what you’re getting at. The issue here is, pulling the dough into a uniformly thin circle is impractical once the dough has lost its stretchiness. It doesn’t really need to proof, but I can’t shape it in the first place in a way that keeps it transferable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.587971
| 2021-07-04T11:12:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116302",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"J. Mueller",
"Sneftel",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114453
|
If one tomato had molded, is the rest of the pack safe to eat?
Yesterday I bought a pack of cherry tomatoes and after arriving home I discovered that one of them had developed some impressive black mold (it was bigger than the tomato itself!). Of course, I tossed the offending tomato and the packaging, washed the remaining tomatoes and put them in a clean box. Now I'm hesitating though; are they safe to eat?
Yes - the mold is an indication that the spores have entered that tomato, but do not indicate any problems with others. Mold usually enters fruits like tomato through the stem site or damage to the skin. The bits you see outside the fruit are actually the fruiting bodies of the fungus (equivalent of the bit you eat on a mushroom - the rest is below the soil). These fruiting bodies produce tons of spores. You should use the others fairly quickly before any released spores have a chance to potentially start growing in them.
Edited to add:
The general advice would be to discard any fruit that are attached to the main one by the fungal body, wash the others well to remove any potential spores off them, dry well (wetness promotes fungal growth) and use within a short time frame.
The USDA has some good advice here - with thanks to SnakeDoc for finding this one.
Do you have any sources to support this claim? I couldn't find anything from a reliable source.
@Paula - how does this suit? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/moldy-fruit-okay-to-eat_n_59402f8ee4b003d5948b6f72
Wash the others more than you would normally, to make sure that you remove as much of the mold/spores as possible
@SnakeDoc no, not normally, however they consulted with a food safety person from the USDA on this one...
How about something from the USDA instead? https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a87cdc2c-6ddd-49f0-bd1f-393086742e68/Molds_on_Food.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
That USDA link didn't work for me; I found a link that recommends discarding tomatoes, although it doesn't specifically mention what to do with its neighbors https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/molds-food-are-they-dangerous
@StuartF - looks like the pdf has gone from that address. I'll update with the webpage link. The info has to be gleaned - there's a section "how should you handle food with mold on it" that says to check food nearby. Implying that nearby ones will be OK.
I once worked in grocery produce.
The skin offers a remarkably effective protective layer. I have opened crates of tomatoes where one has completely turned to mush, while every other tomato in the crate is pristine. Same for apples and pears and every other kind of fruit, really. Wash well and the rest are fine. This is standard practice commercially.
As an aside, as other several popular questions on this stack go into, most of the molds growing on fruit are harmless to humans anyway. You could probably just eat that rotten tomato, especially if you cooked it. Though I wouldn't really advise it.
Would the mold of fruits be the same as the one in bread? Because in the case it is, I want to state by experience that, regardless being "safe", expect to go to the toilet more often in the following 2 days
@M.K, no molds in bread are generally Penicillium, Cladosporium or Rhizopus. Tomato molds tend to be Alternaria or Botrytis.
I would upvote this, but ‘you could probably eat that rotten tomato’ comes across as speculation. Do you have anything to back that up?
I agree with @CannedMan. Molds often produce toxins. Some toxins are heat stable. I don't know what kind of toxins you would expect to find from molds on tomatoes, but that seems pretty risky to me.
I decided to add a downvote (to low rep for it to affect the current score) based on this (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a87cdc2c-6ddd-49f0-bd1f-393086742e68/Molds_on_Food.pdf?MOD=AJPERES):
‘Are Some Molds Dangerous? Yes, some molds cause allergic reactions and respiratory problems. And a few molds, in the right conditions, produce “mycotoxins,” poisonous substances that can make you sick.’ (My emphasis.) It doesn’t get more official than the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service.
@CannedMan I'm sorry you feel it's worthy of a downvote despite my disclaimer that I would not recommend doing such a thing. It is, of course, always best practice to discard any and all food with any signs of decay or spoilage. I always do so for anything served to another person. That said based purely on personal experience, being rather cavalier about it in my own kitchen with myself, it has never made me ill. The same USDA guide you mention shows relatively little concern with fruits and veggies after all -- trim away the affected area and consume. Now with meat, you toss it all.
Yes indeed - just remove the offending tomato and check the rest of the tomatoes for any sign of rot or mold. If you find any others with mold on them, remove them as well.
You throw away anything that has come into contact with mould. Why are you willing to risk your health over a 1.50$ packet of tomatoes? You cannot judge microbacterial growth by color or smell, you toss it as a matter of principle. Mould varies a tremendous amount. You do indeed get penicillin strains in some foods and then you also black mould that can kill you, you don't know which is which. I would not risk it
This is a topic that already has a lot of input from Quora: When one tomato gets moldy in the package, is it still safe to rinse off and eat the remaining tomatoes? Most of the 21 answers there says the rest of the tomatoes will be okay to eat, and I agree.
Also, as one answer puts it: "I see no problem what so ever, with a small amount of mold than can be trimmed. However, I go by smell. If there is an off odor. Toss it."
But of course, since yours is a cherry tomato, I doubt you will be able to trim the mold off; just throw that moldy one out, and don't forget to thoroughly rinse the rest of the cherry tomatoes out.
Strongly disagree with your second paragraph. The visible mold is NOT the main problem; the mold inside the fruit is.
@JoeM The second paragraph dign't say anything about disregarding mold on the inside...
I see no problem what so ever, with a small amount of mold than can be trimmed. You cannot just "trim the mold" (implied: the visible mold) in a tomato, because the mold will be, invisibly, throughout the tomato once it is inside it at all. Even a large tomato would need to be entirely thrown out, as the entire thing is contaminated. It is like an iceberg (the majority of it is underneath) - except an iceberg is visible under the water, while the mycelium is not even then. Note the USDA instructions in the (current) top answer.
@JoeM I don't know about you, but at my household, we've been trimming about an inch around mold as long as ever, and had no health issues. Why waste the good parts?
Because in a soft-fleshed fruit/veggie, there are no good parts. I'm glad you've not gotten sick, but the "trim one inch" is only applicable to hard fruits [and hard cheeses]; soft fruits/veggies, like tomatoes, are assumed to be entirely infested, and even if only part of it did have mycelium in it, the mycotoxins would easily spread in the liquid interior.
@AnastasiaZendaya Health effects are not always immediate and obvious. Some fungi produce mycotoxins that can e.g. affect kidney function or lead to cancer in the long run.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.588516
| 2021-02-23T07:09:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114453",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Canned Man",
"Dubu",
"Exasperation",
"Flydog57",
"Joe M",
"M.K",
"Paula",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stuart F",
"aswine",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91566"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115966
|
Season fried rice with soy and teryiaki sauce the first time you cook it?
I'm about to put some rice in the pressure cooker, then I will put in the fridge over night then fry in a wok and season with soy and teryiaki sauce.
I'm wondering how would it be different if I put it in now in the pressure cooker. Never seen anyone suggest it but I'm tempted to try with a test batch.
I at least wanted ask if anyone has tried this and how did it work out before I waste perfectly good rice for no reason though. :)
Adding sauces to the rice, in the cooker (regardless of method), will certainly impact the flavor of the rice. However, the fried rice of many (if not all) cultures, benefits from searing in a high-heat pan. Not only does this searing impact the flavor of the rice and other add-ins, but the sauces as well. So, flavoring the rice first might be delicious, but you might also miss out on the impact of caramelization, which takes place during the final cook step. It also makes it difficult to taste and adjust seasoning.
I would still fry it actually. But my thought is it would be much easier to mix the seasoning in well without spilling the rice all over my stove as I often end up doing.
Rice cooks well in a pressure cooker, in fact rather than using overnight rice I quite often follow an adaptation of this video (https://youtu.be/vvYUYiEW1Uw) for a very quick fried rice:
Cook white basmati rice in pressure cooker for 3 minutes at the ratio of 2 cups of rice to 2 cups of water. Let the pressure release naturally, which takes around 5 minutes. Decant the rice into a large bowl, preferably metal.
Separate the rice gently with a fork while the grains are still steaming. Add 1 tbsp light soy sauce and stir through until all the grains are evenly coated. Repeat with 1 tbsp dark soy sauce and 1 tbsp of sesame oil.
By this stage, the rice will have become separate and almost cool. Leave until totally cooled off and use as you would overnight rice.
I have tried this with an electric pressure cooker, and the results have been excellent. The rice grains are separate, and as it is very slightly undercooked, by the time it has been fried in the wok the consistency is perfect. The metal bowl helps in rapidly cooling the rice, but you could achieve the same result spreading the rice on a baking sheet.
I don't know what the times would be for a regular stovetop pressure cooker, you may have to experiment with that as the pressure differs between those and electric models. You might need to reduce the pressure time by 30 seconds or more, you know when you have it right as the rice is cooked through but doesn't stick to the bottom of the pan.
Note: It is essential to meet the minimum quantities as specified for your pressure cooker. My pressure cooker works OK with 4 US cups total volume.
I think you've misunderstood the focus of the question; the OP is asking about the effect of flavouring the rice when first cooking it rather than when frying it. You do mention flavouring briefly in part 2 but I think the OP is wondering about adding the sauces to the pressure cooker.
@dbmag9 Correct, but this is also helpful and another option of which I had not though.
@Greybeard I have an Instant Pot. Whatever other ancient ways of pressure cooking you are referring to, I am not familiar with them. :)
@BVernon, Instant Pot will work with the measurements I suggested. Some PC's are really fussy about minimum quantities. Mine (an IP clone) will not work below 4 cups.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.589211
| 2021-06-08T02:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115966",
"authors": [
"BVernon",
"Greybeard",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77047"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115555
|
Why it is not recommended to mix the milk of different days?
A vendor supplies a half liter of milk daily. Some times, due to variety of reasons, I arrive at a situation that I need to handle milk of 3 consecutive days i.e., 1.5 liter.
Elder and experienced members of my family asks me to deal each 1/2 liter of milk differently. But, they fail in providing a valid reason for not mixing them.
Is there any issue with mixing milk of different days and use them for my purposes?
Note that the milk is not too old. All the individual milks are edible.
Even when kept refrigerated, milk gradually spoils due to micro organisms. In case the first day's milk was on the threshold of spoiling, you are effectively bringing the third days milk also to that condition by mixing it with the first day's milk (which by now may have significant amount of microorganisms).
First day's milk bottle/vessel might have been retrived from the fridge, opened, and kept at room temperature (very short durations), and kept back multiple times by the time the third day's milk arrives. This gives microorganisms opportunity to enter and multiply even if the original milk was Pasteurized and sealed airtight in a sterile packaging.
In fact, curd is propagated by mixing fresh milk with leftover curd. Same with sourdough starter.
Elder members might be basing this caution, on a time when refrigeration and sterile packaging of milk might not have been common.
People also suggest not directly breaking eggs into a common vessel just in case one of them turned out to be bad. You would then have to discard everything in the vessel. It is suggested to break eggs one by one into a separate bowl, inspect, and then add to the common vessel.
And, if you take your three-day-old milk and mix it into your one-day-old milk, then two days later you mix your three day-old-milk with your new one-day-old milk, you've now turned your day-old into five-day-old milk.
I reckon @nick012000's point is the true answer. If you mix just before consumption (or just before cooking if you're cooking it) there will be no problem
Seconding Chris H's point: you shouldn't consolidate your milks into I've container, but mixing them in your bowl of cereal or recipe shouldn't be a problem if they are individually fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.589522
| 2021-05-07T04:26:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115555",
"authors": [
"AJN",
"Chris H",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104466
|
Quantity of rapid rise yeast vs regular yeast in bread machine
How much instant, rapid rise yeast should I use when my bread machine recipe calls for 1 1/2 teaspoons of regular dry yeast?
Google returned this link with the following conversion:
"...1 tsp Active Dry = 2/3 tsp Instant (100% Active Dry = 66% Instant)
1 tsp Instant = 1 1/2 tsp Active Dry (100% Instant = 150% Active Dry)
You can substitute one for the other in any recipe. Remember that active dry must be dissolved in a small amount of lukewarm water before you use it...."
I'm pretty sure that's marked on the side of many yeast containers, too.
I'm pretty sure that the rapid rise yeast is just active dry yeast mixed with vitamin C, lecithin (or something similar) and maybe some salts and other trace items and possibly extra gluten. These extra ingredients are known as "bread improver" or "dough conditioner" and make your yeast grow faster as well as improving gluten structure. Despite Max's assertion, active dry yeast does not need to be dissolved before use - I have several recipes for hand made, and all my machine made, that use it undissolved.
Bread machine, instant and rapid rise yeasts are just ground finer than active yeast. This make the yeast have quicker action. Nothing is added unless it states it on the package. I have never seen anything added to any yeasts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.589719
| 2019-12-31T21:59:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104466",
"authors": [
"Catherine Ann Walkley",
"Rob",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104862
|
What are food additives that help popsicles/shaved ice melt slower?
What are food additives that help popsicles/shaved ice melt slower?
Simple popsicle ingredients: water, sugar, flavoring
I used agar agar and gelatin before, but don’t want to: The texture is not the same, it feels like icy flakes, not like fluffy snow.
Did you know that you can always [edit] your own posts? It’s better to add the details right there, comments are temporary by design. I am doing the edit for you now, for your convenience. If you haven’t had the chance, the [tour] and the [help] are great places to learn more about how the site works.
Alcohol has a lower freezing point, so may help, but that might not be acceptable depending on who you are serving to!
@GdD : wouldn't the lower freezing point of alcohol mean that it'd also melt at a lower temperature?
You could experiment with decreasing the sugar...higher sugar means quicker melting. However, if you want to eliminate all melting, you could try making a fluid gel using low acyl gellan (typically 0.5% to 1.25%...so, it doesn't take much). Then freeze that. It is more freeze/thaw stable than agar.
The gums would probably give you a more chewy texture....xanthan, perhaps more slimy.
Agar agar and gelatin are options, but as you said, you don't want to use them because they change the texture of your popsicles.
Here is a suggestion that would technically slow down the melting process of your popsicles, but the differences might be too negligible to notice:
Instead of an additive, how about removing an ingredient (air) instead? Freeze your popsicles slowly (at around 0 degrees Celsius), to minimize the amount of air trapped inside them. It also ensures larger crystals within the popsicles, as opposed to tiny crystals. Then freeze at the lowest possible temperature to ensure they stay colder longer.
Maybe not "the lowest possible temperature". In high school, I had an acquaintance who thought it would be a good idea to make popsicles with vodka and liquid nitrogen. This... did not end well.
You won't believe me, but.... watermelon. Watermelon chunks take 6 hours or longer to thaw out. Logic would suggest that it would delay the melting point of a basic homemade Popsicle as well. Plus, it provides that soft-mush texture that the manufacturers have mastered. And, of course, real added nutrition. Yep, watermelon does all that.
Most plant/animal tissue is slow to thaw, because the cellular structure retards heat conduction. But that benefit would presumably be lost if the watermelon was juiced or puréed. Are you saying that that doesn’t happen, that watermelon juice/mush is somehow significantly slower to thaw than other fruit juice/mush? Or are you saying, instead of making popsicles the OP should just freeze watermelon slices?
@Sneftel While frozen watermelon slices sound like they might be tasty, I am suggesting that the watermelon be mushed (food processor, immersion blender, etc.) and added to the other popsicle ingredients. The "mush" would still contain all of the plant fiber, which would provide the correct texture changes and slow the thawing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.589857
| 2020-01-20T17:47:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104862",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Xander Henderson",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64382
|
Other ‘hot’ spices?
The restaurant assured me that there was no “chilli” in the food, but it was still too hot for me. What other spices, etc. can cause the heat effect in the mouth?
It was a Sri Lankan restaurant, very reputable. My host had mistakenly told the waiter that I was allergic to chilli – in fact I have Lichen planus, which means I am super-sensitive to anything hot or spicy.
What cuisine was it?
I have to agree with @GdD on this one. If you can tell us what kind of cuisine you are dealing with and perhaps, if possible, what the dish was, or at least a description. Otherwise, we may just be giving you a long list of "hot" ingredients.
I've used cinnamon for heat, but I don't know the science behind it
It's still a good question in general, but it might be that in your case there was just a miscommunication and there was some sort of normal hot ingredient.
it was Sri Lankan and a very reputav
If it was a Sri Lankan or other central Asian type of place, "no chilli" can often mean that they won't add additional (usually green) chillies to the dish during cooking. The gravy base will probably still contain heat from chilli powder (or cayenne pepper, depending on what you call it in your corner of the world).
Spicy? Some people can't handle highly spiced food in general - like cumin, tumeric, garlic, etc. But these spices aren't hot.
Could be ground coriander seeds as well - I do not see this in other answers and I wonder why...
When I visited sri lanka We asked for mild and still needed milk or yogurt to be able to eat the food, and we got our tolerances quite high knowing what sri lankan food was like.
"Hotness" is a quite vague description which can be caused by a number of chemical compounds and is percieved by various receptors.
Chili peppers (capsicum) contain the alkaloid capsaicin. If your restaurant insisted that there were no chilis included, there is a slight possibility that they used it under another name (ethnic restaurants or other regions of the world come to mind) e.g. "pereroni" or "paprika".
(Not that I am implying anything here!)
Black pepper (piper nigrum) and long pepper contains another alkaloid, the piperine, which gives the seeds their hotness.
Ginger contains gingerol, which is chemically similar to capsicain and piperine and can be very hot, especially in dried ginger, which loses a lot of the lemony-freshness and gains hotness due to chemical processes that change gingerol into shoagol, which is about twice as "hot". Shoagol has about 160,000 SHU on the scoville scale - more than piperine, less that capsicain.
Sichuan pepper (no relative despite the name) creates a less-hot-more-numb-to-tingling feeling.
Mustard and horseradish (and to a lesser extent radishes, cress and other cruciferous plants / brassicaceae) contain glucosinolates, which we percieve as pungent, sharp or hot. An extreme example for glucosinolate-hotness is wasabi.
Raw garlic and raw onions contain allicin (or, in onions, isoalliin) that has a sharp/biting/hot taste and which contributes to the percieved hotness of fresh garlic and the teary-eyed effect when chopping onions. Interesting fact: Allicin binds both to the receptors that percieve the capsicain-hotness and those for mustard-hotness.
Cinnamon contains an aromatic essential oil with cinnamaldehyde as main component. The essential oil is very hot, hence cinnamon can taste very hot, especially in "generous" doses.
Any radish, horse or not, to varying degrees... And grossly oversalted/metallic/bitter things can be sometimes mistaken for spicy (pain receptors ;)
Even vinegar can seem "hot" if there's a lot of it.
Even sweet pepper seeds can be hot sometimes. Not bell pepper, but sweet pepper.
Raw cauliflower can also produce a slight "heat" if you eat a large amount.
Probably worth mentioning more clearly that 'hotness' is often just pain receptors in the tongue. I'm betting concentrated sulphuric acid would taste 'hot', but strongly recommend no one tries to find out one way or another.
Cassia is often confused with true Cinnamon. Cassia is the predominant flavor of 'red hots' candies. Unlike Cassia, true Cinnamon ( which is less common in the US) has floral notes, with little to no 'hot' aspect.
@JS. Both cassia (Cinnamomum cassia) and true cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) contain cinnamaldehyde, the "hot" element.
The first that come to mind are mustard seeds (white, yellow and black, the last the most pungent), peppercorns (all colors), ginger and horseradish.
All of them provide hotness to some extent, albeit a different hotness than the one provided by chili's. Just think about the intensity of wasabi to give you an idea of how "hot" it can get.
Turns out wasabi is actually a root, (I thought it was a paste of several ingredients, you learn something new everyday).
So add wasabi to the list of ingredients.
Just keep in mind that wasabi can only grown in one place. What you get in the Japanese cuisine is usually colored horse radish. Real wasabi is very expensive.
@Escoce It's not true that wasabi can only be grown in one place. For example, there's a commercial wasabi grower in England.
If I go to a local sushi place, then the "wasabi" I get is a paste of several ingredients without any relation to the wasabi root.
@Peteris: That's why I'm getting at sushi places too ;) Thought it was some combination of horseradish, a mustardy substance, and green, which, most likely, it is. :)
Galangal has an interesting heat to it. You can buy it fresh or dried at Chinese or Vietnamese grocery stores.
All four species of galangal are in the Ginger family, so expect similar, yet distinctly different tastes. Fresh is hotter and fuller than dried.
Ground cumin can be quite hot. It is used in Mexican and Asian cuisines, though I usually see chili peppers in the dish as well.
I disagree with you @RossMilikan, I've had cumin varieties from all over and not one of them has tasted hot. Cumin is very often paired with chili powder or mustard or some other thing that is hot, but it is not hot in itself.
@GdD: I buy cumin both whole and ground. The whole is not hot at all, even if I grind it, but I find the already ground has a bite.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.590160
| 2015-12-14T13:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64382",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charles Koppelman",
"Danelle Widdis",
"David Korman",
"David Shirley",
"Escoce",
"GdD",
"J...",
"JS.",
"JTL",
"Marcia Shives",
"Michael Shaw",
"Mike Scott",
"Nettie Derkach",
"P. J.",
"Peteris",
"Raechele Youngblood",
"Ross Millikan",
"Shelley Spehn",
"Shirley Roemmich",
"Stephie",
"WendyG",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Yasmin Tomane",
"abligh",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"jane bowden",
"juthi ravindraprasad",
"rackandboneman",
"user70848"
],
"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
}
|
85365
|
pizza with baking soda instead of yeast
I have a friend who is allergic to yeast so I'm looking for a way to make a pizza dough with baking powder instead of it.
Should I add a bit of lemon juice to counteract the baking soda?
Chickpea (garbanzo bean flour) Crust Pizza might be a suitable answer here: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/chickpea-crust-pizza-3414814 No yeast, no baking soda needed. I've made it. It's reasonably good.
As an alternative, there are quite a number of traditional Italian flatbreads which contain no yeast or baking soda ... the just rely on blistering of the dough. The cookbook "Savory Baking of the Meditteranean" has a couple recipes for these.
You can make yeast free pizza base using baking powder, it will be a bit crumbly, but it works fine. You could use baking soda, but then as you state you need acid to react with it. Using lemon juice is an option but I would recommend against it as you don't know the exact amount of acidity you'll get and your crust will taste lemony which you don't want. Go get some baking powder instead and use about 3/4 tsp of powder per cup of flour.
You'll want to knead your dough to develop the gluten, otherwise the base will just fall apart.
The problem is that I can't find baking powder here.I've found something with : E 450, E 500, Reismehl, Maisstärke.
Where are you @maugch?
I should also add that the person I mentioned gave me the baking soda, so I don't really want to give it back and say that's better to throw it away.
germany temporarily
You should be able to find baking powder in Germany no problem, I suggest you edit your question to include what it's called and how to find it as there are locals on this site who can answer. You could use cream of tartar as an acidity agent if baking powder is unavailable, it's E336.
@maugch Baking powder is called Backpulver in Germany, and if I remember correctly usually comes in orange packets.
@maugch should be available in every supermarket, typically in the „baking ingredients“ isle. You want to search for „Backpulver“ and note that it is usually sold in little sachets, often as a pack of five or so. The „name brands are for example „Dr. Oetker“ or „Ruf“, but there are often also store brands available, e.g. Aldi will probably sell only its own brand.
I will give it a try. How much kneading? I'm used to knead for 15-20min with yeast.
@maugch and the stuff with E450, E500 and starches is exactly what baking powder is: a source of CO2 (baking soda, NaHCO3, the E500) plus an acid (E450). The starches are to keep the rest dry and prevent clumping.
Kneading is not about time @maugch, but result. 15-20 minutes is a lot to me, but it depends a lot on your technique. You want the dough to be stretchy and elastic, that may take 5 minutes, it could take 20.
thanks everyone! I will give it a try. I have to give her back all her backing soda then
+1. My daughter and I made some mini pizzas from a recipe in a kids' book that turned out to use a soda-bread base and they worked very well. They didn't seem crumbly. 200g flour, 2tsp baking powder, 1tbsp olive oil, 120ml water kneaded for 2 mins and rolled to 5mm. I was out of baking powder at the time and made some up from baking soda (1/3) and cream of tartar (2/3).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.590736
| 2017-11-01T10:22:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85365",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"maugch",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
49956
|
How can I stabilize a berry coulis?
I made a coulis from fresh blackberries by simply using a fork and sieve. I did not cook, neither added sugar to the final juice. The creamy coulis had beautiful color and texture, however it clearly separated into a watery phase and a more granular phase. How can make the coulis a stable substance which works well for decorating a plate?
So are you just mashing blackberries through a sieve? Are you cooking the blackberries with some sugar first? Are you blending them before forcing them through the sieve?
What is your expectation of a coulis? Where I live, coulis is just a fancy word for mash or purée. Using a fork and sieve like you have done, I would rather expect to get a blackberry juice.
Xanthan gum if you don't want to modify the flavour.
Or
Boil in heavy sugar syrup if you don't mind sweetening the sauce significantly.
Personally I'd do both, I imagine what you've created it BlackBerry juice without much flavour. I'd first start by boiling the berries in some sugar untill much of the water had evaporated and tasted exactly how I wanted (intense BlackBerry flavour) then if it required use a little xanthan gum to get the right consistency.
For a classical fruit coulis, the preferred method of thickening is fruit pectin instead of something like xanthan gum. But usually there is sufficient pectin in the skins of the fruit which is why I asked for clarification about blending them before sieving them.
The problem with pectin is the need for heat. Which changes the flavour of your sauce. Just depends on what flavour you want in the end. One of my fave gels is strawberry and lime, I make it from seived strawberry and lime juice with a pinch of sugar. Thickened with xanthan gum. No heat at all which retains the beautiful summertime flavour but useable as a plate decoration instead of a puddle of water. If I used the traditional pectin way it would be sweet and have jam flavour properties which isn't always preferable. Like I said, it all depends on what is required flavour wise.
I would argue that a "classical" fruit coulis is prepared by cooking fruit with sugar to form a sweetened fruit reduction that is strained. I used that terminology to separate what I was referring to from a sweetened fruit purée. I offered that as a recommendation in the absence of clarification from the original poster. In a cooked classical fruit coulis, the pectin from mashed pectin-containing fruit like blackberries contributes to the desirable consistency in the reduction so additional pectin is rarely necessary.
I think this discussion has stemmed from the OPs lack of information, context and follow up. I agree you are right with you expectations of a classic I was addressing the fact he described something more of a water than puree. Never mind can't imagine we will actually hear back from the questioner...
Thank you Doug! I tried mixing the juice with a 50% sugar syrup (100ml water + 50 grams of sugar), and the result was very satisfactory in texture, however too sweet for my taste. I will try the Xantham gum. I agree with @StephenEure, I didn't make a coulis, just a juice, sorry for the confusion.
That is exactly what I meant :-) get the flavour the way you want then thicken with xanthan gum as it won't change the flavour in any way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.591022
| 2014-11-21T08:27:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49956",
"authors": [
"Denise Richardson",
"Doug",
"Doug Nolte",
"H.Scheidl",
"Kenneth Scheinberg",
"Sandy Iannotta",
"Stephen Eure",
"Steven Conrad",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"Vikki Miles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57683
|
Pickling Frozen Fish
As someone with few opportunities to spend a lot of time in the kitchen, I try to do as much preparatory work as possible on my day off and then just have things I can throw together and stick in the oven/pan/microwave when I'm ready to eat. I'm also trying to up my consumption of fish, so I've got some bags of frozen sardines in my freezer at the moment, and I want to do something with a bit more flair than thawing them the day-of and then sticking them in the oven.
I have interest in pickling the tasty little buggers whole in a mason jar--for small fish, I'm a fan of eating the whole thing, guts included--and pulling them out for a quick roast in the oven on the day I intend to eat them. I have three questions.
1) Is there any reason frozen fish would not be suitable for pickling after thawing?
2) How long could I expect them to last if pickled? Really, I only need them to stay safe for 1 week.
3) Any suggestions you fine folks may have for flavorings.
Cheers.
I have no personal experience, so I can only say what I've found on the web:
There's a guide to pickling fish on the University of Minnesota website:
Pickling is an easy method of preserving fish. Pickled fish must be stored in the refrigerator at no higher than 40° F (refrigerator temperature), and for best flavor must be used within four to six weeks. Only a few species of fish are preserved commercially by pickling, but almost any type of fish may be pickled at home. Refrigerate the fish during all stages of the pickling process.
Ingredients for Pickled Fish
Fish — Use only fresh, high quality fish.
Water — Avoid hard water, as it causes off color and flavors.
Vinegar — Use distilled, white vinegar with an acetic acid content of at least 5 percent (50 grains means the same thing). This percentage of acetic acid is needed to stop bacterial growth.
Salt — Use high grade, pure canning or pickling salt. It does not contain calcium or magnesium compounds which may cause off color and flavors in pickled fish.
Spices
(Emphasis added as it relates to your questions)
From the above, it sounds like you've got a good window for pickling, 4-6 weeks, which is much longer than your one week need... though it will likely take a few days for them to get pickled.
As to the frozen fish question, I guess it depends on if you can guarantee your fish is high-quality... the article says to use "high quality fresh fish", which sounds like you might have an issue, though their page that discusses more directly the method of pickling fish, lists freezing them below 0 F (-18 C) as a method to kill tapeworms that may be present in the fish:
Or, if you are pickling raw fish, freeze it at 0° F for 48 hours prior to brining. Either method kills the parasite.
This page from an Alaskan source says that frozen fish is fine as long as it's thawed and they recommend brining to kill parasites.
Before you can properly pickle fish, it must be properly brined to draw out water to firm up the fish and to kill any excess creatures that might be living in the meat. The brining must be done at temperatures below 38 F (3.3 C) for an added measure of safety. This means you can either clear out a large space in your fridge or use the great outdoors of Seward’s Ice Box like we do.
Ingredients:
Fish fillets, defrosted (if using frozen), skin on
White vinegar
Pickling (non-iodized) salt
Water
A cool place below 38 F (3.3 C) – fridge or the great outdoors
As to recipe suggestions, that's actually out of our scope of discussion but there are tons of recipes out there on the web including some in the links I've included here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.591410
| 2015-05-21T22:07:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57683",
"authors": [
"Alan Owen",
"Rick Muller",
"Sean Colleran",
"arthur jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137282",
"ryanball34yahoocom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79727
|
Squeezing as much liquid as possible out of a stock: a practical approach?
When making stock at home (i.e. with a combination of chicken parts and vegetables), I am often at a loss for how to get the last bits of liquid out of the stock. I often use a mesh strainer, but this doesn't let me apply force to squeeze the liquid out of all the vegetables.
I'm making homestyle stock, so I'm not interested in coagulating proteins or making the stock as clear as possible (e.g. What's the best way to strain stock?) Instead, I'm interested in extracting every last bit of liquid for use later.
What's a practical way, using items that would normally be found in my kitchen, to squeeze my stock remnants as much as possible? I'm imagining something that actually resembles juicing a fruit. Currently I pour the stock into a colander and press on the top with a wide bowl, but I'm worried about breaking the colander and think I could do better.
Possible approaches I've considered, that aren't optimal:
Filling this 'milk bag' and twisting it. I'm be afraid of ripping the bag by twisting it too hard.
Using a potato ricer. But it would take forever to process a large pot of stock this way.
Not difficult at all if you truly want to get every possible last drop. Choose a large clean tea towel for this purpose only. After you've drained most of the liquids out, line your colander with the tea towel and pour the last bit with meat and vegetables in. I found using clothespins to the towel in place is best. Gather the corners up and you can either use a heavy thick elastic to secure the contents into a bagged ball or use heavy twine tied around it. I prefer twine. Less risk of breaking and you've got a long end to hang the ball.
I've done similar but not with soup stock as I always use meat with bones. If you tie one end of the twine up (on a cupboard door handle, for instance),you can put a bowl under it to catch the stock. Start at the top of the ball so when you squeeze, ut runs down lower. Work your way to the bottom. I doubt you'll be able to extract much more after that.
Make sure you scrape the remains off the tea towel right afterward and rinse off any bits left on. Then rinse well and include in the laundry. Otherwise, it's just about impossible to clean later. I know as I got busy with other things and forgot.
i would use a cheesecloth (very inexpensive and available at grocery stores or Amazon) to hold the vegetables, etc. Place a rack (maybe a cookie-cooling rack) over a lipped pan like a broiler pan, and then press the veggie-filled cheesecloth against the rack using a cutting board, a rolling pin, or whatever.
i'm not familiar with the milk bag you mentioned, but maybe you could follow my suggestion using that instead of the cheesecloth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.591702
| 2017-04-07T22:01:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79727",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104983
|
Putting freeze dried strawberry into my soft cookies,the texture is more like cake -how to make it more chewy
I love strawberry cheesecake and soft cookies, so I created a recipe and added a large amount of strawberry powder (made by putting freeze-dried strawberries into a grinder).
I have tried two recipes. Both have the same ingredients except the flour.
Recipe A: I used all purpose flour. It results in cakey soft cookies; the texture is not smooth and not gooey/chewy. They can break quite easily.
Recipe B: I used bread flour. It results in a better texture, more dense and smooth but still cakey and not gooey/chewy. However, while they are great right after taking them out of the oven or not long after putting them in the fridge, they become too soft after taking them out of the fridge for a long time.
Could you please advise how to make this more like soft/chewy and gooey cookie? I have tried changing ingredients a few times, but it turns out worse. For example, I use 2.5 g baking soda instead of 5 g baking powder, and it resulted in a less breakable yet more cakey and dry cookie. I mixed bread flour with all purpose flour and it resulted in a less smooth texture. I tried baking them longer but it resulted in a dense and cakey cookie.
I don't want to decrease or change the amount of freeze dried strawberry and sugar because the taste right now is perfect. Everyone around me loves the taste, the problem is the texture.
Updates: here is the update of recipe that I tried and it works! Pls see below
Is this a recipe which you manage to get chewy without the strawberry powder, or is the problem already present if you bake plain cookies? If you have a problem with cakey cookies in general, you first have to solve that using the generic techniques. Only if you know that you can get the perfect texture with plain cookies does it make sense to look for specific solutions to counteract the strawberry effect.
mama55, I see that you've edited in that you solved your problem, but I don't see any recipe below. Something may have gone wrong with the editing process. For future users, could you possibly chime in with what you changed? Thanks!
I believe that by cooking the dry strawberry powder in your cookie mixture, you are inadvertently rehydrating the strawberry substance with the small amount of liquid available within your mixture, primarily from the butter. This isn't necessarily an issue, but like you noticed it does mean that you have less liquid for the rest of the cookie to make use of, resulting in relative dryness, denseness, and graininess.
Rather than decreasing another ingredient, I believe increasing the butter by about 65g (a similar ratio as what you have between flour:butter) may help with your list of issues.
This does give you a significantly high butter:flour ratio, which may cause your cookies to soften too much, but I believe that the extra, slightly absorbent material added by the strawberry powder ought to bring things a bit more in-line with your expectations.
If you're feeling a bit more cautious, you could try adding only 38g of additional butter, such that in the absolute worst-case scenario you only have a 1:1 flour:butter ratio for your cookies, which is still within relatively normal expectations, albeit a much thinner cookie, but will hopefully normalize out with the strawberry powder.
Best of luck with the cookies, and I hope you let us know how it goes! I love strawberry. :)
Thank you very muchhh I will try :))) and will let u know
have tried 2 experiments right now.
I added more 50 grams of cream cheese: the result is- my cookie shape is better, not too soft/breakable. However, it becomes more cakey and less dense
2.I added more 30 grams of cream cheese and 35 grams of butter: the result is- my cookie shape is better, not too soft/breakable. However, it becomes more cakey and even less dense than the first experiment.
I will try adding only 38 grams of butter or creamcheese and will update. If you have any suggestion, please let me know.
@mama55 I'm curious, why are you suddenly adding cream cheese? I would strongly suggest increasing the butter as suggested here, it's more likely to be absorbed by the strawberry powder.
Hi I tried adding 38 g of butter last night. It results in even more cakey and less firm cookies- not chewy at all.
@mama55 I'm afraid I may have misunderstood your question in that case, but if the additional butter is not normalizing your recipe, might I recommend checking out this other question? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-can-i-get-chewy-chocolate-chip-cookies
I did an experiment with chocolate chip cookies at one point very similar to this, have you tried subbing out the butter for margarine? If you want a crispier cookie, butter is the way to go, however, margarine leads to a softer, chewier cookie in my experience. I agree with Onyz that you’ll most likely need to increase either the butter/margarine or other liquids in the batter to combat the strawberries becoming rehydrated too, so I would suggest their measurements for increasing the fat to flour ratio. Hope this helps!
Thank you very muchhh I will try adding more butter :))) and will let u know
I have tried 2 experiments right now.
I added more 50 grams of cream cheese: the result is- my cookie shape is better, not too soft/breakable. However, it becomes more cakey and less dense
2.I added more 30 grams of cream cheese and 35 grams of butter: the result is- my cookie shape is better, not too soft/breakable. However, it becomes more cakey and even less dense than the first experiment.
I will try adding only 38 grams of butter or creamcheese and will update. If you have any suggestion, please let me know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.591946
| 2020-01-27T14:47:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104983",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Onyz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80803",
"mama55",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73209
|
Where in Pakistan can I buy a kettle BBQ?
I soon will be traveling to Pakistan and I want to do lots of BBQs there.
First I thought about taking a BBQ with me as you can see in the picture:
But seems like it will be difficult to take it with me, and it might damage in transition.
Question
Is there any online/offline place I could buy such a kettle BBQ in Pakistan (Islamabad/Rawalpindi around to be exact).
It would be a bonus to know the price as well.
You can buy it online. Here's a decent one. Here are cheaper ones from the same site. Here's another site with some smaller options.
When we discussed this in chat you told me that you'll be staying with your uncle. The advantage of buying it online is that you can have it shipped to your uncle's address so that it's there even before you arrive. You'll be all ready to fire up the corncobs on the very first day.
Amazon India has the hands down best selection, and if they don't ship to Pakistan you can use this service to get it delivered. But do be wary of potential customs fees and extended delivery time if you go this route.
You might have to ask your uncle to use one of his payment cards (in case some of these vendors don't accept foreign cards.)
Wow, thanks for this post! I’ll make sure to look into this more!
Most any larger market. Buy 1 large wok, 2 racks to go inside, 1 large lid to go on top. Stop at 1 machine shop. 1 sand box. set on table. You now have a Asian grill. Or you can find the open tray type. Thin & cheap. Or the larger malls look for Ace hardware, Handy Andy, True value. Yes there are some in most larger Asian cities. They normally have 1 or 2 to choose from. They will not be cheap there. I would go with the large wok they last for years, racks can be replaced cheap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.592319
| 2016-08-16T12:56:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73209",
"authors": [
"Gul Ahmed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54213
|
How to keep dust and cat hair off cast iron pans?
I live with three long haired cats that shed in the winter, and my place gets dusty at times too. I have a fairly new cast iron skillet that I use once every one or two days. I don't have any shelves in the kitchen big enough to store it so I have to hang it.
There's always cat hair and stuff stuck to it because I store it in the open. So then I have to clean it which is making seasoning difficult.
How can I store this pan in a way that is both convenient and protects it from the environment? I have found covering it in foil to be somewhat effective but tedious and not perfect, and also wastes a lot of foil. Plastic is difficult because I have to let it cool, although if the oven is off I can let it cool in there. I can't really store it in the oven because I use the oven often. The design of my house makes it impossible to keep cat hair and dust out of the kitchen.
I also don't understand the physics and chemistry behind how the seasoning layers develop so I'm not sure what storage techniques are bad for the condition and "development" of the pan.
Is there a good way to store it that keeps it clean and in good condition?
my tag line for a recipe site is 'only animal ingredient in my kitchen is cat hair' so I sympathize. Now my Hepa air filter makes a huuuge difference
First off, cleaning isn't necessarily bad for seasoning. "Soap removes seasoning" is largely a myth; Serious Eats discusses this at length. The seasoning is actually a polymer chemically bonded to the iron, not just something coating the outside that will easily wash off, so anything that isn't able to remove the iron shouldn't remove it. Certainly a light wipe with a wet or soapy cloth is perfectly fine.
Second, a few options you might consider:
If you're hanging it on the wall, hang it so the main part of the pan faces the wall. This will mean less stuff gets on it (and more gets on the bottom, which is irrelevant).
If you crochet or knit, or know someone who does, make a cast iron pan cover. I know a friend who did this. You can make it out of a relatively heat-resistant yarn, so that it isn't damaged by the pan being warm. You might also be able to reuse an old sweater, as long as you confirm the fabric is something that can stand up to the heat (100% cotton is probably best since it's hard to say what different polyesters will do).
While the pan cools from your seasoning, keep it in the oven, or turn it upside down. That way it can be cooler before you cover it.
Buy enamelware. Maybe cast iron isn't the best idea in a long-hair cat household.
Before using the pan, heat it up a lot (20 minutes or so in the oven or over high heat). Then brush off whatever is on it (carefully). This will remove the cat hair effectively without risking any damage to the seasoning.
Wow thanks for that article; I fell victim to almost all of those myths. I'm going to turn it upside down while it's cooling, I can't make it face the wall (it's hanging above a counter between kitchen and living room) but I'm going to make a cover for it (I work with kevlar a lot and have a ton of scrap here which will be perfect; maybe a nice washable one with a zipper) and give it a quick wipe with a sponge before I use it, sounds like that will do the trick. That article gave some other great advice too. Thanks!
Yes, every time I hear or read the but soap will hurt the seasoning, I find myself asking them then why is it SO HARD to clean an oven or toaster or anything else that has baked on grease? I use my cast iron equipment every day, and I wash it everyday with soap. To be quite frank, I also use a green scrubby (scotchbrite) when cleaning my cast iron, it keeps the bottom of the pan baby smooth by continually knocking the tops off the seasoning which I then keep replenished when I heat the pan to dry and re-oil.
This is a bit "out there" and it won't be pretty, but it might be really functional. How about one of those throw away shower caps, like hotels sometimes give away?
I was going to suggest that too. Every time I go to a hotel I always take the shower cap as they are great for covering things. I use them when proofing bread for example.
They're handy. I use one on my smoke detector when I sear steak. Works a charm!
I will have to remember that trick!
don't use plastic to cover your cast iron, it will trap humidity which will cause spot rusting.
How about a plastic or paper bag once it is completely cool.
Paper's not a bad idea at all, I'm going to try that while I'm working on making a more proper cover. Good use of all these paper grocery bags I have stuffed under the sink.
Paper bag is better than plastic. Plastic will hold in humidity which will cause the cast iron to spot rust.
I keep mine in the oven. Works like a charm.
I bought shelf liner (non sticking), turned the pan upside down and traced the pattern of the pan to about 1-2 inches larger and placed it in the cooled bottom of the pans. I have not had any problems of rusting ever.
This is a great tip - but doesn't directly address the OP's question about dust and cat hair. While, you can infer a solution from your post it doesn't answer the question. Otherwise, welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Definitely a nice tip, though!
This was going to be my suggestion. It makes sense. You can put the paper on while the pan is hot.
My family has always had cats and always used cast iron skillets. We "dry" them by placing on a low flame stove burner and store them in the oven...gas oven that is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.592824
| 2015-01-31T04:08:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54213",
"authors": [
"Dave L",
"Escoce",
"GdD",
"Hunter Terhark",
"J Crosby",
"Jason C",
"Jean Lopez",
"Jolenealaska",
"Margery Cohen-Jacoby",
"Pat L",
"Pat Sommer",
"Shelia Fullbright",
"Thomas Macneil",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"user114447"
],
"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
}
|
95818
|
Non-spicy substitute for chili peppers when making a Thai curry paste from scratch
I'm making a green Thai curry paste from scratch. I'm very happy with the recipe, and I've made it with much success in the past, but today I am cooking for someone who can't take much heat. Or well, only very little; I can put a single capsicum annuum ('standard' red chili pepper?) in a dish for 4, let's say.
But the recipe calls for 3 tablespoons of green bird's eye chilies. That's definitely going to be too hot, even if I de-seed and trim the insides. However, a significant part of the paste comes from these (there's about 11 Tbsp of ingredients in total, so 1/3th to 1/4th is the chilies) and leaving them out entirely probably doesn't do it any favour.
So my question is, what would you replace them with? I could get a green bell pepper, but I imagine that'd be quite watery. I also have access to jalapenos, which are a bit milder (and green, as far as that matters) but I imagine could still get quite spicy. Or perhaps I do leave them out after all. What would you go for?
Honestly I would be tempted to just leave it out and invite the folks that want the heat to add some chili paste (of some sort...) at the table.
Texas A&M Jalapenos look like large, shiny Jalapenos, but lack most of the heat. Cut them in half, scrape out the seed membranes and you should end up with something people have trouble telling from a standard bell pepper. For a little warmth, and a more complex flavor, go with Anaheim or Hatch peppers. Again, scrape out seeds and membranes.
The bird's eye peppers don't add much fragrance, just heat. The other ingredients in Thai curry are all very potent aromatics that totally overpower any subtle elements the chilis provide. If you want it less spicy, just use fewer or leave them out. They don't need a substitute - just omit. You'll end up with less paste. That's how it goes - scale the rest of the recipe if you want more.
@J... A green bird's eye does have a quite specific flavour, aside from the heat. You could substitute maybe a Jalapeño or Fresno & get a similar flavour with reduced [though still very noticeable] heat. A bell-pepper just tastes 'different' as would a Habañero or Scotch Bonnet [again, ignoring the heat], or indeed any red chilli when a green was needed. There's a definite need for the 'green chilli' flavour in a Thai green paste that I think would be missed if it wasn't there at all.
@Tetsujin I suppose it's a matter of taste. I find with Thai paste the other aromatics are much more dominant - the sharp pine aromas from the galangal, the brightness from the lemongrass and lime leaf, the pungency of the fermented shrimp and fish sauce, garlic, shallots, white pepper. Underneath all of that it's hard to pick out a contribution from the chilis, I find. It's not like a west-indian sauce, for example, which is also very hot, but has dominant flavours from the scotch bonnet that can't be easily substituted. The bird's eye has a much more subtle fragrance, imo.
@J... Interesting that you keep returning to 'fragrance'. I don't consider the green chilli to provide much fragrance at all, but I do consider it provides flavour. I'm reasonably sure I wouldn't be able to spot simply by smell if the chilli had been left out or substituted, against the pungency of coriander [cilantro] etc, but i would once I tasted it. And my nose isn't that bad - I can smell if boiling potatoes have been salted or not ;)
@Tetsujin Beyond basic salt/sweet/sour/umami/bitter (true "flavours"), fragrance really is what makes up most "flavour", if you want to use that word. I mean it to describe both when eating or just smelling. Try eating with your nose plugged some day - you lose about 90% of your "flavour" discrimination, I'd say. To be fair, I've never made green curry with little to no chili so I don't know for certain to what degree you'd miss that component.
@Tetsujin Certainly the chili-phobe diner will not have a frame of reference for comparison and I think the resulting dish would retain the core flavour profile of "Thai Curry" - it just won't be "Red Curry" or "Green Curry", but something like a "White Curry", which would be about as different from either as they are from each other (which isn't terribly alot, imo).
Let me take a wild swing -
I think trying to generate the volume required by using jalapeños would be too hot for your friend & you're right that a regular capsicum/bell pepper wouldn't have enough flavour to water ratio. Also 'bell peppers' don't taste like chillies.
How about Hungarian or Banana peppers?
Now, this is quite a variable & may depend on where you live as to which type you can access. Here in North London I can choose from 3 varieties without going more than 50m from my front door - from the the fat 'triangular' ones like giant fresnos with very smooth skin which are very cool, to the skinny ones about 20cm long with a 'lumpy' skin, which would be the type I would aim for.
Though they are generically known as Hungarian, [& of course, could actually be grown anywhere] they are likely to be commonly found in Turkish stores - local availability of course not guaranteed.
They taste like 'chilli' not like 'bell peppers' but they really don't have too much kick to them. They would generate the flavour without too much heat, but not sufficient colour, so you could perhaps trick some extra coriander [cilantro] into your paste to deepen the green.
From comments - though I wouldn't bother for myself, you can keep the heat down still further by not using the seeds or inner 'whiter' membranes.
Chipotle peppers may work too, they're a little spicy but have a nice smoky and somewhat sweet flavor.
I've never tried this, so it's a wild suggestion, but I believe you could also get away with bell peppers if you slice them finely (to almost a pulp), use some salt to draw out the moisture and let it reduce by frying with a very small amount of oil on low heat.
There are cultivars of Banana peppers that go far past 500 Scoville units. Test before you use these. Try eating a seed and a bit of the membrane holding it.
@BruceWayne - aside from the fact that they would be far too hot, they are after all jalapeños ...and dried.. and red... and smoked... smoked red chillies in a Thai green curry?? Just no.
@Tetsujin Agreed. A fresh green poblano might be a reasonable substitute, although you do occasionally get a "surprise" poblano which is much hotter than you might typically expect.
@J... I'll have to leave that one to your call - I've never even seen a fresh poblano :) Simply not available in the UK.
@Tetsujin Well, probably not at Tesco or Sainsbury, but you can probably get them from specialty grocers in larger cities or there's always the online option.
@J... You might be surprised. "Exotic" fresh food imports & local growers are heavily influenced, of course, by local immigrant demand initially... so, lots of 'Indian' SE Asian, 'Turkish,' mediterranean, EU, a good recent build up of African ... but Mexican, really not so much. In recent years I can now source [expensive, £14 a kilo] fresh tomatillos & even Asda sell padrons periodically, but fresh 'Mexican' is really not easy. A lot of the 'boutique' online retailers seem to specialise in 'blow your head off' varieties. Dried I can get anything these days, but fresh is not yet so easy.
I do this a lot (mostly red curries though) using oven-dried bell peppers, or the variety that is sold here as "sweet pointy peppers". To dry the peppers, I halve and deseed them and put them in a convection oven at 90°C for about 3 hours. They don't have to be dehydrated completely, just semi-dry (like sun dried tomatoes) is enough.
You should get our hands on Kashmiri Red Chilli which is easily available in powder form at Indian stores, however it shouldn't be impossible to find whole dried ones. It has the typical red chilli flavor without any considerable heat.
Alternatively, you can try tomato puree but it will not tasye the same.
Interesting! The Kashmiri red chili powder I have at home has considerable heat. Maybe the labeling is off on that one.
@user129412 No, it's just that spice tolerance runs on a logarithmic scale. Something with "almost no heat" to one person can be raging hot to another. Furthermore, each of those people can probably find someone they could say the same about for a tier up or down in spice as well. This is why eastern restaurants in the west are so pathetic with the amount of spice they use - the lowest common denominator is so incredibly sensitive to capsaicin that they just don't risk any more than a whiff. I mean, I've seen people tear up eating chicken paprikash, if you can believe it. Go figure.
@J... That is true of course. I do consider myself to have a somewhat high tolerance for heat though (I cook with scotch bonnets without deseeding them, which doesn't make me a world champion but I wouldn't recommend it to most of my friends), and the stuff I have with that name is definitely spicy to most standards. I wouldn't put it in a different order of magnitude from birds eye chillies, which are the ones I am looking to replace in the recipe. So I'd attribute it to me or Love Bites having something that is not standard.
@user129412 Fair enough. Could just be a different source. Even genetically identical peppers can range from mild to crazy hot depending on growing conditions, etc. Kashmiri pepper grown in Kashmir will certainly taste different to the same pepper grown on another continent, in a different climate. True Kashmiri chili powder should be quite on the mild side, though - it is used primarily for colour and flavour in Indian cooking, and not for heat.
I love Kashmiri Mirch - use it all the time, it's fairly easy to get in the UK... but not in a green curry. For a red chilli substitute, ordinary [unsmoked] paprika is not a million miles away from Mirch, or New Mexico... but again, not for a green curry.
If you feel that even powdered Kashmiri Chillis are not mild enough for you, then you should get whole dried kashmiri chillies and use it without the seeds. Perhaps you'd like to share which brand of Kashmiri chillies you have?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.593360
| 2019-01-20T16:38:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95818",
"authors": [
"BruceWayne",
"J...",
"Love Bites",
"Steve Chambers",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72291",
"orlp",
"user129412"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100539
|
Why does pâte à choux puff up?
Why does pâte à choux puff up so perfectly?
What are the ingredients or the science behind it that can make that happen?
A choux is an interesting batter that is created in a way that maximizes gluten structure. It is essentially cooked twice. You combine and heat water and butter, then add flour and continue cooking the resulting paste. That paste forms a ball, and then several eggs are beaten in. This batter is then piped onto a sheet and baked. In addition to the gluten structure, the initial cooking also causes the starches to gelatinize, further reinforcing the structure. In essence, you have created a deflated balloon. When the piped shapes are baked, steam develops and inflates the "balloon." It's all explained quite clearly right here.
your original link died, perhaps this one is a good replacement? https://foodcrumbles.com/the-science-of-choux-pastry-in-profiteroles/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.594242
| 2019-08-02T06:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100539",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100337
|
Why does my sourdough starter have in the top the liquid separated from the flour?
Why does my sourdough starter have in the top the liquid separated from the flour? 2 days after beginning a new one, a liquid (water) appeared on top of it, it appeared after I fed it the first time. To feed it I discarded half of the starter and then I added 5 tbsp of flour and 5 tbsp of tap water to feed it. Then, on the next day the liquid appeared like that. I don't think it's OK, so I discarded that liquid, and then waited a full 24 hours to feed it again like that.
That is referred to as "hooch". It is water and alcohol. It forms when the yeast has passed its peak activity. I've noticed that it corresponds with the increase of bacterial activity when the starter gets more sour.
The hooch will not form when you are feeding regularly. It is harmless and can be discarded or mixed back in.
Sourdough is a balancing act. Finding the feeding rate that will produce the lift and flavor you want. Slower feeding will make it more acidic and rise less. More frequent feeding will do the opposite. You can experiment to get a healthy starter with the flavor you like. When learning you should start with a proven recipe..
so what should i do? i already discarded the "hooch", so my starter does still work? so i can feed it without worrying me? right now has completed 24 hours brw
@MichaelBenDavid Yes, your starter is fine. Continue feeding it.
@Rob but its not frothy, or i shouldnt worry about that? smells sour, and still some little hooch its coming out, also btw i started to feed it with a combination of 70% of whole grain flour and 30% of all-purpose flour,same as before i discarded half starter and feed 5 tbsp of flour and scant 5 tbsp of water.
@MichaelBenDavid I don't wait that long for hooch to form but, when I did have some, it was never frothy. You are overthinking this. Just pour off the hooch and continue feeding on schedule. In olden days, people used to drink hooch. I've tried it but don't find it to be appealing.
@Rob so when my starter its gonna to double of size then in the next few days? there is not problem if i suddenly use other kind of flour like i did? my starter has bubbles but they are tiny and not so kinda frothy appearance and not growing either
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.594361
| 2019-07-23T21:36:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100337",
"authors": [
"Michael_Ben_David",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72584"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113349
|
Why is my sugar in my recipe becoming gritty and dry after baking in the oven. This is something new for me
I've been making these dessert snacks for years. The last 2 times I've baked them, the sugar has come out gritty and the butter seems all absorbed. Very dry. My recipe calls for brown sugar, butter, and (added pecans after the boiling).
After boiling on the stove for 2 minutes this is poured onto graham crackers in a greased pan. Then it's baked at 350 degrees for 10 min. When I take them out it seems all moisture has been sucked out and everything falls apart and sugar is gritty.
I'm using a Convection oven, but I have done all of this the same way for almost 40 years and don't know what's going on.
Can you list the full recipe and instructions?
Hello Cindy, and welcome. It would be helpful if you provided the full recipe and procedure. Do you have a candy thermometer you could use? Are you aiming for a chewy butterscotch candy or something like toffee? Is this a new oven...? I will go ahead and say a quick fix might be to add a glob of corn syrup to your mixture, and possibly add the pecans preboil as well. (You'll want to stir a little keep them from burning, but adding the cold powdery nuts could initiate the crystallization.)
I'm guessing this is for some type of fudge or praline?
There are a lot of variables that can change the crystallization of sugar when making a sugar syrup. Things like temperature, how clean your pot is, whether a wooden spoon is wet, how fast and when you stir, etc.
Using an interfering agent like butter or cream helps prevent the solution from creating large crystals. But even with those agents undissolved sugar or impurities can grow into large crystals.
Without seeing what you're cooking and how you're cooking it I can't give you a direct answer. But the best course of action you can take is to pay particular attention to cleaning and drying your pot, the implement you use to stir, and the complete dissolving of the sugar during the initial creation of the syrup.
This article has a lot of good information on sugar syrup and may point out something you're doing that could be done better.
https://www.finecooking.com/article/learn-how-to-control-crystallization-for-successful-sweets
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.594559
| 2020-12-24T23:34:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113349",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"kitukwfyer",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113635
|
What causes dough made from coconut flour to not stick together?
I made a pizza dough with half wheat and half coconut flour and I noticed the dough wasn't as elastic and broke apart easier. Then I tried a dough with 100% coconut flour and it was essentially a crumbly mess until I added egg and even then it didn't have the typical texture of good pizza dough.
Why is this the case?
can you [edit] the question to add the complete recipe / method you used? That would make it easier to figure out what went wrong
Gluten is what makes a dough stick together and have structure. Coconut flour has no gluten, so the resulting dough will be a crumbly mess. Intentionally gluten free recipes usually contain any number of special additives to compensate for the lack of gluten.
I doubt you could even use coconut flour when other GF flours are called for, because of its higher fat content and lower starch
From PrimalPal:
Because it doesn't contain gluten like many flours, coconut flour doesn't stick together as well as traditional flour – this means you'll have to use extra eggs.
Also note that coconut flour is relatively high in fat, causing the different texture.
The high fat is a really important difference - it makes coconut flour much more suitable for use in things like pastry where you're adding a lot of fat to the mixture anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.594771
| 2021-01-07T14:23:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113635",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"J...",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113514
|
When can you NOT replace milk with almond milk?
I saw a video on making pizza and it seemed easy enough, but the recipe required milk to make the dough.
I try to avoid dairy and realized that once when making scrambled eggs that required milk in the recipe and switching it for almond milk there was a puddle of water under the scrambled eggs and I assumed it was because there's not as much fat and more water content in almond milk than milk.
YouTube link to pizza recipe with milk
Pizza dough does not contain milk or other milk product.
& it's quite possible to make scrambled eggs with water instead of milk*, if you have to. If they puddle liquid, you over-cooked them. Serve before they fully set, not after. They'll continue to cook on the plate. *I always consider omlette, water, scrambled, milk - but I've often forgotten & can't really tell the difference ;)
Linking to a 10 minute youtube video isn't a good way to provide us with the recipe, which we could read inside 10 seconds.
In my experience, it's better to think of almond milk as "almond stock" for cooking purposes. There is a longstanding legal dispute between dairy and almond milk producers on account of these kinds of confusions.
Having tried many substitutions for dairy milk with other "milks" (almond, soy, oat, and more), there's a really wide array of results: everything from "can't tell the difference" to "adequate" to "absolutely disastrous." Unfortunately, this question is sort of broad as it currently stands.
@Erica_ that's a great detailed answer considering you provide an example gor each case, then people would know when it is a good substitution!
In baking, you can almost always replace cow's milk with a non-dairy product. It's usually a matter of taste. In stove-top cooking, you may have to experiment more, especially if making creamy sauces. In that case, thicker, non-dairy milks should be tried. Here, again taste will probably be important, but it is probably important to pay attention to viscosity as well. Even foods based on dairy, like yogurt and ice cream, can be made with substitutes. Consider that many non-dairy milks are sweetened, so you will want to factor that in as well.
If you are avoiding dairy, you can always find a work-around. In some cases it will not be noticed, in others, the result might be a little different, but that doesn't mean it can't be delicious.
Having said this, scrambled eggs can easily be made with no addition of dairy, and most pizza doughs that I am familiar with do not use dairy either. So, those preparations are easy enough to deal with in this regard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.594915
| 2021-01-01T11:44:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113514",
"authors": [
"Adam Starrh",
"Erica",
"Gigili",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113597
|
how to make sweet potato fries crunchy?
I wanted to make sweet potato fries but it was very disappointing and not crunchy at all.
I put the first batch in a medium-heat oil and left them for a while, they got out all soggy. I turned up the heat for the second batch, it got a bit better but still way below my crunch expectations. I even tried to put the first batch back in the hot oil, remembering that good Belgian potato fries should go in the oil twice, but I just managed to burn them.
Do you know what I did wrong? Is it because of an excess of humidity? They were pretty dry already when I put them in the oil.
I've read that they should be coated in flour before, does that work? I don't see how it would stick well to the sweet potatoes, aren't them too dry for that?
We have a duplicate question on this, though it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. In my opinion, you can't make sweet potato fries crunchy unless you coat them with a batter or crust of some sort. They don't behave the same as regular white potatoes.
Welcome to SA, Sarah! I totally agree with moscafj, here, but not posting an answer since I don't have a recipe I've tested.
FWIW, we have three other questions just like this one, all without good/accepted answers. As such, please do NOT close Sarah's question ... calling it a duplicate of a question without an answer isn't helpful.
@FuzzyChef if we have three old questions, it would be best to close two of them as a duplicate of the third. Can you please link the two others in a comment to the best or oldest question so we can close the proliferation? And I get why you call it "not helpful" but having multiple open questions without an answer is even less helpful - longer answer on your meta question.
Yes I saw the other post but it was old and about using a different type of fryer, so I just wanted to check if users since then might have an answer that would be relevant to me. Sorry if the multiple questions made it more difficult @rumtscho, I'm a new user :) Next time I'll phrase my post differently to have only one question.
Sarah: not a problem, this is a reviewer/moderator discussion. We actually don't often get repeats of good questions that don't have good answers this way. Perfectly OK for your having asked it.
Here's the other duplicates: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62078/does-the-par-boiling-first-then-frying-work-for-sweet-potatoes-as-well, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66233/baked-sweet-potato-french-fries-chips-too-soft-how-to-crispen, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91279/standard-way-to-make-crispy-sweet-potato-fries
None of these have accepted answers, and of the few answers that are there, pretty much all are speculative ... none have sources or personal experience to indicate that they actually work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.595135
| 2021-01-04T20:12:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113597",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sarah BDnO",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90615",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34992
|
Egg and flour proportion for pasta extruder
Just bought a manual pasta extrusion device from China. It came with no instructions and the box is written in Chinese. By looking at it, it seems that the "1 egg x 100g of flour" dough recipe will not make its way through the tiny holes (or i will have to exercise a lot to make it). Is this the right proportion for the dough for the extrusion tool?
1 egg / 100 grams of flour is somewhat canonical for Italian egg pasta. If you are afraid that the pasta will be too hard to extrude, you can add some olive oil and/or tiny amounts of water. The dough does not react linearily to water addition, so you want to add the water teaspoon by teaspoon.
What type of flour are you using? If you are using semolina, as expected, you should try to sift it and remove the coarse parts. Also, you can mix 75% semolina and 25% of a softer wheat flour. The egg makes the dough much (much) harder to extrude, you can try substituting water for egg:
for 453 grams of semolina, 162 grams of water
I make my fresh pasta with the wonderful mx700 Simac (which you can find online for about 40/60$) and I can assure you that the pressure applied by the machine is tremendous and when I don't get the mix carefully balanced the motor clearly screams and the machine cracks like it's going to open in half.
In Venice, Italy we have a traditional manual pasta machine called Bigolaro that resembles a bit the one you posted, but the handle is much larger, hence easier to turn: you should use a metal pipe (on each side) to make your work easier!
I have been away for some time, not tested the machine nor the suggestions. I don't want to take the eggs out, so will try using some soft flour. If it is still hard, i will add liquid, as '@Walter A. Aprile' also stated. The answer is complete, and even made me think about building a bench like the Venetian machine you showed. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.595364
| 2013-06-28T16:57:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34992",
"authors": [
"Abi",
"Miss L A Shanks",
"Morts",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"amreever",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81652"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79104
|
What to do to get tender, edible steak instead of it being rubbery?
I've seen this, but it does not answer my question.
This is with regard to the Kerala beef fry or even Kerala beef curry; not the western way of cooking steak.
The steak pieces: 1kg bought from a local beef shop where they just take a random piece of meat, chop it into little pieces of around 2 or 3 cm in size and give it to you.
What I did: Kept it in freezer for two days, took it out today and put it in water and heated the water a little. Pulled apart frozen pieces slowly in a span of an hour and allowed it to reach room temperature.
Recipe: Added spices as per this recipe and left for marination for an hour.
Pressure cooker: Put beef in cooker and heated on slow fire for 35min until there were 4 whistles/steam-let-outs that happened in a span of 2 minutes. Allowed pressure to go down and after around 20 min, opened the cooker to find the meat very rubbery. Appeared slightly cooked on the outer layer for 1 or 2 mm, but the meat inside seemed raw and when I try to tear it, it feels tough and rubbery and extends a little like when you start pulling chewing gum apart with both hands.
Beef meat ends up like this every single time I try to cook it in a pressure cooker. I'm sure I didn't overheat it and it certainly wasn't cooked for too long. Or is it wrong to cook it in a pressure cooker and instead boil it in an open top container? I hadn't added vinegar or wine or lemon juice during marination. Could they have made a difference?
ps: I continued heating the beef with its gravy for another 20 min on low flame, but it didn't seem to make the meat any better. So I separated the gravy and roasted it as in this recipe. The taste turned out excellent but the meat was still rubbery. So it would be much appreciated if you could help with info on ensuring that the meat is tender and well cooked when we start cooking it itself.
I've heard of slow-cooking meat at low temperatures, and I've heard of searing at high temperatures. But I've never heard of pressure-cooking meat.
Well Robert, as you can see from my link on the words "Kerala beef fry" (or even if you google 'Kerala beef curry'), all those recipes ask you to pressure cook the beef. If that's not the best way to go about it, I'd like to know what is the right way to get edible cooked beef.
@Robert Stews are often cooked in a pressure cooker to speed things up-- instead of cooking all day, you can develop a similar complex flavor and tender meat by pressure cooking for a short time. I believe its also popular with large pieces that contain a lot of connective tissue that needs broken down. If nothing else, they do it on Iron Chef America all the time to cook things that would otherwise be impossible in an hour.
"Random piece of meat"? Is at least a "random piece of the part of the animal"? "Random piece of meat" doesn't happen where I live.
"Random pieces of meat" isn't steak.
Looked up "steak" and realized that the butchers here cut perpendicular to the direction steak is usually cut in. He slices off a large sliver of meat from whatever piece of the animal he currently has hanging in front of him and proceeds to chop those into little pieces. If I could give him any instructions on which parts of the animal to cut, and how to cut it, I'm open to suggestions. These guys are not educated much, and it's unlikely anyone taught them the intricacies of meat cutting.
@Nav: Where is "here"?
Starting with a "random piece of meat" may be part of the problem. Some cuts are more suitable for this than others.
If the meat seems "raw", then something is very wrong here. An hour at pressure-cooker temperatures is more than enough to over-cook it. There's no way it could be raw.
I suspect that over-cooking is the problem, and that will depend on the cut you're using. I suspect you've got a piece with little fat or connective tissue, and that's not going to soften in a pressure cooker. It shouldn't seem "raw", though; it should seem over-cooked.
In the future, I'd suggest looking for a chuck roast or other fatty piece. If you do end up with a cut like bottom round, it may help to cut it into thinner pieces, across the grain. That mechanically tenderizes the meat by snipping the chewy fibers.
Either that, or something is desperately, weirdly wrong with your pressure cooker.
I was just told that I'm supposed to wait for steam to come out of the vent pipe and only then place the weight over it. The "whistles" were not the full whistles that usually last for 3 to 4 seconds. These whistles were just 1 second long. I believe the meat was undercooked. Today morning my mom took the roasted beef pieces and cooked it in the cooker again. Now it seems slightly better cooked, but hasn't lost the rubbery feeling entirely. Taste also declined.
That sounds odd; that's not the way pressure cookers are ordinarily used. Still, having fully cooked it, it sounds like you got a cheap cut that should be sliced thinner to make it less rubbery. My guess is that it's bottom round, a cut that is not very flavorful in the first place. Fully cooking it will make it even more tasteless, though the flavor it loses will end up in the sauce.
I don't use a pressure cooker, so don't know how to translate the timings, but cheap meat for a curry - which is actually the best to use - would need a 4-hour simmer at 'normal' atmospheric pressure.
'Rubbery' is a clear indicator of undercooked. You need to break down the collagen. Until you do, it will remain as tough as old boots.
It will also give the rest of the flavours time to develop properly. If it had been 'good, lean steak' - the worst kind for a long cook - you would have more likely described it as dry, even grainy or chalky.
If you do overcook 'braising steak' it will eventually start to go stringy & again harder to chew. There's a break-point at around 4 hours. Too much longer & it's over-done. There's a fair transition period so you don't need a stopwatch, but you do need to learn this timing by repetition, as it will change depending on your pan type & burner setting.
Your window will be shorter in a pressure cooker, and harder to test - you can't drop the pressure & build it back again, or your timings are gone. Over is more edible than under, so go long first time & retard your timings after that, until you get the right window. If you test too early then try to catch back up without pressure, you will need to add hours, not just 20 minutes.
A 'traditional' Keralan beef curry would be put on the stove before the family set out to church, Sunday morning; to be ready hours later when they get back.
[info sources: 1. My favourite Keralan restaurant [although that specific dish & description isn't on their menu at the moment, they cycle the menu a lot] 2. My niece is Keralan ;)
Thanks for your answer. Small correction: It's "Keralite". Not "Keralan". There are people in Kerala who deep fry beef with spices in such a way that the taste is addictive. You are right about rubbery being undercooked. With time, I've been able get it cooked fully by first cooking on high flame until the first whistle and then lowering the flame and cooking for another 20 minutes. After the pressure reduces, I check, and if it needs more cooking, I cook it until one whistle again. This is usually sufficient to cook it sufficiently. A 4 hour simmer is definitely better, but fuel inefficient.
Ah, OK. That's like people from Manchester being Mancunian; or Leeds, Loiners - you wouldn't know if you didn't know. All the restaurants describe themselves as Keralan, so I guess it's just never cropped up in conversation. I tend to use a slow cooker, never owned a pressure cooker, so my '4 hours' just becomes 'all day', with timings like 'add peppers after 6 hours', or 'add okra an hour before serving'… much more leisurely timings ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.595555
| 2017-03-13T16:04:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79104",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Joshua Engel",
"Nav",
"Robert",
"Tetsujin",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
105216
|
Can you butter-baste steak without a gas stove?
I'd love to try butter-basting a steak but the method involves tipping the skillet to one side so that you can scoop up the melted butter and pour it onto the steak. I have an electric stove and if I tip my skillet, it stops making contact with the heating element. A gas stove doesn't really have this problem because the flames still heat the skillet (albeit unevenly, but it's better than nothing). I'm concerned that if I tip my skillet off my electric stove, it won't cook correctly since heat isn't constantly being applied.
Am I overestimating the impact of the type of heating here? Is it still possible to reasonably butter-baste a steak with an electric stove if the cast iron is preheated sufficiently?
Can you be more specific about the type of electric hob? Induction hobs which require a specific type of pan to work on them will have a different answer to a 'normal' electric hob where any sort of pan rests on heating elements.
Mine is a glass-top electric stove, not induction. I suspect coil, glass-top, and induction would all suffer from lack of heat application when tilting the skillet away from the heating element, though for induction it might depend on the size of the magnetic field generated. I don't have a lot of experience with induction to know for sure.
I used an induction hob for a week and my (admittedly limited) experience with induction hobs is that it instantly lost all heat when the pan lost contact with the hob, so I suspect that induction pans don't retain heat very well. But sounds like you will be fine.
With an electric stove, this should work just fine. An induction stove though could have problems if there's a very strict pan-detection (or auto-sizing) system in place shutting off the stove the moment the pan leaves the stove. A tipped pan could just be enough to trip that.
I think you're overestimating the impact but I notice that adding loads of cold butter straight from the fridge has a greater impact and that affects the sear. In that case, I microwave my butter until it's hot and melted
The couple of seconds it takes to scoop up the butter won't have any significant effect on your pan's temperature, especially if you use something that retains heat well, like cast iron.
And even with a regular pan, it's not going to make a difference unless you're holding it at an angle for a long time.
Just butter-basted a steak tonight on my electric stove and it came out great! Thanks!
You definitely can.
Use a thick, heavy cast iron skillet and you won't have any problems at all - lifting the skillet off the heat for a couple of seconds won't affect the cooking because of the skillet's thermal mass.
I use this method with both steak and burgers and - although I do use gas - it doesn't involve tipping your pan so should work.
Sear the meat both sides in a hot pan (depending on thickness and how you want it cooked)
Sit a large knob of butter on top on the centre of meat
Put the whole pan in a warm oven (~100C) for around the same amount of time as the total time you seared it for
Serve (the oven serves as resting time!)
I also like to mash the butter up with herbs and spices in advance - such as garlic and thyme - and roll it into a sausage shape in some parchment and chill. You can then just cut off a couple of slices whenever you're making the steak.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.596277
| 2020-02-09T16:56:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105216",
"authors": [
"Ben Torell",
"Graham",
"Mast",
"Phil",
"burnt1ce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81034"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105431
|
Why do you add the ingredients in sequences when stir frying?
What is the reason for ingredients being added in sequences when stir-frying?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3420/whats-the-best-order-to-add-ingredients-to-a-stir-fry?rq=1
Stir frying is a relatively quick cooking process. Different ingredients often have different cooking times. You add ingredients at different times so that the longer cooking ingredients will have time to cook and be ready at the same time as the shorter cooking ingredients. If you have ingredients with approximately the same cooking times, by all means, add them together. Also, however, sometimes ingredients are added in stages so as not to reduce the the temperature of the cooking vessel/environment too rapidly...so that it can recover, and remain at a high temperature. This would be less of a concern in a restaurant situation, where more powerful burners are used.
Wouldn't the creation of fond that could add flavor to the other components of the meal also play a role?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.596556
| 2020-02-21T16:03:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105431",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114394
|
What's a fast way to make Furikake from Katsobushi used in making dashi
Making dashi uses about 10g of dried Katsobushi that ends up soaked.
Then soaked Katsobushi is then removed and tastes well. How can the soaked Katsobushi be reused?
The tricky part is that Katsobushi is preserved dried, after the dashi process it is rehydrated and hot. So Katsobushi cannot be stored for long and it is a waste to throw it away.
What are some key ingredients to make furikake and what is the basic process?
There's no set recipe for furikake, but you will commonly find sesame seeds (both black or white), katsuobushi (bonito flakes), and seaweed.
For dashi leftovers, just cut the kombu/katsuobushi into small pieces and toast in a dry pan with some soy sauce/sugar/salt/MSG to taste until the mixture is dry. You can toast the sesame seeds separately or together with the dashi leftovers, then add nori (cut or crumbled into small pieces). Let cool, preferably on a tray to help it dry out more.
For quantities, here is a recipe for reference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.596669
| 2021-02-19T05:24:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114394",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113787
|
I made challah dough and it was still sticky after 9 cups of AP flour
I only needed a few more tablespoons of flour, but I had run out. Instead I substituted half the amount of cornstarch. Will my bread still have the right texture when baking?
Here is the recipe: https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/132319/sweet-challah/
Below are the ingredients:
1 tablespoon active dry yeast
⅓ cup white sugar
2 cups warm water (110 degrees F/45 degrees C)
3 cups all-purpose flour
4 eggs
½ cup vegetable oil
1 tablespoon salt
1 cup white sugar
6 cups all-purpose flour, or as needed
1 egg
1 teaspoon vegetable oil
2 teaspoons white sugar
1 teaspoon water
Welcome! Challah recipes work best with bread flour, specifically, high gluten flour, although there are tasty challah recipes for whole wheat flour as well. Using high gluten flour solves most of the sticky dough issues and rises very nicely.
I have conflicting experience to @Benjamin. I often add a little extra starch to my bread actually, specifically potato starch or sweet rice flour. While all starches gelatinize a little differently, I would not expect you to have any issue shaping the bread, or with rise. What I would expect is a little extra chewiness to the crust and perhaps a bouncy quality to the interior, and maybe a tighter crumb with finer bubbles. The first time I added starch to a bread as an experiment (and far more proportionately), I joked that I had successfully invented storebought bread at home, because that's what the texture reminded me of. That said, I would not expect the textural differences to be huge in your case because you added very little.
Since percentages and math are on the table (I'm sorry but I love math), let's break down the amount of gluten and starch in here.
The recipe calls for 9 cups of flour total, and there are 16 Tablespoons in a cup. So how much gluten is in one of those cups? If we say it's ~12% (I asked Google), then in one cup of flour, there are about 1.92 T gluten, and about 14.08 T starch. If you round, that means about 2 T gluten, 14 T starch. That's a proportion of 1:7.... and I'm rounding up the gluten.
So what difference does a few tablespoons of corn starch make, proportionately? Well, for every T of corn starch you added instead of AP, you were missing one-seventh of a Tablespoon of gluten, or less than a half-tsp, but more than a quarter-tsp. And that amount counts up with every T you added. So, if you added a quarter-cup of corn starch, then you're "missing" almost 2 teaspoons of gluten. If you added a whole half cup, you're missing a little over a Tablespoon of it. But again, we rounded the gluten up before, so... you aren't even missing that much. This is an overestimation.
In the recipe as a whole, you have 144 T in those 9 cups of flour. That means you have 17.3 T of gluten total, and 126.7 T starch. Even if you added the whole half-cup of corn starch, changing the amount of starch to 134.7 and the total amount of "flour" to 152 T.... You've only changed your gluten content from 12% to 11.4%, which would still be within range for all-purpose. Some brands have higher gluten. Some have less. King Arthur brand's all-purpose flour has as much gluten as some other brand's bread flours. And again... I'm assuming you added significantly more than a few tablespoons. That drop from 12% to 11.4% represents a worst-case scenario.
So while there will be a difference, I'm guessing it will be subtle, maybe even undetectable if you aren't looking for it.
One thing I noticed reading the recipe is that they don't call for resting the dough. A short rest (often called "autolyse") after adding, say, two-thirds of the total amount of flour will give the flour a chance to hydrate and soak up some more moisture. That way, it will require a little less flour to get a workable dough, and your final product will be just a little softer and moister as a result. IF you make this recipe again, it might be helpful.
I'll be curious to hear how your experiment turns out (hopefully okay!)
In general, cornstarch is a poor substitute for flour when baking bread. Although both ingredients will absorb moisture, the gluten in flour plays an essential role in forming the structure of the bread. Cornstarch on the other hand has no gluten, so your resulting dough may be "weak". The loaf may not rise high enough, and it may lack the elasticity to shape and braid properly.
The amount of cornstarch you used will determine the degree of the effect. A single tablespoon accounts for 0.6% of the total dry weight of the recipe. While this may sound small, it is certainly enough that a "few tablespoons" could make a noticeable difference. After all, the difference between the protein content of all-purpose flour (~10.5%) and bread flour (~13%) is at the same scale.
In any case, it sounds like the dough is made. Shape it the best you can. I know the recipe you are attempting is for challah, but if the dough is too weak to braid, consider shaping into a loaf and baking in a tin. Bake as usual and let us know how it goes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.596778
| 2021-01-17T18:45:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113787",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113880
|
How long do I pre-heat a whole chicken for on the stove before placing it in the oven to roast?
I am attempting to recreate the roast chicken by Chef Giuliano Sperandino:
Roasted Chicken in a 2 Michelin star french restaurant with Giuliano Sperandio - "Le Clarence" (turn on cc)
I can follow most of the recipe just fine; however, at 2:05 the chef places the chicken on the stove, laying on its leg so that "the temperature can penetrate". Any idea how long the chicken should be on the stove top for? I can put a probe in the middle/thigh to measure temp, but I'm not sure what he's going for here.
It is doubtful that the "temperature is penetrating"...whatever that even means in this case. The temperature ultimately has to be at least 165 F (74C) in the breast. Placing the chicken, on top of its wings, on its side, in a pan on the stove top is not going to speed that up all that much. Especially for the upside facing part. I could see making a use of a browning step (particularly if you are going to cover (and steam) the bird in the oven), but he doesn't evenly brown the bird. He turns the bird partway through the cooking, however, to brown the other side. I am suspicious of his process, but I would say, if you want to re-create it, I doubt it is on the stove top for more than a few minutes. Brown the skin, then place in oven.
Browning in a pan is useful if you're going to cook it very slowly (such as in a slow cooker or very low oven). It would seem pointless otherwise
IMO, it's a weird step (and a weird overcomplicated roasting technique) the step at 2 minutes seems useless.
...agree with both!
Other than browning the chicken, starting it off on the stove gives the dark meat more of a head start before it goes in the oven, because dark meat has plenty of fat and is often better when "overcooked" compared to the breast. What temperature the thigh area reaches doesn't really matter, you just want to take the temperature of the breast near the end. I would brown the dark meat for 5-10 minutes, then put it in the oven.
Adam Ragusea uses a similar method for roast chicken, who recommends 10 minutes on the stovetop.
Fair point, but in the video he only does one side, and lays it on the trimmed wings of the bird, which would dramatically slow that head start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.597150
| 2021-01-21T19:53:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113880",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114027
|
Letting batter with baking soda wait before adding into the oven
I want to bake a cake with 3 layers, but I only have one baking pan and thus I will have to bake them one by one (already thought about making one big cake and dividing it into 3 parts but I pref not to use that method).
The problem is it takes 35 minutes to bake one layer and the batter contains baking soda and baking powder and I'm worried it will affect the outcome since I'm not baking the other 2 layers immediately after adding the baking soda.
So my question is, can I let the batter for the other 2 layers wait before adding to the oven?
Making the batter and separating into 3 and then adding the baking soda and powder isn't an option since I would have to mix it again which will affect the result. And I also don't want to make the batter for each layer separately.
Welcome! If you are using a recipe that’s somewhat unusual (e.g. no whipped eggs), it would be good to include the recipe, especially the method, in your post. Feel free to [edit] any time.
I have done it several times (had the same issue, because I think cakes look way better if baked separately), because it is the easiest way to decorate it as well. The cakes I've baked tasted very fine, but as @Johanna is saying, it probably won't have the BEST flavour. But I did not really notice the difference that much.
What kind of baking powder are you using? “Double action” baking powder contains an acid that needs heat to activate it, so if that’s what you’re using then you’ll get some lift even after leaving the batter for a while.
The last layer will likely be pretty flat, especially if you're using a recipe with whisked eggs for some structure. Any air bubbles and structure you whisk into the eggs will be gone by the time it's been standing on the counter while the first two layers bake. And you will lose some lift from the baking soda reacting with acid in the batter. You will get cake, but it will not be as good as it could have been. I would personally bake it in a taller pan and slice after baking. That will give a much better result than letting the batter stand for over an hour before baking the last layer.
Ok ty for the fast answer :) The reason I don't want to bake it all at once is because I don't have any tools to cut the cake evenly afterwards and I don't want the cake to dome and I only have one 9 inch pan which I wanted to use for the 3 layers separately aswell so I'm worried it's too much batter for that pan. Edit: I don't use a recipe with whisked eggs. Is the third layer still gonna be much flatter?
“Tools to cut the cake evenly”... you don’t own a knife? Just eyeball it. Slightly uneven layers are the lesser evil here.
you can always try dental floss to cut it, if you happen to have a flavorless one around, or a nylon string :)
I doubt the raw batter will survive 35-70 minutes out of the oven.
Many times when I made homemade cake, things like
forgetting to preheat the oven
taking too long to scrape all the batter into the baking pan
taking too long decorating the top of the cake batter when its in the pan
rewards me with a flat cake.
On the other hand, after adding the wet ingredients to store bought cake mix, surprisingly, letting the batter sit for a long time (like 30 minutes) before popping it into the oven, doesn't really change the finished product!
What I recommend you do is have your wet ingredients combined and dry ingredients combined all ready in two separate containers. For each cake, mix a third of the wet ingredients with the dry ingredients; this would be more practical then making the batter three times.
Concerning store-bought cake mix: some types of baking powder only release their gas in the presence of heat. It wouldn't surprise me if some industrial baking products use that type of baking powder instead of the consumer-grade stuff (which usually releases at least some of its gas immediately.)
And I also don't want to make the batter for each layer separately
Whether you want to or not, this is the only way you're going to do it.
And there is no reason not to. Making a cake batter only takes 10 minutes by hand, or 5 minutes if you're using a food processor.
You'll need to let the cake cool slightly in the pan before you turn it out. That'll take 5 minutes, right there. So take the pan out, make the batter for the next layer while the first layer is cooling, and then you're ready to go again. And it doesn't even take any longer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.597377
| 2021-01-30T18:03:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114027",
"authors": [
"M.K",
"Michael Seifert",
"Mike Scott",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"igorsantos07",
"xiaofeng"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114086
|
One time sourdough starter
Is there a way to make sourdough bread without the long term commitment of feeding a starter?
My kids and I love sourdough bread, but I also work 2 jobs, so making bread is, sadly, a once in a blue moon type of thing. Taking good care of starter would get lost in the shuffle, and I don't want to waste/ruin/starve any starter. Essentially, I want to make sourdough bread once.
I would recommend you find a (hobby) baker locally. Almost everyone who maintains a sourdough has some extra that they would otherwise discard. I have read about local Facebook groups etc. of people sharing their starters during the pandemic (when sourdough suddenly was “a thing” and weirdly enough yeast was hard to get at times), including contact-less drop-offs and similar. I have shared my starter(s) freely with everyone who asked for it in the past. Even repeatedly for one-time-bakers as you are planning to be.
The charm of this approach is that you can make new acquaintances that way and that the shared starter most likely will come with a bit of an explanation as to the specific culture’s temperament. They might even be willing to share a few favorite recipes and give you some hits that a generic recipe doesn’t have.
That said, if you have an established starter, it’s really not that much of a problem if you bake only once in a blue moon. Mine is parked in the fridge, sometimes for months on end, without further care. A bit of pampering and it’s as good as new, ready to climb out of the jar.
s/moths/months - at least I hope you don't have moths in your fridge. There was something faintly apocalyptic about cycling across a deserted city to swap surplus flour for sourdough starter just as things shut down round here 11 months ago.
@ChrisH ahhh, a brain flutter! And I bought a huuuuge sack of flour (instead of the usual 2.5 or maybe 5kg), as that was all my local mill had. Supermarkets were out of flour anyway. (Not to mention yeast.)
I never quite ran out of flour but had to use plain (all-purpose) for a few loaves and buy some overpriced flour repacked by a local expensive bakery. 1.5kg is the norm here, so I need nearly a bag a week
It's really not that much of a time commitment. Once you get it going, there are ways to store it (fridge, freezer, dehydrated) so that you can keep it long-term, with limited upkeep. Of course, it will always need care and feeding to get it active again. Short of that, the solution to your problem is to find a friend with an active starter. It is easy to transfer an active starter to someone else for their use.
If you know someone with a starter, they can easily give you some. And that will be more reliable than making a starter from scratch every now and then
I keep mine in the fridge and sometimes it goes for weeks without being fed. I just have to remember to start breeding it 3 days before I bake.
@RedSonja mine works pretty well with slightly less forward planning: I took it out of the fridge last night, fed it this morning, will make the dough this evening, prove in a cool room overnight and bake tomorrow morning - call it 36 hours. I typically use it once or twice a week. It's well-established, descended from one a friend has used for years
My starter lives constantly in the fridge. A day after feeding it bubbles along quite happily, and I've occasionally left it to starve for up to four weeks without having to even discard/feed before baking. YMVV, of course, but sourdoughs are rather hardy.
There are prepackaged portions of sour dough starter available in most grocery stores. They have a shelf life of a few months and don't need to be fed if not opened. This is just one of a couple variants that are available in my next grocery store.
As with every sour dough starter you can just feed it to grow the colony, then use half of it and keep the other half for later. It will last for at least a week without feeding when stored in the fridge, multiple weeks are also possible but it will probably need some time to recover.
They're labelled only in German, so I assume you're in Germany or Austria. I've never seen such a thing in British supermarkets (or French, but I don't bake when in France as I'm normally camping ) - and I was in the right place in a large UK supermarket today buying yeast. It may be common where you are, but not everywhere, and I don't know where the OP is. I could buy starter, but it would be wet and expensive
Careful - most (all?) of them are inactive starters and just provide flavor, while the leavening is based on additional yeast. For the product pictured, the manufacturer claims that it can be sort of propagated, but only for a few iterations, and all the recipes on their website add extra yeast. If you consider how a live starter grows and expands, it’s kind of obvious that the pictured product (which can be stored at room temperature for months) can’t be equal to that or the packaging would simply burst or the culture die.
Thanks for the feedback. As I've seen this kind of starter (it is wet and active) in pretty much every larger shop in Germany I've jumped to the conclusion these were widespread. But I guess that's what you get from living in the capital of bread. :) I've had a starter from this brand for about two years now, I'm feeding it regularly and make pizza out of it every other week without any troubles.
@YPOC yeah - but without yeast, a dough using the package alone will not behave the same way as with a truly active starter. So if the asker gets their hands on some of that, they might be disappointed. Seitenbacher suggests propagating via some ready dough - which then contains yeast according to their instructions.
You can make bread that has some of the properties of sourdough without the full "starter" treatment. It won't be the same, of course, but it might fit the criteria you're looking for.
One option is to use sour ingredients, like greek yogurt, such as in this recipe.
Another option is to use a poolish, which is sort of like a sourdough starter that you make a night or so before, but don't keep beyond this recipe. You usually make about half or so of your dough, ferment it for a day or so, and then make the rest. Here's one recipe for a classic French boule that uses the poolish method. Again, this isn't sourdough bread, but it has some of the same characteristics, and you don't need to do anything to maintain the starter - though it does take extra time, of course, since it has to sit for quite a while (but at least it's not active time).
Ooohh, now I am itching to start a batch! Not before the weekend...
My routine is to make sourdough every few days, keeping the starter in the fridge and proofing overnight in the fridge. But sometimes I mess up my routine and need a sourdough loaf same day. That's when I cheat, using yogurt whey and rapid rise yeast. Most people think the loaf is sourdough.
I make Greek Yogurt several times a week and refrigerate the whey. I've kept it for weeks and never had it go "off". If you make a regular loaf substituting yogurt whey for the water, the bread has a nice acid "twang" to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.597768
| 2021-02-03T16:16:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114086",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"RedSonja",
"Stephie",
"YPOC",
"gustafc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114089
|
Pink Rabbit Blancmange origin?
Growing in the UK in the 1970s my family regularly ate pink rabbit shaped blancmange.
I was wondering what the origin of the having pink blancmange served shaped like a rabbit is? It seems it was a widespread custom in the UK at the time.
(Not my picture, found it on twitter)
At a guess this was the advent of easy-to-get plasticware, so cheap, easily available moulded shapes were a novelty. Why the pink blancmange? Perhaps easier to get this out of a mould than jelly?
Wow, do you have any pictures of this? Not needed for the question, I just wanna see them.
Can't find anything about the reason for the rabbit molds. I can confirm that they were very popular, both with strawberry-flavor pink blancmange, and with other colors. But no info on who introduced them or how they popularized them.
I recently found a rabbit mould in the back of the cupboard, but that was apparently only used for jelly in the 80s. (also UK). @bob1 you can get jelly out easily if you dip the mould in hot water.
A multitude of moulds was used by the Victorians for various types of flummery. Polson Brown went into blancmange big-time (the 'modern' cornflour version) by the late 50's so by the 60s everybody in the UK knew it. How we got to the ubiquitous rabbit mould from there I cannot establish. This is an interesting historical look, but doesn't specifically cover the rabbit - https://www.historicfood.com/Jellies.htm
@bob1 - your traditional British jelly mould would have probably been aluminium or tin back then, even though plastic would be rapidly overtaking them.
Tetsujin: press-molded glass molds were (and still are) also very popular, including ones for the rabbit: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-rabbit-jelly-Glass-mould/193850015578?hash=item2d225c7f5a:g:zygAAOSwKk9fXLZR I tried to find out who originally made these, as that was probably the source of the rabbit mold trend, but no luck.
Sorry to disappoint you guy's but we can go back another decade for the "pink blancmange" eating part of my childhood and Mum had a glass "rabbit-shaped" mold. So its popularity was not driven by the plastics manufacturing industry.
As for the pink colour
life in general was a lot more basic at that time* There were 97 houses in our street and these were a little bit posh we had inside toilets and a bath. Only 6 homes had a car and 3 were work ones. Only 3 houses had a phone.
Well I remember my mum did not have much choice in food colours
I did some research and this is what I found; in the early 20th century to stop people from being poisoned
The United States Food and Drugs Act prohibited the use of poisonous or harmful colors in confectionery and the coloring or staining of food to conceal damage or inferiority.
Protecting the Consumer
The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 finally created strict rules governing the use of synthetic foods and, surprisingly, only seven colors were approved for widespread use in food and they are still on the list today. They are
Blue No. 1 (Brilliant Blue FCF), Blue No. 2 (Indigotine),
Green No. 3 (Fast Green FCF),
Red No. 3 (Erythrosine), Red No. 40 (Allura Red AC),
Yellow No. 5 (Tartrazine), and Yellow No. 6 (Sunset Yellow FCF).
So we basically had 4 colors and green was already spoken for, "the grass"
Blue rabbit? No, not really; Yellow rabbit? Urrrm!
Red rabbit OK. But blancmange is white so a few drops of red colouring and Hey presto! we got our Pink Rabbit! And since a lot of us Kids had a nice white rabbit with red eyes as a pet, well you guessed it the Pink Rabbit worked just fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.598361
| 2021-02-03T20:47:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114089",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108959
|
Why does frozen food still have an expiration date?
In a below 0°C environment, no bacteria or fungi may grow. How could time "spoil" frozen food?
edit: More concretely, I have lobsters and pizza dough that stayed really long in my freezer, are they completely useless now?
"In a below 0C environment, no bacteria or fungi may grow." No, that's often told as a simplification because a lot of them grow a lot less below that temperature. Doesn't mean there are no bacteria/fungi in your freezer.
I've even seen expiration date on salt. In some jurisdictions the law demands an expiration date not further in the future then 5 years after packaging... so it's mandatory even for foods which will last much longer. (even if it could be measured in thousands of years)
To keep the economy rolling, many (many) tons of good food is trashed daily due to short expire dates and it cannot be offered to hungry people because it's against the law, go figure...
@CONvid19: Here in Germany, AFAIK it is not against the law to sell food after the "best before" date, only if it is after the "consume before" date (for food that has high microbiological risk such as fresh minced meat or poultry meat). However, if food is sold after the best before date, the seller has to make sure it is still fine. And that may translate to an extended (legal) risk to the seller, which they tend to avoid. (Figure what would happen if someone gets sick and claims it is due to shop x selling it after the best before date). In consequence, it is common here that shops ...
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX The expire date I was referring to was the "consume before". Try eating a yogurt 6 months after the "consume before" date and, if properly kept in the fridge during that time, you'll be surprised to find that it still good. Packed food has so many antibiotics and preservatives that they can last "forever".
Note that the currently top answer does mention, but to my mind doesn''t stress enough, that your presumption about bacteria is wrong regarding fish. fresh fish will go bad in a normal (-2 to +5C) freezer almost as quickly as it would be in room temperature - two days in freezer is suggested maximum to keep fresh fish, unless you do it in the -18C freezer, where it can be for longer.
@CONvid19: sorry, you bark up the wrong tree here :-) - there is no whatsoever surprise for me in finding that yoghurt is still fine long after the (literally) "keeps at least till...". I fully agree that far too much food that is still OK to eat gets thrown away. But: here, that overwhelmingly happens in the household and restaurans/canteen/catering (almost 80 % of all foodstuff thrown away) compared to trading logistics/shops (5 %, of which 2/5 do not go to waste but are donated to caritative institutions). Household + "catering" also have high percentages of avoidable food waste....
So I'm all for educating people about how to recognize what really needs to be thrown away and what doesn't (such as by answering this question). Hanlon's razor makes me think that I don't need to assume food industry or supermarkets being engaged in conspiracy where stupidity or fear (incuding the combination of lack of education and "if in doubt, throw it out") in everyday life is a sufficient explanation.
Frozen food does spoil over time. Much slower than even just thawed, sure, but don't expect that something that would spoil within few days at just above 0°C will last with unchanged quality for years at -18°C (even if it were always at that temperature). There are also physical and chemical effects contributing to spoiling of food.
Freezing refers to water forming ice. The spoiling of the aqueous parts (water and the stuff dissolved in water) is extremely slowed down due to the phase change liquid -> frozen.
But food is not only water, and e.g. lipids (fatty, oily) parts are much less affected by the lower temperature. The lipids in food are are often mixtures of fats and oils that get slushy and finally more and more still in the temperature range we're talking about. E.g. squalene (which is fairly abundant in some fish oils) has a freezing point of -75 °C - having such components helps keeping the mixture from freezing (crystallizing).
Lipids can go rancid by hydrolysis and/or oxidation. This is slower in cold temperatures (as a rule of thumb, for lipid oxidation I'd expect maybe an order of magnitude slower for 10 °C lower storage temp. So 3 weeks instead of 2 days. If you manage consistently -18 °C instead of +2 °C, maybe several months, but not years. Gas-tight containers help against oxidation by oxygen from the air - but it is extremely difficult to seal food really air-tight at a time scale of several months.
Hydrolysis would be hampered by forming of ice, so the prediction of the time scale isn't that straightforward. In particular glycerol (e.g. from hydrolysis of lipid) will act as anti-freeze and keep some tiny fraction of the water in a liquid phase where it can help hydrolyze further lipids.
Fish need to have lipids that stay suitably liquid at water temperature (i.e. for some fish even around 0 °C). Thus, while tallow is more-or-less solid already at +20°C, fish oils are liquid at close to 0°C. Which means that at the same -18 °C both oxidation and hydrolysis will be faster in cold water fatty fish than in the meat of warm-blooded animals.
Health considerations: hydrolysis is affects the sensory quality, but AFAIK does not have health concerns (triglycerides are anyways hydrolyzed in our lipid metabolism).
Oxidation of (unsaturated) fatty acids OTOH leads to so-called lipid oxidation products (duh!). They include mutagenic and carcinogenic substances. BUT: this is also something that happens inside our body during lipid metabolism, and sufficiently often that we do keep detoxification pathways up and running. We includes the animals of whom we're discussing the meat here. This detoxification uses antioxidants (that's why they are healthy), and in the cells they are stored together with antioxidants (e.g. vitamin E). Before lipid oxidation (and the formation of potentially unhealthy components) starts, the antioxidants are used up - that's their biochemical purpose. In terms of health effects, in this stage, we're not getting as much of the particularly healthy antioxidants out of this food as we'd have gotten by eating that meat earlier, but also there aren't yet particularly unhealthy compounds in it.
All in all, I'd say also the oxidative rancidity is not very concering in this scenario:
we're quite good at detecting rancid fat (also from hydrolysis) so the risk of unknowingly eating dangerous amounts is low.
The lack of antioxidants from this piece of food can quite easily be compensated by adding some more fresh veggies or nuts to the meal. In addition, the potentially toxic effects from possible lipid oxidation products can to a certain extent be counteracted by eating yet more antioxidants. Add another big spoon of broccoli with some fresh nuts or almonds to your meal.
If you're frying meat/fish in oil, that may be a far more important source of lipid oxidation products in your diet.
Volatile substances (which are important for smell/"taste") also have lower vapor pressure but it's still above zero. Getting a container gas tight at a time scale of months is difficult. In the end, after a year or so in the freezer is is quite possible that all the food acquires the average freezer smell/taste.
Health effects well, we don't know what substances float around in your freezer. But the total amount you eat probably doesn't differ much whether you let one piece of meat "soak" in that atmosphere for a years vs. 12 times eating a piece of meat that was in there for a month.
If you flash-freeze food, there will be tiny ice crystals, but given enough time they will grow (depending on temperature again, the colder the slower, and the more gas volume the more). This has two consequences for the food: the crystals can grow so that they damage the cell walls (in fish/meat or vegetables): the thawed meat is noticeably more tender, for vegetables we call the same effect mushy and often do not appreciate is as much. (Freezing in a home freezer is sufficiently slow to get this effect)
The 2nd effect is that even at these low temperatures, water evaporates (that is part of how the re-crystallization processes work), and pure water crystals form. Over time and helped by temperature changes (due to opening, putting in new stuff, cooling cycles), pure water tends to crystallize outside the food at the wall of the container. This water comes from inside the food, which is dehydated (freezer burn).
Health effects none, or only indirect ones: destroyed cell walls may mean that microbial spoiling is faster once the food is thawed. But here again the time at -18 °C makes hardly any difference compared to the slowish process of freezing in a household freezer.
Dehydration/freezer burn also causes the protein to precipitate but that doesn't cause health concerns. And cooking/frying anyways leads to even irreversible protein denaturation (denaturation from drying may even be reversible).
In terms of packaging, vaccum sealing (in a material that is has low permeability for oxygen - not all plastics are gas tight on the time scales we're talking about, and permeability varies for different gases) helps. Frozen fish is sold glazed with a protective ice coating that also helps, both against freeze burn and by adding another barrier for oxygen.
below 0C environment, no bacteria or fungi may grow
I wouldn't bet on this as a general fact of life, see psychrophile microorganisms.
But for the food-relevant microorganisms it is a good approximation.
For your lobster, all that I explained about cold water fish will apply. It may not taste well any more. In terms of microbiological spoilage, months at -18 °C matter hardly at all compared to the time spent not or incompletely frozen.
For the yeast (pizza) dough, while you can freeze yeast dough (dried yeast is usually produced by a freeze drying process), yeast can also die and your home freezing process may not be as nice to the yeast as an industrial process optimized to keep it "alive". But you'll notice if it doesn't rise when thawed - and as @GdD points out, you may not need it to rise after thawing.
If there are freeze burned spots, you may get away with thorough kneading like when the surface of the resting dough accidentally dried a bit. Also, you can check the smell before putting any toppings.
What a complete answer! The one think I would say is that you can use pizza dough even if the yeast has died because you don't need further rising action. You are going to roll it thin, which will knock any rise out of it anyway, the spring you get in the oven is due to the expansion of air and moisture. Pizza dough will eventually go bad in the freezer for all the other reasons you describe.
But in essence you are saying it would be safe to try the food, right? Spoiled fat should not be poisonous in the quantities you would eat before noticing the taste and stopping?
@Nobody: yes. I'd say the health risk is the same whether you try food that was frozen 1 week or 1 year as long as it was always properly frozen. I seem to recall a thread here a while ago about rancidity and health concluding that taste is ruined but rancid fat is not particularly dangerous. OTOH, you'd have to expect a loss in healthy components such as vitamins and antioxidants (they are oxidized first, before the lipids - that's their purpose).
Then maybe add a summary pointing that out more explicitly? Would make a good answer even better.
+1 for explaining that water evaporates (sublimates in this case) at all temperatures and how this ruins the taste of food, while not likely rendering any toxicity, although I bet a chemist could devise an exotic situation where by it could.
@Nobody: added "Health effects" sections to all the described points.
@Quaternion: I'm chemist... It's going to be very to get water toxicity here: the usual effect is that the food dries out, and that makes it no worse than dried food... :-D
They are most likely "best by" dates, meaning quality may suffer, but they remain safe.
How could the quality change? Isn't everything pretty much in a stationary state in a freezer ?
@Fermat'sLittleStudent No! In a typical home freezer you have variations in temperature, and the conditions are right for dehydration/freezer burn. Frankly, the temperature is not low enough for ultra-long-term storage. Packaging is also something to consider. Vacuum packaging helps to significantly extend freshness...but the quality of any product will be impacted over time.
There is also a huge difference between a chest freezer and your standard household freezer on the top design in how long things stay good for. The standard design is quite terrible at everything but the convenience factor -- the second you open it all of the cold air plummets out towards the floor. That affects not only the efficiency but also promotes freezer burning and similar effects.
While cbeleites' answer is technically accurate, I think this one is the actually correct one: expiration dates are quality based. Freezer burn is a common problem, and the longer something's in the freezer the more freezer burn it gets. Particularly in a frost-free freezer - guess how it becomes frost free? Every hour or two it raises the temperature above freezing to evaporate the ice (sublimate, I guess), and then goes back down again. This causes freezer burn to get much worse.
@Fermat'sLittleStudent yes in a freezer at absolute zero (0K), if your freezer is less efficient than that it will not be stationary. The background radiation in space as a reference is 2.7K. Zero is unreachable, so in short... it isn't.
Why do frozen food still have expiration date?
The answer to that is simple: Everything (even salt, and bottled water?!) has an expiry date. That's because the law says so (at least in most industrial countries).
Yes, the water molecules in that bottle are a few billion years old, and the water has been in that same state within the aquifer for the last 11,000 years, until someone filled it into a glass bottle. Sure enough, in two years from now it will be unusable. It doesn't need to make sense, it's just the law.
In a below 0C environment, no bacteria or fungi may grow.
Now that is a misconception, in two ways. First, bacteria are not absolutely necessary for food spoiling (though they sure do help!). Second, it is not granted for certain that bacteria do not grow below 0°C. There exist bacteria which survive just fine at considerably below zero temperatures. They sure do have a bit of a hard time actually growing when they're frozen, but freezing doesn't necessarily happen at 0°C, depending on what else is around, apart from just water (salt, ethylene glycol, cellular protein, fat, etc.).
Frozen food is also a bit troublesome in general, insofar as the manufacturer must plan for some non-perfect cooling chain as well. Evidently, you're not going to keep -18°C all the time on your way home from the store, whether there's a label on the box saying so or not.
How could time "spoil" frozen food?
All organic matter decays with time. That's because of the fundamental laws of nature. All life, and all living and formerly-living matter (including what you consider "food") boils down to one single thing: Transforming the energy contained in photons that the sun kindly provides in some very complex way (electron excitement, followed by a complicated hand-off process), and using that energy to build up complex molecules that somehow store that energy. What follows is a long chain of who-eats-whom, and more complex molecules, until eventually they end up on your table, and in your belly (...and eventually you will be eaten up by worms and bacteria when your expiry date has been met).
Nature shuns high-energy states, it attempts to always achieve the lowest possible energy state, i.e. the most chaotic state (ever wondered how your room becomes a mess all by itself when you worked so hard cleaning it up the day before?). Complex, high-energy constructs will therefore inevitably, with time, decay to something that has a lower energy level. Oxygenation is one such thing that happens, for example. Freezing greatly delays reaction speed and thus the decay process (plus, it reduces mechanical stress to mega-molecules due to brownian motion), but it does not stop it.
For most applications, this is a "don't care" thing. Like most people, you will once or a few times in your life have eaten something that was significantly over the expiry date (I've eaten, without ill effects, things that were two decades over expiry). And yes, why not.
There's things that are outright dangerous and possibly lethal (say, packaged meat where the package is already bending outwards!), but for the most part it really is a "don't care" thing, and no bad things will happen. For the overwhelming majority of things, evolution has provided us with keen "can eat" detectors. If it's not good, most of the time, botox being the exception, you don't want to eat it.
Some things even have to decay in order to provide the desired taste. Only just, in that case you call the decay "ripening" or "maturing". Much like you say "steak" and not "cow cadaver", as people are less likely to eat the latter.
Do note that "can eat" and "taste is within defined parameters" are different things, too. Taste can, and will, get lost with time, even if the food is perfectly good otherwise. Frozen food must however meet a minimum level of residual taste, or the producer will eventually find himself out of business. That's another challenge, and a reason to pluck a not-too-generous expiry date on the package.
"ethylene glycol" Did you mean to write glycerol? I sincerely hope there is not much of ethylene glycol around in the food. If there is, that's far more of a problem than storage time at whatever temperature.
Good points about the expiry date, though. I just checked salt and refined sugar, they have lot numbers but no best before data (I'm in Germany). Also, we have to radically different types of dates: "consume before" dates for food where spoiling cannot be reliably detected by naked eye, nose etc. such as fresh minced meat and "best before" dates for which "warranty date" may be a better name (these are far more common): until that date the manufacturer guarantees the quality of the product if you store it as instructed. In other words: if it spoils earlier, you can get a free replacement. ...
... but like there is no reason to throw your computer away because the warranty is expired there is no reason to throw food away only because the best before date is reached. Of course, one may throw spoiled food away - like a broken computer.
Good points. One point about your bottled water example- water in a sealed bottle can have microorganisms which multiply and make the water unsafe to drink. When learning how to prepare a bunker for emergencies, I learned that if you bottle tap water, even if you seal it, don't keep it more than a month. So the water molecules may last for eons and be safe to drink from the flowing aquifer, yet still become unsafe once it's bottled due to the microbes.
" Everything (even salt, and bottled water?!) has an expiry date. That's because the law says so (at least in most industrial countries)." - good wines?
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX They almost certainly meant "polyethylene glycol," a common food, drug and cosmetic additive.
I stand to be corrected: the best before date is not a warranty date in the sense that replacement of spoiled products are not guaranteed but a courtesy of manufacturer or shop (in practice they happen without questions in my [very limited] experience).
Good points in this answer, but the “nature shuns high-energy states” part is frankly a bit on the pseudoscientific gobbledegook side. Nature does indeed, in a very particular sense, approach the “most chaotic” state, that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But that's something very different from trying to achieve the lowest energy state (which indeed nature does not, in general). The lowest energy state tends to be very ordered, like, a single crystal with long-range lattice coherence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.598794
| 2020-06-09T19:28:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108959",
"authors": [
"Binyomin",
"Fermat's Little Student",
"GdD",
"Gnudiff",
"Joe M",
"John",
"Mast",
"Nobody",
"Pedro Lobito",
"Quaternion",
"cbeleites",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83712",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"paul23",
"vsz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97476
|
What does '1 unit of lemon juice' mean in a grandma's drink recipe?
My recipe says 1 unit of lemon juice, what does that mean?
I am not sure if this recipe states that it is American or not but it is for a weight loss, eat healthy program and I do not understand what it is asking me.
What's the rest of the recipe? Without more context, "unit" will be very hard to guess!
Does the weight loss program have a concept of 'units' in terms of how much you're allowed / supposed to eat? (eg, 4 units of fruits, 1 unit of protein, 2 units of carbohydrates). If so, look up what's typically allowed for lemon juice.
It is to show you the ratio of juice to water, but leave the quantity up to you.
This way you can make different amounts: for example 1 unit lemon juice to 3 units water. You could sub in pints or liters or gallons or hogsheads or whatever was appropriate for the amount of lemonade you wanted to make, according to the ratio provided.
The puzzler is how much sugar to add, which is dependent on the amount of fluid. My guess is that there is no sugar as this is a weight loss sort of thing, so really it will just be dilute lemon water.
This is partially accurate/helpful, but the ratio might not be juice to water. For example,my favorite margarita recipe is 1 unit of lime to 1 unit of tequila to 1 unit of orange liquor. To the OP: What is the rest of the recipe? A unit of lemon in relationship to which other ingredients?
@moscafj the explanation of units in regard to ration stands regardless of the liquids involved. Willk gives water as part of an example, they are not instructing the OP to use water.
@moscafj A unit of lemon in relationship to all the other ingredients that are measured in "units". Which ought to be all of them since mixing a unit of lemon juice with two units of ketchup and a teaspoon of salt will give very different results depending on how much you choose a "unit" to be.
Now I just have to find a nice hogshead measure that can be hand-washed.
@DavidRicherby: Often but not always. When an ingredient (or its ratio) is not inherently relevant to the recipe (e.g. the cocoa powder on top of a cappucino, or the ice in most cocktails), it doesn't particularly have to be expressed in function of the same units. In those cases, it's either aesthetic or largely subjective anyway.
it is for a weight loss, eat healthy program
These programs usually define their own "units". They try to simplify the calculation of calories, vitamins, and whatever they prescribe to you to eat, by saying that you should eat X units of this and Y units of that per day. The program then also publishes a list of how much of each food makes up one "unit". These definitions are specific to the program, and not shared with other programs or with any other widespread measurements.
So I suggest that you look up the material from that program, to see what their definition of units is.
The internet suggests that another possible meaning of one unit of lemon juice is the juice from one lemon. That is to say, two to four tablespoons of lemon juice.
If you have a bottle of lemon juice rather than a lemon, you can try two tablespoons and add to taste. Or if you have to make it all at once without tasting, try three tablespoons, which seems to be the middle of the range of possibilities. Two tablespoons would also be an eighth of a cup (one fluid ounce), if it's easier to measure that way.
Of course, the recipe might make this clearer. Is this a standalone amount (e.g. one lemon) or a ratio (e.g. one part lemon to four parts water)? Or something else?
For example, in this recipe, it is probably one lemon. I would also guess a glass is one cup of water, but it's not exactly clear on that either.
1 unit Lemon juice
1 tablespoon Chia seeds
1 tablespoon Honey
1 ½ glasses Water
Gaaah, why would anybody write "1 unit lemon juice" instead of just "The juice of one lemon"?
in the UK a glass is 10floz or 1/2 pint
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.600564
| 2019-04-15T00:40:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97476",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Flater",
"Joe",
"Spagirl",
"Todd Wilcox",
"WendyG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.