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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28586
|
How to use a bottom concave ebelskiver (Æbleskiver) pan on a glass cook-top stove?
I've recently come in to a lovely cast iron ebelskiver pan (pictured below) and would like to try to make some ebelskivers.
The problem is I don't have a gas range and I'm rather sure that my glass-top stove won't be able to adequately or evenly heat the pan due to its concave underbelly. The bottom of the wells aren't even level with the skirting rim of the pan.
Is there anything I can do short of replacing my range top or starting a fire in my backyard to use this pan to make some stuffed pancakes?
is it an inductive or resistive stovetop? I've used a cast iron aebleskiver pan on an inductive top, although mine has some extra material underneath each well, similar to this one
As it turns out I've purchased a gas range top since posting this question and no longer need an answer, however someone else may in the future. I'm leaving it unanswered for the moment as I have no way to verify any of the supplied techniques.
You could consider heating it up, while empty, in an oven (I would go for, say, 200C/390F). Keep it there for at least 30 minutes: the transfer of heat from the air to the cast iron is not very efficient! Then take it out quickly, pour the batter in, and return it to the oven until done (and then make the next batch, if you're making multiple).
An issue with this could be that the Æbleskiver might cook too quickly from the top. You might need to experiment with the target temperature you leave the oven at.
I thought of this, though it may be by best option, unfortunately it really isn't ideal given that Æbleskiver need to be manipulated throughout preparation.
We have been making them for years; the past 15 have been on the flat glass top. Just heat the pans on the stove before you start cooking. It will likely take a few tries before you find the right temperature setting for your range. We hear ours to a 4 out of 10.
I have used this same pan for years on my glass cook top. However, to keep the heat even I would put a small grate under it and that worked perfectly. This year I have a new induction cook top and Aebleskivers did not do well. Induction will not recognize this pan because it is not flat. I bought the adapter for regular pans to be used on induction and that worked partially. Had to put temp high and it would eventually shut off that burner so moved to another one. Had to constantly do it and Aebleskivers did not brown well. Have been making them on Christmas Eve for 47 years and grew up with a Mom doing them for us always on Christmas Eve. Have to search now for a pan that will work on induction or but the electric one.
Well that bites. Can you set the pan inside another with water?
Mary, that sucks ... see my comment on the question, as I can confirm that style of pan works on an induction burner. (maybe it won't cook exactly like what you're used to, but I was able to get good Æbelskiver out of them)
This might be tricky.
Do you have a grill? Placing the pan on hot coals might work - not an ideal solution though.
I've got an enclosed gas grill. The burner sadly is the wrong shape and too deep in to be safe to cook over it.
Why don't you just buy a single gas or butane burner to use for your Aebleskiver pan? They also work well for tableside dishes such as Crepe Suzette, Steak Diane, ad infinitum (depending on the style you choose). You can use them outdoors too - at home or away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.212089
| 2012-11-22T18:39:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28586",
"authors": [
"Emphemeral91",
"GomerPyleUSMC",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Norm Koerner",
"Robert Coburn",
"Squink Sowell",
"Usaxelo Usalexoze",
"anja",
"finiteautomata",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rheone",
"wsm990"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57196
|
Are the rolls at 'Ryans' or 'Golden Corral' a style of bread?
I've been looking for a recipe online to replicate the rolls you'd find at a 'Ryans' or 'Golden Corral'. I've tried several that sound promising, only to have them turn out tasting like another type of bread. Everyone seems to have the general consensus that they're yeast rolls, but those come in many forms.
I recently tried a recipe that sounded promising, because it had sugar in it and I know that they are a little sweet. However, when I cooked them, they tasted like the 'Parkerhouse' rolls and the texture wasn't correct. It's like if you squeezed these, they'd almost crumble, where they ones I want will almost mold into your hand when you squeeze them. I'll try to include a picture in this post.
My question is what makes this bread the way it is? Is it a style of bread, is it the manner in which its cooked, like with a water bath or something, or would it be the ingredients that affected this aspect.
These are delicious rolls, several restaurants have them, so it's not a secret recipe, and I'd like to narrow down my search for the correct recipe.
Here is a pic of the ones I'm talking about:
Here is a link to a page on Ellen's Kitchen with copycat recipes for the rolls from Ryan's, Golden Corral, and Logan's Roadhouse.
I have not tried these recipes yet but I found it interesting how different they are.
I believe that the 'Golden Corral' recipe on this page is the one I mentioned making. I'm not sure about the 'Ryan's' version, but the fact that they mentioned how to make clover leaf versions of them makes me suspicious. Every time I've ever had a clover leaf roll, it was good, but nothing like a Ryan's roll. I'm not sure about the 'Logan's'. I may give it a try.
They are just simply yeast rolls that have a little extra sugar for the American palate.
Here is a decent base recipe: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/quick-yeast-rolls/
I'd recommend reading the most helpful critical reviews at the bottom because with the tweaks mentioned, they taste amazing.
I'm definitely going to try that recipe, but from the picture, it looks like they'll be similar in texture to the ones I made last weekend. The ones at these restaurants a very soft and almost chewy. I added a picture to my original post. Thanks.
double the sugar, 1.5x on the yeast and let it rise a little longer. Also up temp to about 460 to get the truly fluffy texture. Also add 1/4 tsp of baking powder (not soda)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.212408
| 2015-05-05T14:58:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57196",
"authors": [
"Dalton",
"Ear Nose",
"Erica Wadley",
"Jan Engelmann",
"Jill Bindeman",
"Joe Lee",
"May Shanahan",
"Samuel Elrod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61830
|
Question about new sourdough starter, specifically smell
I'm trying to start my first "successful" sourdough starter. I posted a question about getting it started here:
Initial Question
Since I asked that question, I started a second starter according to a book suggested by one poster. Once started, it was a 1:1:1 ratio of starter/whole rye flour/warm well water. I also let my other flour, which is the same ratio, but with all-purpose flour, sit for a few days. It got a slightly alcohol smelling liquid on it. The rye didn't rise much but got solid, puffy bubbles fairly quickly. I fed both when the rye was bubbly and the all-purpose had some liquid on top. I poured off most of the liquid and then fed both in their separate containers at about 10pm.
Low and behold, I wake up for work the next morning and they've both doubled. I repeated the process of feeding them at night and they've doubled by 6:45am and started to fall by then, as well. As per the suggestion of many posters on this site, I've been smelling my starters often. The rye smells funny on it's own, but I think recently, that it's been starting to smell more yeasty. However, I wake up in the morning and smell the all-purpose. By that point it's started to fall and it has almost no smell at all. It's fully risen and then fallen by about a quarter at that point.
I figured it should have a really yeasty smell then, like when you activate instant yeast. It just smells flat. Then when I go to feed it that night, it does have a stronger smell, but it's more alcoholic than yeasty. Am I just missing the window of good yeast smell or does it need longer to get established.
I started the all-purpose starter on 9/5/15 with the method described in the linked question. Today is the 4th day it's doubled in size. It didn't start doing that till the morning of 9/15/15. Up until then, I did get bubbling, but no noticeable rise. I figured using the initial method of feeding every 12 hours and replacing half was just removing the yeast I'd grown, so I let it sit till it got that "hooch" on top and I figured that meant yeast activity and after feeding I did get a good rise.
So it's now technically been going for 13 days, it's only been vigorously rising for 4 days. Even though it rises and there are a lot of bubbles, they aren't big huge bubbles. So my question is, that given how I've been handling it, does it just need more time to gain that yeasty smell (I think it should have enough with the way it's rising), am I just missing the time when it smells really yeasty, or am I doing something wrong? Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.212629
| 2015-09-18T18:19:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61830",
"authors": [
"Juliana Faronbi",
"Mia Rodriguez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146780",
"teresa grooms"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55063
|
What temperature should "simmer" be for candying fruit?
I want to make Candied fruit more efficiently, and all the recipes I have found say basically "bring simple syrup to a boil, then lower to simmer with the fruit/peel in until translucent"
So my question is:
What temperature should the syrup be during the infusion phase?
I would like to use my SV machine and a zipock to take the guessing and hands on part out of this recipe, but don't know what to set this temperature to.
I found this: To what temperature should you take candied citrus peels?, but it doesn't give the actual answer :(
And I have seen this, (www.chefsteps.com/activities/half-candied-blood-orange) but it has a chamber sealing step I can't do - so don't know how that affects the temp and time hold, if at all.
Thanks in advance for your advice!
I feel that using a SV machine overcomplicates this... I can't imagine it ever making liquid simmer... particularly not syrup, which simmers at a different temperature than water.
I don't think you physically can achieve the same results with a sous vide machine. Typically, those are designed to hold a water bath at a specific (relatively low) temperature. You can't hold water above its boiling point in an open container, because it's, well, boiling and will eventually evaporate. (You could do this in a sealed container, which is the principle behind the pressure cooker, but that's very different than sous vide.)
Here's the thing: simmering is gentle boiling, and by definition it occurs at (or just under) the boiling point of water. You cannot raise the temperature higher than that without adjusting other variables like pressure. Because solutes (like sugar) raise the boiling point of a solution, syrups will often come to a simmer well above the boiling point of plain water. So even if you placed your syrup in a bag, placed it in the water bath, and raised the water bath to a boil - the syrup in the bag wouldn't be boiling. You would have to add pressure or another solute (like salt) to the water bath to get the temperature high enough to also boil the syrup, which could very well damage your sous vide heating element.
The "half-candied" recipe you've linked is an interesting one, because it's really not traditionally candied. Instead what they're doing is infusing the orange with a high sugar content in order to preserve it in a similar way. That can only really be done in a low-pressure, vacuum-sealed environment, because it's using the lack of pressure to force the orange to absorb the syrup instead of boiling out the liquid to be replaced with syrup.
tl;dr: The temperature you need for the syrup to boil is higher than the temperature you can achieve in a sous vide bath. You will have to find another way to streamline the process.
thank you. great answer! Makes sense, and likely saves me a bunch of headache. w/r/t the blood orange recipe - can you think of any way to do this (the pressure infusion) without a chamber vac? I have a meal seal FoodSaver, but it doesn't have a mason option, and bags with liquid are a no-no :(
If you read the comments, people have said they've done the recipe without the vacuum section.
The temperature will be climbing all the time, until it reaches about 110 Celsius. This is when you should stop.
The procedure of making candy is to start with sugar syrup and then boil out some of the water, getting a solution which is fully saturated at its boiling temperature (which is above that of pure water) and becomes supersaturated when it cools down. This is how it works when candying fruit too.
So the word "simmer" is technically wrong in that recipe, as a simmer is usually around 85 Celsius. What they are trying to tell you is not to turn the heat all the way up and remove as soon as the solution reaches its final temperature, but to wait some time for the fruit to infuse in the hot sugar water (some recipes even involve repeated heating and cooling over a day or two before doing the final concentrating boil).
I think that it should be possible to do it sous vide, but you'll have to experiment with it. Hold it for longer time at a lower temperature, and for finishing, do the actual candying on a stovetop. The holding temperature will have to be above 70 Celsius so it will break down the cell walls and let the syrup penetrate the fruit. In fact, you may want to blanch it first, then leave in the bath for hours, and candy in the end.
And be aware, once you are on stovetop: the solution will take a long time to start getting over 100 at all, then also a long time to go from 100 to 101, but once it gets going, don't turn your back on it, it only needs seconds to gain another degree! Leave the thermometer in there all the time and remove as soon as it reaches your desired end temperature.
As for the exact desired end temperature, I've seen recipes calling for anywhere between 105 and 115. I don't know if it depends on the fruit type and/or thickness. Again, you'll have to experiment to find out which works out best for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.212840
| 2015-02-23T19:51:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55063",
"authors": [
"Ben Dillon",
"Catija",
"Kristin Henderson",
"Michael Banks",
"Ronnie Ledsham",
"Shamir Colloff",
"Suzanne Weinstein",
"THE WIDOW",
"garynkate Adams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54140
|
What is the type of cheese in "chips and cheese" UK fast-food? (with photos)
I went to England a few years ago for a couple months. I took pictures of a fast-food dish, "chips and cheese" that is uncommon where I live. More than that, the taste of the cheese intrigued me. The pictures were took in Stafford in case regional culture matters for the answer.
I've tried to replicate the taste once in a while, but I don't know what cheese is being used. Internet research points towards cheddar as the most likely match, however every time I gave it a try the taste did not seem to be it. Therefore I've tried to sprinkle various other types of cheese to no avail.
Based on the cultural details above and the provided picture, what would be the type of cheese?
If it is cheddar, is there a "specific type" of cheddar I would have to look for that would taste similarly when used in cooked dishes?
First of all, welcome tot this wonderful community. Sadly I think the type of "cheese" served on fast food is usually not actual cheese, but some sort of cheese based substitute. You might find that the real answer here is that the thing you tasted was the same kind of chemical rubbish used in cheeseburgers.
It is almost certainly some kind of mild/medium pre-grated cheddar, probably bought in bags in relative bulk. Perhaps any difference in taste is down to the fact that what passes for cheddar where you are is not the same as Cheddar in the UK. In any case, unless you have a bionic heart, I'd advise caution in doing too much research :)
This answer suggests that a good match for what the British call "cheddar" is what the Americans call "Monterey Jack", so you could try that.
Makes me ashamed to be British seeing photos like that. But as stated it'll be a mild mass produced cheddar, comes in a blue 5kg bag coated in a potato/corn starch to stop it sticking together and lasts for months.
It's probably fair to say that this "dish" is not that common in the UK either. In my opinion it's something you would eat if you were starving after a night out and had no money left for anything better. If you ask me, putting on cheese is a good way to ruin chips.
Thanks for the comments, I'll make sure to log back in a week or less to mark whichever answer after I get time to try stuff; when I said uncommon, it was in the "uncommon fast food" sense as much as it's very unlikely to find any fish and chips takeaway where I live.
I am a Brit and have never, ever seen this revolting concoction offered for sale anywhere - but there are regional differences in foods here, and I'm in London, well away from Stafford. It'll be the catering packs of ready grated, very mild cheddar, meaning it will have little taste but lots of fat.
I would try white American to duplicate what you describe. Or, more exotically, some queso asadero (so-called "Mexican melting cheese").
@connersz Poutine, which is similar, seems to be a popular dish in Canada
Is that catsup? That looks disgusting.
The cheese you saw was, if it was real cheese at all, probably cheddar or just plain white cheese. Whatever they put on was not high-quality stuff - takeaways are not known for lavishing money on ingredients.
Whether you will be able to get anything similar depends on where you are. American and British cheddars have different flavors, so if I was in the US I'd try Monterey Jack, or maybe Provelone.
Or the mildest white cheddar that you can locate, but my vote's for Monterey Jack.
Its more than likely what they call 'Pizza Cheese' which is a mix of mozzarella and mild chedder.
I can affirm this, at least the local place I went to in the southern UK used a mix of mozzarella, mild cheddar and I believe a little provolone. Ive often reproduced it using those cheeses and it works well
The majority of fast food take-away restaurants buy their grated cheese in bulk from suppliers. The majority of the cheese is a 70%/30% mix of mozzarella and cheddar. I know because I've worked in the industry for a long time.
@mech As a matter of interest, why in your edits did you add 'restaurants' and change 'trade' to 'industry'?
IMO "fast food take-away" sounds like adjective-adjective, so adding a noun at the end felt proper.
I thought the expression was "worked in the industry", not "worked in the trade", but I'm liable to be wrong, of course.
I first started eating chips and cheese 32 years ago. I frequented a pub for lunch and always ordered scampi and fries with a side salad. The cheese was more often a mild cheddar, although sometimes a Red Leicester was used. To me, it did not matter what cheese was used as I wanted cheese.
These days it is mostly mozzarella in takeaways, however, to me it's not my preferred choice as it's too mild and bland. I much prefer to taste the actual cheese.
It's halloumi cheese. Personally as a Brit never heard of it until it was mentioned on a meeting today. It's supposedly a salty type of cheese with a lot of protein and is typically used in Cyprus. Can be bought from any Eastern European store of from Wegmans/Wholefoods.
Do you have a source for this? The cheese in the picture looks very melted. In my understanding halloumi (and other "grilling" cheeses) do not melt like this, staying mostly solid even when heated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.213643
| 2015-01-29T05:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54140",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"David Robertson",
"Doug",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Erik Fox",
"GINA Love",
"Hay",
"JAB",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Spagirl",
"Vality",
"William Iverson",
"bamboo",
"connersz",
"gnicko",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"logophobe",
"mech",
"rivermanjeff"
],
"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
}
|
57153
|
Equivalent of dried (ground) pepper when the recipe calls for crushed
This question is in relation to my earlier question Recipe calls for Aleppo Peppers, I need the right substitution amounts for cayenne and paprika that I got an answer to. My recipe calls for crushed Aleppo peppers, and I have the proper substitution ratios using paprika and cayenne peppers. Now my question is that I'm actually using ground (dried?) paprika and ground cayenne pepper for the recipe.
The original recipe calls for "2 tablespoons and 3/4 teaspoon crushed paprika and cayenne pepper mix", so my question is how much ground paprika and cayenne pepper mix do I use?
Thanks for the help. :)
Patrick.
Here's what I've been able to find (looking at crushed red pepper flake substitutions):
This site says to 2/3s as much ground as crushed:
Substitute 1⁄2 tsp (2 mL) ground cayenne pepper with:
• 3⁄4 tsp (4 mL) crushed red pepper flakes
I'm not sure why the mL are doubled but the tsp are 2/3s
This site says 2/3s as well:
1/2 tsp Cayenne powder per 3/4 teaspoon red pepper flakes
So, in your example from your other question, you would use 4-1/2 tsp of the chili powder mixture (6.75 tsp x .666).
The difference is in the size, powder=fine, crushed or coarse ground=medium, whole=large, period, the rest can be dictated by taste and personal preference. Unless you're baking recipes are less formula and more subjective. A fine power will be denser (you can pack more small particles into a space than med or lg) and the flavor generally more intense. The general rule is 1/3 more for the larger size e.g., fine powder pepper vs coarse ground pepper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.214112
| 2015-05-03T17:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57153",
"authors": [
"Aubrienna Pembrook",
"Kian Rezvani",
"Sharon Glover",
"Suzette Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136096",
"john davies"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65579
|
Why do fridge temperature standards between US and other countries differ?
US recommendations always go for +4°C at most, and this would correlate with how the danger zone is defined in the pertinent literature.
In Germany, most literature (and also the specification next to use-by dates on packaging) suggests +7°C or +8°C. http://www.br.de/radio/bayern1/inhalt/experten-tipps/umweltkommissar/kuehlschrank-temperatur-energie-verbrauch-umweltkommissar-100.html
Surprisingly, the first dutch google result http://www.consumentenbond.nl/koelkast/extra/temperatuur-koelkast/ suggests +3-4°C.
France, http://www.linternaute.com/bricolage/pratique/electromenager/17004/temperature-frigo-tout-ce-qu-il-faut-savoir.html +4°C
UK,
http://www.exeter.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11517 +8°C and redefines the danger zone.
What is up with that, given +4°C vs +8°C is not as trivial a difference as it looks like...
Not truly answered in possible duplicate What is the ideal fridge temperature. If even on this site such things aren't accepted as a "matter of opinion" (generally good!), why would they be between devoloped nations?
One would assume biology and state of science being the same in all these countries, either things are likely or very unlikely to spoil in a non-visible way at that or that temperature...
As a starting point, I found this article, which says:
The suggested temperature specification for refrigeration of foods has been revisited from time to time as knowledge and technology have advanced. Initially 7°C (45°F) was considered the optimal temperature; however, technological improvements have made it economical to have domestic refrigeration units working at a temperature of 4-5°C (40-41°F). For perishable products ≤4.4°C (40°F) is considered a desirable refrigeration temperature. ... Even these measures cannot control all pathogenic bacterial growth. For example L. monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophila, B. cereus and C. botulinum will multiply at recommended “good” refrigeration temperatures (5°C [41°F]). There are other bacteria (Salmonella spp., E. coli and S. aureus), that, although unable to grow at temperatures below 5°C (41°F), will take advantage of temperature abuse and grow. ...
If you're interested in additional detail about all that, the article does have a bibliography, but most of it is not accessible online. I did find this table of temperature ranges for growth for several common bacteria, though. Note that for example C. botulinum grows down to 3.3C/38°F, and L. monocytogenes (listeria) grows down to 29.3°F (-1.5°C)! So even 4°C isn't stopping everything.
In any case, there definitely is concrete benefit from the 4°C guideline: many foodborne bacteria will definitely multiply above 5°C, which would lead to shorter safe refrigeration times (or more foodborne illness if you times aren't adjusted) at the 7°C or 8°C temperatures used in Germany.
I don't know anything concrete about why Germany has chosen to tolerate this risk, however. The historical progression to lower temperatures cited there does suggest that Germany simply hasn't adjusted their standards lower as technology has improved (as mentioned in the article) but it's not clear why.
A side note: outside of food safety, the primary way fridges can have an undesired effect on food is by accidentally freezing it. (Temperatures vary by position in the fridge, and by time.) There's a balance here between reducing temperature as much as possible for safety, and keeping far enough above 0°C that variance doesn't routinely freeze your food. Given that some things grow even below 4°C, I'm guessing that if it were possible to hold temperature more constant, we'd actually see even lower temperature recommendations, in the same vein as previous decreases in temperature recommendations.
I found that setting 8°C on my fridge creates worse consequences from that freezing effect than 4°C: At 4°C, stuff that gets accidentally frozen at least will stay frozen, at 8°C, any disturbance creates a freeze-thaw-freeze-thaw cycle in these spots that will ruin vegetables thoroughly...
Also: What fridge temperatures has imported food (eg brands that are sold across the EU) actually been tested at when the label says "store cool after opening"? Something that has been tested at 4°C and found/formulated to be safe unless it shows visible spoilage... might not be at 8°C in German or UK conditions. .... Or might there be a hidden calculation behind it that takes into account that ambient temperatures in Germany and the UK will usually be lower than in more southern parts of europe, thus leading to less trouble through ambient-temperature phases during transport?
One factor may be that (for some unfathomable reason) Germans still use refrigerators that would be considered dorm-sized in the US. It's possible those small fridges are not capable of reliably producing 4°C.
@rackandboneman I have absolutely no idea about import/export and testing in the EU, sorry! Sounds like the kind of thing that could be complicated for a lot of non-culinary reasons.
@Marti they can, BUT they tend to have freezy spots indeed...
Just to add another element to Cascabel's excellent answer, have a look at the table on page 16 of this source. (It's from the same website that one of Cascabel's sources comes from, which is a great resource for food safety information in general, with documents mostly written by an expert with numerous citations to the food safety literature.)
Anyhow, that table shows safe holding times at various temperatures based on the following assumptions:
These times are derived from the growth of pathogenic microorganisms
in food. They are based on the cold holding standard established in
the FDA Food Code that food at 41°F can be held for 7 days. These
times at specified temperatures are based on the assumption that the
food is of average quality when obtained from the food market or
supplier.
The table provides the following data points for the length of safe food preservation:
29F (-1.7C) or lower - "Safe" (indefinitely - no pathogenic bacterial growth)
30F (-1.1C) - 123.8 days
35F (1.7C) - 19.3 days
40F (4.4C) - 7.5 days
41F (5.0C) - 6.5 days
45F (7.2C) - 4.0 days
50F (10.0C) - 2.4 days
The table continues upward, eventually hitting the minimum "safe" time of around 4 hours at 110-115F, which was the rationale for the old "4-hour rule" that specified maximum time food could be in the "Danger Zone." (The newer 2-hour guideline seems to take into account a wider margin of error, including possible misunderstandings of the rule, improper storage, transportation, handling during prep time, etc.)
In any case, the important thing to take away is that the "Danger Zone" is not some monolithic entity, and its boundaries are a bit fuzzy. There's a widely-held belief that bacteria immediately begin growing rapidly when you hit the low point of the "Danger Zone," but it's not true. Bacteria growth happens quite slowly at cool temperatures. And as Cascabel notes, some bacteria will still grow below the "Danger Zone" limits as defined by most countries. Thus, 4C/5C/8C or whatever are not some magical limit on bacteria growth -- they are instead a practical guideline based on some safe holding time assumptions.
As mentioned above, the FDA's assumption seems to be based on 7 days of safe holding. The standards mentioned in the question which have 7-8C are probably targeted at around 3-4 days of holding time. Given that Europeans tend to shop more frequently, have smaller refrigerators, and store perishable food in them for shorter times than typical Americans, the difference in the guidelines doesn't surprise me at all.
Also, a final important point is that not all spoilage bacteria are equally dangerous. Some cause serious illness, some will cause mild gastrointestinal discomfort, and some are essentially benign to consume but will cause the food to taste (or smell or look) awful. At different temperatures some types of bacteria will outcompete others in growth. At higher temperatures, it's clear that pathogenic bacteria can grow quickly and cause illness when the food is consumed. At cool and cold temperatures, other spoilage bacteria often grow faster than the pathogens.
So, it's not just enough to say that bacteria X can multiply above 4C or 8C or whatever. You need to take into account whether bacteria X is likely to grow fast enough to accumulate enough concentration of bacteria and/or toxins to cause illness before some other non-dangerous spoilage bacteria/yeast/mold grows and makes the food unpalatable enough that people will just throw it out. (Note that some spoilage bacteria can grow at even lower temperatures, down to 23F/-5C or so, but these won't cause foodborne illness, just spoilage.)
If you read other documents on the site linked above, you'll find some references to scientific literature suggesting that much of the time food up to somewhere around 55-60F (around 15C) "spoils safe." In other words, at low temperatures, even if pathogenic bacteria grow, in many cases the random not-so-dangerous spoilage microorganisms grow faster and will spoil the food (make it unpalatable) before it becomes dangerous to eat. (The site goes so far as to claim the FDA's recommendations are incomplete in their reasoning, saying a temperature threshold of 50F (10C) for holding fresh food should be sufficient to promote safety according to HACCP science. I personally wouldn't change my fridge temperature based on that, but it's an interesting conclusion given the inconsistent guidelines from the question. Also, note this guideline is only for fresh foods; elsewhere the site recommends a maximum holding temperature of 38F for cooked leftover foods to guarantee "safe spoilage.")
Epidemiological evidence concurs with this assessment: unless the food is highly contaminated to begin with, there are few outbreaks that can be traced to food which was always kept quite cool. On the other hand, if food is kept cool but is stored above refrigerator temperatures, it is growing bacteria, and thus the higher concentration of bacteria will have a "head start" and will be more likely to grow to dangerous levels if subsequently cooked slowly, handled poorly during prep, etc. -- this is the likely the real reason behind the "Danger Zone" lower bound.
The takeaway message here should be that microorganism growth rates, times, and temperatures are quite complicated, and national guidelines are designed to be simple and easy to follow. But an oversimplified guideline has to be based on complex assumptions that come from various elements of microbiology, likely resulting in slightly different temperature standards.
Takeaway message from that would be "if you routinely store a catalog of sauce, soup etc for a week, dial it to 4 no matter where you are"...
@rackandboneman - Well, as Cascabel notes, stuff can still grow at 4C, so if you want guarantee "absolute" safety in cooked food which is to be stored a long time, follow the last link's advice and go down to 38F (3.3C) maximum. But yes, assuming the food was pasteurized during cooking and cooled properly, ~40F (~4C) should be more than sufficient for a week or more.
Let me start with the answer-direction
1) For household purposes (your data), the difference between four and eight degrees is small;
2) That makes it likely that the differences are trivial as well. Any scenario: Germany started at eight, and kept it at that. France started at four. Holland followed france, because they made cheaper fridges etc etc.
or
france eats fresh food and quickly, so it does not need low temps, no difference between eight and four in french culture..
or .. the german eightdegree lobby was just more succesful.
Sometimes there just are no reasons. No differences in science or insights. Just historical routes, and 8 works just fine. Obviously, 18 would not work..
You would be surprised how much we think is written in stone and based on research and theory, which is just arbitrarely and with huge cultural differences.
To use the same example twice today: the US thinks that raw milk is close to deadly, while France sells it in supermarkets, with no significant differences in health outcomes. The us washes eggs and has to cool them afterwards because their defense is destroyed, in other countries it is illegal to wash them, and so no cooling is required (but they dont look as clean, of course). No difference in health (huge difference in energy and effort of course). Etc Etc.
So if you ask me: good question, no answer except a very historical-trivial one.
But hey, I might be wrong. Just a first attempt..
Your examples don't seem terribly convincing. The US doesn't think raw milk is close to deadly, the FDA just says it's risky, and it has indeed been tied to outbreaks - I'd hardly call that "no significant differences in health outcomes". Similarly, increasing refrigerator temperature increases risk. I don't know how much, but construing that as "no health difference" seems disingenuous. Assuming that no one has actually studied it is a bit of a leap, too.
The egg-washing thing also isn't a "no health difference" thing, they're just making a tradeoff: lower risk of contamination from the shells at the cost of requiring refrigeration vs higher risk from shells but no refrigeration required.
But setting aside the details of the examples you gave, I think the bottom line is you need to try to back this up. You've just asserted that 4C doesn't make much difference. I'm not terribly convinced by the suggestion that no one's actually researched this; food safety agencies do tend to try to study things.
Thing is, the definitions of "outside danger zone" are not used to manage a significant risk, they are used in situations where you want the risk guaranteed insignificant. And they become very relevant in home cooking too when guests are served, AND/OR when one wears the margin thin on other aspects (eg food kept longer in fridge than recommended, or guest of weak health). The question I mentioned as a "false duplicate candidate", I mentioned because it had collected answers that handwaved at history and customs...
Also: If we assume microbial growth being exponential, and even if temperature just had a linear influence on the doubling rate (I would assume it following arrhenius more closely than a linear rate), 4°C would already not be that insignificant when it comes to safe storage time before unsafe levels are reached.
Now, lets go into the examples you attack on their own. Raw milk is not seen as deadly in the US, no I am aware of that. But it is close. I was using parabole to make the point clear.
Egg shells: where is that decision that the US made to weigh outer shell infection to cooling necessity? I doubt it is even safer to be begin with. I think it is just, well, culture, and that US consumers dont like to see poo on their eggs, while most other countries just rinse them before use. In fact, there is really nothng reational about the decision, in terms of effort and returns in safety.
@MarcLuxen Simply repeating that you doubt it and that you think it's irrational doesn't really demonstrate anything. The US agencies, as I said, do not just pull these things out of thin air. You may think they're overly paranoid (and they may well be more paranoid than you want to be at home) but that doesn't make them baseless.
For example, raw milk: "The number of US outbreaks caused by nonpasteurized
milk increased from 30 during 2007–2009 to 51 during
2010–2012. ... During 2007–2012, a total of 81 outbreaks associated
with nonpasteurized milk were reported from 26 states.
These outbreaks resulted in 979 illnesses and 73 hospitalizations.
No deaths were reported." (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/21/1/pdfs/14-0447.pdf) Keep in mind that the vast majority of milk in the US is pasteurized, so there would be orders of magnitude more problems if everyone drank raw milk. Acceptable risk? Maybe. Irrational? No.
It is irrational to try to avoid any possible risk at great cost (but, may i add, let a Mac marketing very unhealthy food to children for instance). Different cultures make different decisions, and they are not based on rational data..these do not exist. You may call these numbers significant, and i can say they are not. There is not much more to discuss about this I guess. I stick to my answer regarding the OP.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.214284
| 2016-01-18T20:00:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65579",
"authors": [
"Aaron Patterson",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy Honseler",
"Cindy Robinson",
"Deacon Robert Gengenbacher",
"Gina Reilly",
"Kenneth DeLong",
"Liz Fennelly",
"Marc Luxen",
"Marti",
"Miranda Smith",
"Thomas Housley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73898
|
How can I salvage burned apple crumble?
I made apple crumble in small ramekins earlier today. I tasted one and the crumble felt a bit dry and not sweet enough, so I added white sugar on top and put it in the oven on broil, hoping to melt the sugar and make it better.
Naturally, I made the mistake of forgetting how fast and hot of a setting broil really is...
How can I salvage these apple crumbles? (remove the burned appearance and taste)
Oh dear... I would scrape off the burned bits, or slice across with a sharp knife. To repair the look (and add a few cals), I'd either drizzle on a simple glaze of icing sugar mixed with milk, or garnish with whipped or clotted cream, or a dollop of vanilla ice cream.
@Dorothy why not make that an answer?
That is such a shame, they looked wonderful.
You may well be able to save the not-so-burnt ones. But you'll have to check the burnt taste hasn't tainted the apple base.
I'd start by carefully removing the burnt bits, (as Dorothy suggested above) and inspecting / tasting the base.
To repair the crumble topping. Mix up a new batch and bake it on it's own. Then when it has cooled enough to handle brake it up and re-top the crumbles.
Rather than grilling/broiling you can get a small blow torch like the ones plumbers use. They are great for this and Creme Brulee. You have much more control.
If you add a mixture of equal parts melted butter and honey or maple syrup, the sweetness and richness will counteract the bitterness to create what might become your signature Blackened Apple Crumble.
I had heard of using whipped cream or ice cream to fix scorched desserts, presumably for the same reason - richness and sweetness may counteract the bitterness from being burned (potentially leaving complex added flavors behind, which can be good or bad) and also balancing the moisture lost from over-baking.
Immediately took the burnt pieces off and the burnt taste did not seem to have reached the fruit. Tried the baking a new batch of topping answer, and it worked -looked a little off, but tasted great. Whipped cream on top and good to go! Thank you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.215561
| 2016-09-12T01:21:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73898",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Giorgio",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"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
}
|
54361
|
What can I do to prevent big holes in the bottom of bread loaves?
Can you give me any ideas to control this type of hole in bread?
Can you by any chance link to your recipe or describe it? It's possible to tell a lot from pictures but details help!
Were the seams intentional? The loaves looked like they were shaped with too much bench flour on them. That could be the reason for the holes as well.
Seems like a sure case of, dry dough, to me...
Is the bread filled, or simply twisted/braided?
How did you shape the dough before you put it in the pan, and did it have a final proof in the pan before baking? It looks like the bread had a bit of a twist to it, but wasn't given a chance to relax before baking. (although the nature of the twisting might still trap a bubble of air under the bread)
When I had a similar result many years ago, I finally figured out that the problem was a combination of how I shaped the loaves and letting them over rise in the pan. It also looks to me that these loaves were twisted when formed. If so, perhaps try a different method of shaping them such as a braid, for a similar look. Moreover, check your recipe for how much the dough should rise in the pan before going into the oven. Some call for rising to the level of the bread pan, some call for an inch (rarely more) above the edge of the pan. Finally, make sure your oven is fully preheated, especially if using a baking stone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.215763
| 2015-02-03T21:46:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54361",
"authors": [
"Angelica Horrocks",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Gabriel",
"Gábor Laki",
"Joe",
"Larry Cadwell",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nancy McArdle",
"Rubye Wiggins",
"Tom Dufault",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57737
|
Why didn't my laminated dough rise?
I'm trying to make croissants for the first time and my dough is not rising in between folds. I don't know whether to just keep going or if it's trash and I should start over?
I'm guessing it will help out a lot if you explain the method you've followed more exactly and/or post the recipe you're using and where you are at in the steps.
There are two main types of croissant recipes and - like so often - a few typical pitfalls, so please follow @Catija's advice and post the recipe.
Well, I just kept going and they turned out okay. I'm going to experiment with other recipes and get better. I was going to show you a picture @Catija & Stephie but I couldn't figure out how to do that either! :) thank you!
@DiBar , if you want to add a picture click "edit" on you own post. Position the cursor in the text field where you want the picture to go. Over the text field there are a few formatting icons, one of them either a "picture frame" or a "camera" (depending on browser vs. app version). Click on this and a pop-up window will guide you through the process. If the app doesn't work, try opening it in your browser, there is even a "link" under each post to do so. You might have to login in your browser again.
Laminated or "roll-in" doughs don't rise in the traditional sense. Between folds rising is very minimal. You won't see a true rise until you proof your croissants.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.215942
| 2015-05-24T04:24:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57737",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Di Bar",
"Gail Querishi",
"Mishell Jani",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Yvonne Johnson",
"angelo loiacono",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33948"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74158
|
How can I stop cocktails from being foamy?
Whenever I make (shaken) clear cocktails, I end up with foam on top of the drink, like this:
I follow the usual steps of building the cocktail in the mixing tin, adding ice and shaking strongly for a few seconds. The ice comes from a regular freezer tray and isn't clear.
How can I stop this from happening and get foam-less cocktails?
@Kareen my bad, I didnt see that one.
If you don't mind, I'm going to undelete this and close as a dup. Doesn't cost you anything, and leaves breadcrumbs for others to find the existing question more easily.
@Jefromi Seems to me like its the exact same question, but sure, if it can help someone.
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, it is the same question, which is why it's marked as a duplicate. But since everyone phrases things differently, leaving the dups around makes it more likely that people manage to find the existing questions when they search, including the automatic mini-search that happens when you start to write a new question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.216090
| 2016-09-23T05:35:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74158",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"JS Lavertu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56470
|
how to season a frozen steak
I have some frozen steaks I want to cook rather quickly. I want to follow this method: this question but I am not sure how to season it. How do I apply seasoning to a steak without defrosting it?
Is your question about what to season it with (I vote salt and pepper) or WHEN to season it?
Both really. More of what to season it with.
Actually, this question borders on "off topic" for two reasons: It might be seen as a recipe request or is too broad. There are loads of options what you could put on a steak and it depends a lot on personal taste.
Hi masfenix, it is indeed offtopic to ask what to season it with. You can use any herb, spice, condiment or flavor extract you can come up with, and none is more "correct" than the other. But the question of how to get the seasoning to stick to a frozen steak is a reasonable one. So instead of closing, I removed the part which asked for flavor recommendation and edited to ask about the method only.
I'm not sure how much it matters, other than the fact that it is difficult for seasoning to stick to a frozen steak. I would season with salt and pepper (or whatever spice blend you prefer) after the sear and before the oven step...but you could also season at the end of the cook. If it is a good steak, keep the seasoning simple.
I did this last night (for a pork shoulder destined for posole,) seasoning after the sear. It seemed to turn out well.
The technique to get the seasoning to stick if frozen solid is one of the following:
Preferred method: Let it thaw enough for the outer layer to be wet rather than solid ice. This will also improve cooking as well.
Spread olive oil or other oil of your choice all over the meat. The seasoning will stick to that.
Wet steak means poor searing. You want a dry surface or you'll end up steaming the outside of the steak.
Dude I meant not frozen solid, I think that was pretty clear.
"let it thaw enough for the outer layer to be wet". Empasis added.
Right as in not frozen emphasis on the not
I find that cooking steak that is not close to room temperature and dry on the surface does not yield good results.
Cooking a frozen steak will yield something edible but for something as nice as a steak which is often expensive I think it is worth going through some extra steps.
The easiest way to thaw a frozen steak is to put it in a plastic bag, push out as much of the air as possible, and immerse it in warm water until it thaws, changing the water if it becomes too cold. A sous vide bag is ideal but even if you don't have that, any plastic bag will do. Putting the frozen steak directly in water causes it to absorb some of the water and makes it almost impossible to sear and degrades the texture.
The surface of the steak should be dry before it is cooked. If the steak is frozen or cool, water tends to condense on it so it is hard to keep it dry. You can dry it immediately before putting it in the pan, but if you do this you'll probably wipe off the seasoning.
When salt is applied to steak, at first it draws out moisture, which makes the steak dry and hard to sear. But then after about 15-20 minutes, the liquid is reabsorbed into the steak along with the salt, which seasons it below the surface and leaves a dry surface which is easy to sear. It isn't necessary that the steak be fully thawed at this point, but it has to be thawed enough for the salt to penetrate.
That is all to say, thaw the steak 1/4 to 1/2 with the plasic bag method, season it, and wait until it is fully thawed and close to room temp, and then cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.216205
| 2015-04-07T21:10:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56470",
"authors": [
"Alan Jump",
"David Collins",
"David Gilliland",
"Escoce",
"James Newbern",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jimmy John",
"Joe",
"Sonia Rigg",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"masfenix",
"moscafj",
"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
}
|
58710
|
What regular maintenance is best for a Japanese knife?
My amazing fiancee just got me a Nenox gyuto as a graduation present. (You can't have her, she's mine.) Until now, I've only had Western knives. I understand that I should never use a steel on this beauty. The question is, what regular maintenance can/should I be doing?
I cook every day, frequently more than once, and cutting fresh fruits and vegetables is a major part of that. So this knife will see 10-45 minutes of active use, sometimes very active, every single day.
Korin's website has little to say on the matter. This post suggests that I should not be sharpening more than once a year. I find it hard to believe that the knife will remain as sharp as new for a year. But what else should I be doing? Is there some other honing strategy? Or perhaps a waterstone that is appropriate for frequent use? If so, how often is frequent?
As I am sure you can tell by looking at it, your Japanese knife is primarily sharpened only on one side. As a result, the cutting edge is angled more steeply. Japaneseknives on Wordpress has some simple pictures illustrating this. This asymmetry is why you can't reliably use a honing rod on it, which relies on swipes to both sides of the edge to keep the blade smooth and free of burs.
The steeper angle makes the blade sharper, but you could say it is a double edged sword that can also make it prone to wearing more rapidly, depending upon how it is treated. As a result, sharpening only once a year may not cut it. There is another page on Korin's website that might be more helpful to you, including an informative video. L'Ohira's Knife Care & Sharpening page has some good tips on the type of kit you might want to use, including 3 grades of water stones, though you may or may not need the course all that much:
Arato: A coarse grit stone used mainly for damaged edges and for creating new sharp edges.
Nakato: A medium grit stone used for minor repairs and creating sharp edges.
Shiage: A fine grit finishing stone.
Much of that information is also covered in the Korin sharpening video.
Also, since the knife is carbon steel, it can rust. Based on your question, it sounds like you probably take good care of your knives anyway, but you should especially make sure you clean this one promptly when dealing with acids.
And dry it off immediately after washing. If you're going to be putting it up for a while (eg, going out of town for a few weeks, especially if it's a humid time of the year), a layer of oil might be good, too.
Looking at the product description and associated images at http://www.mtckitchen.com/p-57-nenox-sd-gyuto.aspx this knife appears to be two-sided 55:45 (dominantly right, but not quite single bevel). In spite of the popularity of the notion that Japanese knives are typically sharpened on one side, that's not necessarily true, and is more typical of knives used in professional kitchens. Gyuto in particular are rarely single-bevel.
Thanks, folks! The knife is actually a "stain-resistant" knife, the Nenox G-type, but I am treating it like it's normal carbon steel anyway. And thanks for the video--sounds like very frequent sharpening is totally normal.
@JasonTrue is absolutely right. I did notice that Nenox gyuto knives seem to come in a few different flavors. It looks like this one is 70:30. It is also good to know what a knife is made of. Some Japanese knives are stainless.
Agreed, gyutos are the Japanese version of a western chef's knife. They are double beveled, the bevel may not be 50/50, but in this case the g series is actually 70/30 made for a right hander. This can be changed for an additional cost for lefties. Nakiris, sujihikis, and santoku's are also double beveled. Only traditional Japanese knives are single beveled, debas, usubas, yanagis, and other specialty knives. Keep it dry and sharp. I would also mention Jon from Japanese knife imports has youtube videos to help you out.
The knife is of thinner steel than most. So stays sharp longer. By custom in Japan. You sharpen a knife on one side only. A knife sharpener sharpens the other side. & restores the blade. I think they mean sharpen on one side only. Once a year take it to a knife sharpener to redo the blade. A thin blade would not need took in as often as a thicker blade would. To be redone.
Hone frequently, sharpen periodically
A proper, sharp knife will have a well structured, rigid, and sharp blade bevel (i.e. the very edge of the blade, less than a hair's length across, where the steel comes to a point).
No matter how hard the steel is, the bevel will wear with cutting so it needs to be maintained.
Hone yourself
Honing is the process of drawing the length of the edge along a surface to help maintain its alignment. Knife edges will thin, become ragged, and fold over themselves over time, resulting in a dull edge. By drawing your knife across a honing rod (NOT recommended for 60+ HRC knives) or a leather strop (or balsa, or newspaper on a hard, clean(!!) surface), the rod/strop will help realign your edge so that it is centered across the bevel, remains sharp, and is given proper structural support (triangles are strong!) by the bevel.
Hone often! Honing removes little or no material, and honing a knife before or after use takes just a few seconds and will help keep the edge and reduce the need for frequent sharpening.
Honing is easy to learn (YouTube it) and should be done by knife owners.
Sharpen professionally
Edges will eventually get worn as the steel takes strain from repeated cutting. The edge will get dull through folding, crystalline stress, and microscopic nicking. This cannot be avoided, but honing can reduce the time it takes for the edge to wear.
Once this happens, the blade needs to be sharpened through removing the old steel blade and reshaping it back to its original edge. There are many ways to do this through wetstones, drystones, sanding, grinding, etc.
You can try to do this yourself, but my strong advice (I'm a director of a high end knife company) is to send the knives to a professional sharpener instead. It's hard to get edge angles correct using home equipment, and a properly honed knife doesn't need to be professionally sharpened very often....once every 6 months with frequent use or once every year with less frequent use.
The sharpening period can change dramatically depending on the cutting technique, food products, knife geometry, steel quality, etc. A good way to tell if your knife needs sharpening is if it doesn't feel sharp anymore despite regular honing. That means the edge has worn and it's time to send your baby out for sharpening.
Professional cooks, of course, will go through knives faster because they cook with higher cutting pressure and more frequent use in the kitchen.
Know your bevels
Modern gyutos are NOT always single-beveled. For maintainability and for a global market they are often manufactured with symmetrical or slightly asymmetrical bevels. You should figure out whether your knife has a single, symmetrical, or asymmetrical bevel and write that down somewhere, so that you can let the sharpener know.
I would not recommend honing for a Japanese (j) knife. J knives tend to be made from harder/brittle metal, which would be damaged by a honing "steel", metal or ceramic. A leather strop would be a better option, as it burnishes away the burr and realigns the blade. Most J knife makers suggest a water stone to sharpen a knife. Sharpening takes away metal from a knife, but in so doing it makes for a clean/new cutting surface. Most of the Nenox line is at least $200+, not a cheap knife. Euro knives tend to be softer and thicker, honing/steeling is a better option on these knives.
I would respectfully disagree. I work in the knife business and Japanese knives are not necessarily more brittle or harder than western knives. In fact, many $3000+ sujihiki knives are made of more ductile steel to allow for easier maintenance. Water stones are excellent for maintenance if you know how to use then, but the vast majority of folks don't know how to use a stone properly and will end up destroying the edge geometry of the knife in the process. Leather strops are great although I've had mixed results with them.... Maybe because results are very dependent on the stropping compound.
I speak only from experience, my sugimoto chukabocho #7, which was my 1st high end J knife years ago. As I had used it for several weeks, then tried to hone it with a sabatier "steel", and severely ruined the edge. I could physically see the edge had chipped and was very jagged afterwards. I also have yet to see any traditionally trained Japanese chef even have a honing steel in their kit. But to each their own, perhaps my technique was wrong when using the steel. But the old adage worked on me, "once bitten, twice shy." I had to bug my sushi chef friend to teach me how to use a stone.
I totally agree that a steel honing rod is usually not a good idea for high end knives... I really prefer ceramic for honing. Also, knives like Nenox or Hattori will tend to use VG-1, 5 or 10 steel which will be harder than your average wustoff/henckels but not necessarily harder than high end knives made from Western steels. Nenox and Shun in particular are infuriating because they advertise high carbon when they are in fact using steel that is not particularly high carbon or, in some cases, performant. It's really great that you took the time to learn how to use water stones!
I was lucky that I had a friend that would show me how to sharpen a knife. Now I often use the stone to just make a brief touch up on the knives. This was in the early 90's when J knives were just staring to hit the market. I only had cheap Chinese cleavers and it was a big step for me to go with the Sugi. And then the horror of ruining the edge made me sick to my stomach. Well had to go back to my CCK's, bullet proof, which you could hone on the edge of a ceramic cup. I had to adopt the japanese knife maintenance schedule and tools. Now no problems. Thanks for your response.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.216535
| 2015-07-01T20:57:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58710",
"authors": [
"ANN LAMB",
"Brenda Toulson",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"Diana Osborne",
"J Bergen",
"JG sd",
"JTL",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Mitzi Love",
"Tina Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tohster",
"user155141"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58441
|
Dense and gluey centered cake problem
I tried baking a cake for the first time. The brief procedure I followed was:
Mashed 4 eggs. Added to it 1 cup sugar, 200g butter. Mixed it using an electric mixer.
Then added to it 1.5 cup of all purpose flour. Mixed it thoroughly again using electric mixer.
Baked it at 180 degree celsius for half an hour.
But the end product was not light and fluffy at all.
It looked something like this:
My question is:
What actually went wrong with this cake? What can I do so that I do not end up making a cake like this in future?
I want to make a normal cake which is significantly light and fluffy.
Thanks.
The usual procedure is to mix the butter and sugar, then add the eggs one at a time, beating in between, then add the flour and just barely mix it. You appear to have thrown everything together and mixed it for all it's worth. I also note you have no raising agent listed, like baking powder. Do you have a recipe link?
@ElendilTheTall, I also added 2 pinches of baking soda but my thought was that eggs will act as raising agents. Is it true? Actually some friend of mine told me this recipe.
You say that you "mashed" the eggs. Were they cooked eggs? Or did you beat raw eggs?
@Cindy, I beat raw eggs.
Thanks. We should have caught this but you may find what you need in the answers to this question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21444/how-to-make-a-cake-less-dense?rq=1. This sounds like the same type of cake you are trying to make. @ElendilTheTall has good technique information in both his comment above and in his answer to this question. Rumtscho also gives good information in her answer to this question. Take a look and let us know if we can be of more help or if you have any other questions.
Um... you have no liquid in your cake recipe... your recipe looks like a sugar cookie recipe. Cakes usually have milk or buttermilk or some sort of liquid in them.
You didn't have any leavening agent, simple as that. Add about 5-7 g baking powder to this amount of flour and you'll get a normal cake.
It does look like you might be using a pound cake recipe. Pound cake will not be light and fluffy. Baking soda will not act as a leaving agent in your recipe (not acidic enough) baking powder would help some.
If you are looking for a lighter cake, I would suggest a basic yellow cake like this. http://www.food.com/recipe/southern-living-basic-yellow-cake-recipe-or-chocolate-410027.
Your baking time is also way short for a pound cake, it probably should have been a hour or more. @Catija Thats what I was thinking at first, but there are pound cake recipes that call for little or no liquid.
I had a similar issue but not as extreme, the solution is to make sure all of your ingredients are at room temperature especially if using heavy cream, butter or both. My pound cake recipe called for heavycream and butter but it looks like yours is just butter?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.217292
| 2015-06-22T15:43:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58441",
"authors": [
"Akshay Arora",
"Bella Kim",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Debbie M.",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hilary Green",
"Kevin Cassidy",
"Michael David",
"Shivum Pradhan",
"Umar Khan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"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
}
|
79346
|
Why didn't microwaving a stainless steel spoon set my kitchen on fire?
I am a new, and newly sleep-deprived, dad. As such, I didn't think twice about taking a big, shiny, stainless steel spoon and sticking it right in a baby bottle sterilizer. ("I want this supplement to be scooped with a sterile instrument!")
Now, a bottle sterilizer consists of a large, sealed, plastic box into which you put a bunch of water. Put it in the microwave, and it's basically an autoclave. I sealed that sucker up and let 'er rip at 1300 watts. I then walked away and down a flight of stairs.
When I came back to my kitchen, everything was fine. The 3-minute microwave cycle was done, and my stainless steel spoon was apparently sterilized. Nothing was on fire, and the microwave seemed as happy as it had been. I, however, was mortified--and puzzled. I've read that only pointy surfaces cause problems in microwaves. But my spoons are fairly pointy, especially at the handle end:
Right now, I am provisionally chalking this up to God. But I must admit that I don't find my explanation quite thorough enough. Does anyone have a more specific accounting?
Was the spoon completely surrounded by water?
Possible duplicate of Why is some metal safe to use in a microwave, but others not?
oops just realized this was answered!
Catija, the sterilizer is like a steamer: you put water in the bottom and the stuff sits in a basket above it. moscafj, thanks--I did cite that question and I think it's different but related.
I usually reheat single bowls of soup or chili with a spoon stuck in it (puncturing a paper towel overtop if it looks like it might pop stuff over the inside of the oven). That's with a 1970s-era RadarRange. If the utensil is not near a wall and there is lots of microwave-absorbent food to go along with it there should not be an issue. Please don't invoke divine intervention when James Clerk Maxwell will suffice.
This is probably a better post for Physics SE since the correct answer is entirely related to the interaction of the microwaves with the water and the spoon. Microwaves will attenuate strongly in water (that's how it heats up) so the water offers a degree of protection to the spoon inside. The water will also act to dissipate and bleed any charge accumulation on the spoon surface and is otherwise a strong dielectric (so will polarize heavily to suppress surface potential on the metal). Physics SE could give you a much better answer.
I find this question very difficult to answer. When you are warned to not do something because there is a risk of X happening (in this case fire) people don't mean "every time you do it, X will happen". When there is a random chance that something happens and it does not happen, it is not really possible to explain why - this is the definition of randomness.
Welcome to the Sleep-Deprived Dads' Club! Congrats on your kids and condolences on your sleep.
@rumtscho To be fair I am not sure this "random" as much as "something that would be understood by Physics users moreso than Seasoned Advice users". There's a fuzzy line between "not understood" and "random"! But of course there's a ton of variables we don't know as well, like the details of the design of this particular microwave, the detailed physical properties of the objects in it, etc. So, yeah.
@theonlygusti I disagree that the only thing random is the quantum world. Even with a narrow definition of randomness (I cannot predict it with any amount of information), determinism is an unsolved question. And if you accept a more pragmatic definition (I cannot predict it with the amount of information that I can reasonably gather) it is even more clear that we are talking about a chance of fire, not about a certainty of fire.
A note for the comments and flags of "should be on Physics": The SE network policy is to always respect the OP's choice of site. If a question is on topic on the site where it was asked, it does not get migrated, no matter how well it would fit on a different site. Cross posting is also not allowed. The only thing that might still happen is that the OP decides to self-delete the question here and then post anew somewhere else.
Time to consider buying a dish washer
Metal has a lot of potential issues in the microwave (electric charge buildup + arcing, and microwave reflection). There are too many variables to make general statements like "such-and-such metal is safe" or "smooth objects are safe" with confidence, hence the sweeping guaranteed-safe blanket advice to not put metal in the microwave.
The reason it didn't cause issues for you is likely the fact that it was insulated in a plastic container (thus preventing arcing to the microwave walls / magnetron) and that you also had some water in there to absorb any excess reflected energy (and maybe electrical energy through physics that I don't understand, but don't quote me on that one).
In fact a cursory search just happened to turn up this paper regarding sterilization of metal objects in a microwave, which mentions:
Arcing back to the magnetron and damage to the microwave oven are prevented by placing a radar absorbent material within the oven and with proper insulation of the item to be sterilized
And you've got both of those things: A radar absorbent material (the water) and the insulation (a perfectly sealed plastic container).
The type and shape of your metal object is probably unrelated to the success of your accidental "experiment".
As an aside: It's worth mentioning that in the case where a microwave oven does catch fire, the NFPA mentions that 17% of those fires involved the housing/casing of the appliance itself as the first item ignited, where the danger is presumably excess energy reflected back to the appliance, rather than arcing (magnified by poor design or older microwaves that didn't have as good of an ability to absorb reflected energy). That's why, for example, the authors of the sterilization paper linked above included a radar-absorbent material, strange and unpredictable reflections off of metal can easily put the microwave under uneven energy loads it wasn't designed to handle (see also thermal runaway).
And of course, there's also issues with defective appliances or design flaws as well, e.g. that old GE spontaneous microwave fire lawsuit. While the causes of those fires aren't really related to the OP's situation, the point is making blanket statements about metals and such is further complicated by the potential for poorly designed or defective appliances.
Also, this answer isn't intended to say "insulation + water = always safe", it's just intended as an explanation for your specific experience. Even "safe" is flexible: A microwave fire doesn't necessarily lead to a kitchen fire or a burned down house or an injury, e.g. I suppose you could call a microwave fire hazard "safe" if you were standing there on the ready with a fire extinguisher and protective clothing.
So it's safe to put metal in the microwave as long as I have a fire extinguisher handy. Got it
@acbabis It's safe and fun, but only if you don't really care about the microwave anymore (or the things you're sticking inside of it). I made plasma using my old microwave, a glass, and a bit of aluminum foil. Fun to watch. Broke the glass, and the microwave. Didn't set fire to anything.
'hence the sweeping guaranteed-safe blanket advice to not put metal in the microwave.' This is plain wrong. It is ADVISED to put a spoon in a cup/glass if you heat liquids. Otherwise you risk high level burns when you take the cup out, because the water might explode. see here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234042/should-i-place-a-spoon-in-a-cup-of-liquid-before-heating-it-in-a-mircowave
@KamiKaze That advice exists all over the place, and everybody's heard it. It doesn't matter that it's not accurate advice, or that it's not the advice the manual gives, or that other sources give different advice: The point isn't that it's true (the opposite, actually), the point is only that it exists, it's prevalant (hence the OP's question, for example -- their expectation that the spoon would cause a problem had to come from somewhere), and that's why. It's also pretty minor in this answer. Btw, "This is plain wrong" reads unnecessarily aggressive, there are other ways to say that. :O
@KamiKaze you can prevent superheating (the cause of "exploding") by using a wooden chopstick, or other non-metal utensil
Off-topicish: Here is a very thorough (and surprisingly interesting) detailed report on cooking-related fires in the US (includes microwave data among everything else), if anybody is curious. Also TIL electric ranges are apparently a higher risk of house fire than gas ranges, for reasons I can not begin to understand.
Spoons (most metal, in fact) are generally not a huge problem in the microwave. My microwave has metal parts...many do. Forks are sometimes a problem due to a build up of charge between the tines, which could result in sparks. As you note, shape can be a factor. The shape of spoons spreads the charge, the pointy edges of forks and narrow tines could allow a build up. It wasn't luck, but it probably should not be normal practice.
I would be willing to bet that the fact that it was insulated in a plastic container and to some extent the water was the primary factor here, at least for preventing arcing to the microwave walls. For example, the reason they insulate metal equipment when sterilizing it in a microwave (with water serving as the microwave-absorbant material). Also "generally not a problem" is not entirely.... accurate.
I also recall a case of a burger wrapper causing a microwave oven to be damaged, and drip plastic onto the food. Early ovens were more troublesome; modern ones are safer.
Shape may not be a factor as well. My brother once covered a plate with a pan's metallic cover, which was perfectly "round" - no spikes or whatsoever - . Well, the microwave was, after some seconds, VERY nasty to look inside, with sparkles and flashes happening. DO NOT EVER do that again!
The fact that the oven contains metal doesn't mean other metal is safe. The metal of the oven itself will be shaped and positioned so as to not do harm. The oven gets harmed from arcing or from reflecting too much energy back into the generator, not from metal per se.
There are actually two things worth considering with metal in microwaves.
The big danger is arcing and that happens with pointy things like forks and apparently grapes. It's also worth considering, being in a plastic box, there was nowhere for the spark to jump to. With a fork there's a small enough spark gap for current to jump. With a spoon, there is not.
However, metal also has a shielding effect, and the USDA even says it's safe to use small quantities of foil in a microwave. In this specific case, there wasn't really enough potential to cause a spark; the shielding just redirected microwaves elsewhere.
Grapes in a microwave are amazing.
I wouldn't mess around with putting foil in the microwave. When I was a kid, my friend and I blew out the light in his parent's microwave with a single twist tie like what comes with garbage bags. It was exciting.
A twist tie has sharp points. If you don't get the physics, don't try this please.
@JourneymanGeek I get the physics. It's just that even in the link you point to, it has 6 caveats and then says "If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil shielding." Your microwave may already be damaged. It's very hard to predict whether it will arc. Unless you are a physicist or engineer in a relevant field, it's not worth it unless you are prepared to pay for fixing your micro or getting a new one.
In this case though, you have a smooth piece of metal with no points, away from anything metal, which is why it didn't spark.
+1 Everyone should Read The Fine Manual more, my old microwave's owner's manual said that a little foil was good too, keeps the edges of thin food from turning into a hard crisp while the middle's still cold. PS sliced onions always put on a sparky light show too
I'd like to avoid pretty light shows, since this would probably frighten my dear old mom. The best way to avoid those is to understand how it happens.
In order to reliably set your kitchen on fire, make sure there is enough fuel available, and that some of its mass is either brought to its autoignition temperature, OR vaporized and heated to its flash point, then ignited. While electrical arcs of any kind reach tremendous internal temperatures, they are notoriously bad at heat transfer to surrounding materials.
Something that doesn't belong in a microwave can be heated in more or less three ways:
By being a lossy material, absorbing radiation and heating up. Food gets heated that way.
By being an effective dipole antenna with a resistive load attached - very dependent on object geometry; a 2-3 inch strip of tinfoil is a good example.
By arcing
+1 This is the only response that addresses the inability of the OP to set their kitchen on fire!
It didn't set your kitchen on fire because while it evidently arced, it was inside a metal box and it didn't have suitable/favorable conditions for igniting what little fuel it had available.
You have a plastic box on one hand, as fuel, and you have water, steam, a metal spoon and a metal microwave oven interior, all noncomustible.) So when the electricity stopped and the arcs stopped, flame was not sustained.
Personally, unless I'm destroying a CD/DVD and/or making "art" from it, by briefly (while watching) zapping it on top of a mug of water, I respect the "no metal in the microwave" rule - it's simpler.
I'm probably missing something, but why do you say it evidently arced? I can't find any indication of that.
I once microwaved an Arby's wrapper — against which there is a warning on the selfsame wrapper — and it burned holes in a few places. I don't remember where exactly were the other points of contact for the bolts, but the interior of the microwave shows no signs of scorching or similar.
@Jefromi It's not the greatest picture, but I see what appears to be a blackened spoon (that's possibly only an artifact of the picture location, I guess), and at full-scale view I see pitting along the edges.
I see, could be. To me it just looked like a dark photo and a banged up old spoon.
There are plenty of fuel sources; interior paint, exterior shell, insulation on internal wiring, etc. Arcing is not necessary to start a fire, enough energy reflected back at the magnetron/walls and the subsequent heat build-up can be sufficient. Barring defective appliances, of course. I'm not saying any of this is likely, I just mean that "it was inside a metal box" isn't a great explanation. It's why you don't want to run your microwave when it's empty (well, old/cheap microwaves), for example.
I've done the microwaving-a-CD thing a few times, and in my experience if you put any water in there with the CD, the water absorbs all the microwave energy and the CD is unaffected.
Sorry for bad photo. Spoon is not blackened or banged up; it came in that shape. It's possible that the edge is pitted.
I recently did an "experiment" with tin foil:
Putting just one piece into the microwave did basically nothing, but having two pieces together created sparks between them and burned them away.
Your spoon might just be too massive to reach enough temperature. Metal is usually a good thermal conductor. So a lot of the created thermal energy might just be distributed evenly inside the spoon. It takes a lot of energy to melt or burn iron. Its melting point is at 1811 K (1538 °C, 2800 °F)
I doubt a common household microwave can emit enough energy in form of radiation to heat up the spoon to that level.
Even wood and plastic (some of the more common materials used in kitchens) need several hundred degrees to start burning. If we are talking about surfaces made of stone, then we basically have to create a volcano to melt it.
Long story short: a common microwave is just not powerful enough to burn a kitchen. With some manipulations you might be able to cook water outside of it, but that's all. (Not that I support that kind of experiment.)
It takes about 30 kJ to melt an entire spoon (a typical 25g stainless steel spoon), about half of which is bringing it up to its melting point. Magnetron efficiencies vary, but even at a low-end efficiency of 60%, a 1300-watt microwave would take 38 seconds to melt the entire spoon. So there was definitely enough power to melt the spoon. But the water probably absorbed almost all of the microwaves in this case.
Understand that the way radio waves of a certain wavelength interact with objects is extremely dependent on the shape and size of the object. Real life antennas don't come in odd shapes because they are modern art.
...And a 1300W heat source is plenty enough to set something on fire. A 13W soldering iron can.
Microwave ovens are made out of steel. There is no danger of putting any metal of any kind (steel, copper, aluminum, etc.) in a microwave PROVIDED IT IS NOT VERY THIN. Foil is much too thin, and even much thicker, but still thin metal like the trim on the glass lid of a rice cooker is too thin. When microwave EMR is directed at thin metals, the waves reflect back and forth quickly between the top and bottom surface, and the metal quickly both overheats and generates a strong static electric charge, creating a fire hazard. For most intents and purposes, the rule is 'no foil in the microwave,' not 'no metal.' However, as I said, I have seen the thin metals used as trim (but not bonded to a thicker layer of metal) cause trouble as well.
Can you give some sources for your information? It looks pretty interesting, but your answer would be better with some references. I had not heard that thickness is the primary factor.
Thin metal will heat up like hell because a) there is little solid mass to absorb the heat, b) resistive heating if you get a dipole effect is intense, and both can lead to c) some of the metal vaporizing and building a plasma. Reflection can happen with thick metal just as well, and that is what can blow the magnetron if it happens at the wrong angle. The case is made of steel because reflection is exactly what you want - but in an engineered and controlled pattern.... static electricity, and intra-conductor reflections have not much to do with it.
Had to downvote because it can be read as "you're safe with thick metal in a microwave every time" which is dangerous advice - especially in the framework of "you're safe if..." and not "there will be trouble if..."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.217597
| 2017-03-22T20:34:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79346",
"authors": [
"Astor Florida",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charles",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"J...",
"JDługosz",
"Jason C",
"JimmyJames",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kami Kaze",
"Loren Pechtel",
"Megha",
"Noldor130884",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"T. Sar",
"TripeHound",
"Wayne Werner",
"Xen2050",
"aebabis",
"aroth",
"can-ned_food",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"zwol"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61895
|
Make homemade seitan taste like commercial
There are some wonderful brands of commercial seitan. One that I particularly love it Ray's Wheat Meat, which has the consistency of pulled chicken and a savory, bready flavor. Almost all homemade seitan that I've had or made has an off-note that is completely absent in the best commercial seitans. It's hard to describe this off note--sort of a chemical harshness that arises in the back of the mouth. This note can also be detected in some commercial seitan products, such as Field Roast sausages, although it is much weaker than in the homemade versions.
When I make seitan, I start with just vital wheat gluten and water. I knead them together for several minutes, let it rest for 20-30 minutes, and then simmer in water before preparing in other ways. The seitan looks good and often has a wonderful texture, but I just hate that flavor that looms up. I have tried adding kombu, dulce, soy sauce, nutritional yeast flakes, parmesan--no dice.
As a lower priority, how does one make seitan with the consistency of pulled chicken? Basically, how do I make Ray's Wheat Meat without buying it?
PS: I did see the one other post about "horrible" seitan, but it doesn't really address this flavor issue.
The one time (so far) I've made seitan, My research and inclinations both lead me to starting with flour; mixing up and kneading a stiff ball of flour and water, then placing that in a bowl of water overnight, then rinsing out the starch (and copious amounts of bran, since I happened to use whole wheat flour) the next day. Serious kneading and long wet soak time both help to develop the gluten which will aid the texture (and the ability to separate starch.) I would not be overly surprised if your harsh taste (haven't had enough to know it) was related to VWG as a starting point.
I have never cooked with seitan, but found your question very interesting. The below excerpt from VeganFuel , includes a letter from the President and Founder of Fresh Tofu, Inc, a distributor of Ray's Seitan:
We asked if their seitan is made in house, as it is consistently the best seitan we’ve had. We thought we may get some secrets for making our own as tasty. To our surprise, they don’t make it. They get it from Fresh Tofu Inc., who distubutes Ray’s brand seitan to a number of restaurants including Candle Cafe and others. If you’re in NYC, you can find Ray’s at Lifethyme on 6th ave. Anyway, I contacted Fresh Tofu and their Pres/Founder Gary was more than willing to give me some tips on making our seitan more kick-ass. He said it’s all about how much starch you rinse out after it is in dough form- this also means using high gluten flour as oppose to my beloved vital wheat gluten. Here is his email reply for all of us nerds:
Hi,
Use a high gluten flour. King Arthur is 1 brand. Mix the flour and water and knead to make a dough. Let rest for 10 minutes, keep it covered in water. Then rinse with luke warm water until it looks stringy and the water is getting clear that rinses out. This is the point that you need to decide how much starch to rinse out, which will effect the texture. Let it rest a bit, then boil in broth stirring so it doesn’t burn to the bottom of the pot. When it floats and is cooked through it’s done.
Learn from your errors and improve the next time.
Blossom and Candle are very good at cooking with seitan, that’s why it tastes better. Candle has a cookbook that might help.
I hope this helps.
Gary
You're the best!
I've had success with this trick. Make a vegetable broth, season it as you would a soup stock. Use your fav recipe. Or simply use a vegetable boulion or broth. Cool it completely. When you make your seitan use the broth instead of water to mix with the wheat gluten or flour. This does help quite a bit.
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).
This is quite similar to your recent answer elsewhere. If two questions have the same answer, they are eligible to be marked as duplicates. Also, be careful when linking to your own web site; you have to be explicit about it, and avoid overpromotion. See also How not to be a spammer.
Have you tried with a shot of roasted sesame oil ?
I mean the dark one, made from roasted seeds ;)
Regarding the flavor: I've had success using vegetarian "Chicken Style Stock", made by Massel, to replace both the nutritional yeast and salt. If you're using the cubes, each cube replaces about 1/6 tsp salt. They add a great savory flavor.
I've been making seitan about 2 years now. I always make a well seasoned homemade vegetable broth; flavored according to end product (chicken, beef, etc.). I use it to mix the Vital Wheat Gluten and for boiling the seitan after mixing. It produces a good seitan with no after-taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.219125
| 2015-09-20T21:17:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61895",
"authors": [
"Addison Z",
"Da Phrogh",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"Ecnerwal",
"Lesa Wilson",
"diana tenlaur71gmailcom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52014",
"marsha marx",
"tripleee"
],
"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
}
|
58735
|
How to convert knife edge angle "ratios" into degrees?
European-style Japanese knives seem to be described (also here and here, and in my most recent post) in terms of "ratios" that always add up to 100. It's not exactly clear what this means in terms of angles off the center plane of the blade.
It appears that, even on knife forums, there is some confusion as to what these numbers mean. My first thought was that they were actually angles, since a 30 degree angle is common on European knives. Upon reflection, though, that can't be--when you're sharpening a 70/30 knife, dragging across a stone at a 70 degree would be a catastrophe. What, then, is that magic number, and how does it vary in relation to these "ratios"?
Even worse, a ratio could be implemented purely via bevel depth (giving you an off center edge at equal angles), purely via angles (giving a centered edge with two differently deep bevels), and all combinations thereof. And cutting behaviour will actually be different in each case.
I found this on chefknivestogo and I think it explains it quite well.
RAY <> A "50/50" usually references an edge. So on the cutting edge, it is an even 50/50 "V". It can be 50/50 at 12 degrees or 50/50 @20, but each sides angle is equivocal.
A double bevel is a knife design created by grinding. So from the spine to the cutting edge, there is a blade face that has been ground (most of the time). It can be a flat grind, a convex grind, a hollow grind, and any of these grinds can be symmetric (50/50) or asymmetric. So for instance, my Ginsanko Hiromoto Western Deba has an asymmetrical semi convex grind. It has a flat ground left blade face at around 30% of the total included angle and the right side blade face has a distinctly convex grind that is the other 70% of the total included angle, but the actual cutting edge has an asymmetry, as well. The actual cutting edge does not look like a "V" as it is, in fact, a 60/40 right-handed bias. It's a particularly unique blade, but exemplifies your point, quite well. :mrgreen:
In short, the numbers like 50/50 or 70/30 represent the percentage of the included angle on each side of the blade. So, for a 50/50 knife with an included angle of 50°, it would be ground to a 25° edge angle on each side of the blade. See diagram below:
Thank you! While that at least clears up the ambiguity about the meaning of the ratio, I'm still unsure of how to determine the angle at which I should be holding the knife to the sharpening stone.
I have searched extensively and can't find the included angle of the particular knife you have. However, I read in several places that Japanese knives often have an included angle of 20° - 30°. With a 30° included angle you would have an edge angle of 21° on one side and 9° on the other. Which side is which depends on if your knife is right or left handed. I think this may put you in the ballpark, but the only way to know for sure would be to find out what the original included angle was, if in fact you want to stay with the original angles.
Just wanted to note that the example in my other comment would be for a knife with a 70/30 bevel, such as the one you have.
You can't determine edge angle just from bevel ratio
You need to know what the height and width of the bevel is.
Here's a simple diagram that explains why:
Clearly, the edge angles for deep bevels are much smaller than the angles for shallow bevels, even at the same bevel ratios.
Once you have the bevel dimensions (w and h in the diagram below), you can calculate the edge angle using simple geometry:
Initially I thought that the formula was wrong because the drawing it is a little bit misleading since the x angle appears floating near the upper left corner of the triangle you had just drawn giving the impression that that is the angle that is intended to be found. Hence making the arctan be h divided by rw.
However after a closer inspection it looks that what it was intended is the other "portion" of the angle so that x+y makes the whole bottom corner of the triangle. What I would have done supposing that is the desired angle to know would had been using cosines law and the help of a caliper so with the three sides of the triangle you can easily compute the angle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.219875
| 2015-07-02T15:23:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58735",
"authors": [
"Ann St Leger Harris",
"Chris Steinbeck Bell",
"Cindy",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"Eric Coram",
"KIMBERLY PANZICA",
"Madina Ayupova",
"Martin Bakker",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63576",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
68375
|
Shelf life of items stored in vacuum containers vs airtight non-vacuum ones?
I was planning in investing in a set of vacuum food containers, something like these with the pump to remove excess air.
It took me a while to find the ones I wanted, and in the process I started questioning the benefits.
I've found references that it prolongs the time food can remain good for up to 3-5x times as opposed to storing at just in a fridge. However I haven't found any references related to what are the benefits compared to just using an air sealed container without pumping out the air out.
Sure, there would be some air left in the regular one, but does it provide that much of a difference? Would like to hear your thoughts/experiences :)
It's true that keeping air away from most foods will increase their shelf-life, but so-called "vacuum" food containers can't possibly create a powerful enough vacuum to remove all the air. I would be suspicious of glowing reviews with wild claims of their effectiveness.
For the purpose you described, I think you would be much better off using a good quality plastic wrap. Pressed tight against the food all the air is removed and the cling-wrap plastic makes an air-tight seal.
For a fraction the cost of what you're considering, invest in a heavy plastic wrap box that has a sliding cutter.
Because you don't have to struggle with this kind of box, the plastic wrap doesn't get tangled up. You can cut off exactly the amount you need, so it makes sealing up foods very fast and efficient. You can refill such a box with inexpensive store-brand, but it's worth paying a few cents extra to buy professional grade plastic wrap because it stretches and seals much more effectively.
Plastic wrap can be used to seal or augment the seal of most any container you already own, so your choice of size and shape is limited only by the width of the plastic wrap roll.
You can also do things like line a bowl or cup with plastic wrap to hold it while you add the food. Sealing the plastic will form an air-tight, liquid-tight seal that can often stand on its own for refrigerating or freezing.
Although it can sometimes be reused, there's also the big advantage of being able to simply toss the plastic wrap in the trash or recycling bin instead of washing it. Plastic storage containers ("vacuum" or otherwise) are notorious for retaining food odors, and attempting to sanitize them in the dishwasher doesn't always end well.
As Catija points out in the comments, a vacuum sealer is another option to know about.
While it may not be cost effective or practical for everyday leftovers, vacuum sealing in plastic with a machine is beneficial when freezing, marinating, and for sous vide cooking.
I'd be skeptical about glowing reviews too, and I agree that airtight storage is great on its own, but it seems like this is mostly guesswork - it's certainly possible that removing oxygen could stop or slow growth of some kinds of microbes, or removing water vapor could help with some kinds of food. Would be nice to have a more solid idea if it helps.
An even better option might be a vacuum sealing bag setup. These truly remove all of the air (since they pull the bag tight against the food and they're generally one-use, so the issues of retained odors are reduced if not eliminated.
@Catija - Yes, probably for foods like grains or flour that have interstitial air, or for things that you wanted to transport, freeze and/or keep for a long time. Otherwise, I don't know if it would be worth all the extra trouble and expense. The set of containers the OP is considering appears to be intended for leftovers and prepared foods. Would you trust leftover cooked chicken for additional days in the refrigerator, simply because it was sealed in a vacuum bag instead of just being wrapped up tightly with plastic? I'm not sure that I would.
Considering that I already have issues eating leftovers if they're older than a day... no... but I'm weird about leftover food. Regardless, the OP doesn't say that specifically... so I don't know that's a valid assumption (that it's for leftovers). Most of these gimmicky containers aren't worth the buyer's time but a good vacuum sealer can be used for a variety of things including freezing foods, sous vide, and marinating foods.
There is no reason why this thing will extend shelf life with regard to food safety. It is by no means comparable to canning, where you first sterilize the food and then ensure that there is some vacuum in the jar, as a sign that the jar is not exchanging atmosphere with the outside environment (which would bring in contamination with new microbes). Store-bought vacuum-packed food may also have been processed under sterile conditions even if not canned, which extends shelf life some, but this is irrelevant to home food storage.
It will probably slow down the growth of aerobic bacteria, but aerobic bacteria are not the only ones you have to care about.
The most I could imagine is that it is useful for storing things like cut apples or avocados, which will get an unsightly brown when they sit out in the air. It has nothing with food safety though, just with freshness.
This is not conditional on the vacuum quality, the same would apply to a more efficient method of producing vacuum.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.220261
| 2016-04-18T18:47:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68375",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69091
|
How should I prepare my Hens and Chicks to eat?
I heard a Hens and Chicks was edible. how do I prepare them?
It's problematic for us to give you cooking advice and then have you eat something that's not actually edible and get sick... or worse. It's part of why we have a policy of not addressing questions asking us to identify whether or not a plant is edible. If you know that it's edible, that's different but it doesn't actually sound like you absolutely know that it is. Can you link to the Gardening question?
http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/24584/is-the-plant-hens-and-chickens-edible
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.220780
| 2016-05-18T22:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69091",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69170
|
When is the expiry date?
Honest to god, I tried so hard to identify it. I do see JAN 17 but I'm not sure if its January of 2017 or January the 17th. Plus I see 00:42 there but I'm not sure what it means, but I have a feeling its to do with its creation date.
I have checked on the internet however the Coke Date Expiry System on the cans have changed over time, found it very frustrating :D.
Thank you so much for your help.
PS. I've heard that its possible to drink a canned drink despite how old it is, is this true? That can't be true because in some way or form there is always some form of decay that grows in food/drinks.
Put enough rum in it and you should be fine. Really it will taste OK or it will not.
Its okay to drink regular coke (ie sugar based) a little after the use by date. However, as a rule do not consume any diet sodas (or for that matter products that use artificial sweeteners) after the use by date.
Why would they need to get an expiration date down to the actual day? Even if it was the 17th, then where is the year? That should be more important. The bottom line is probably the production code.
Sorry, but if you can't tell it from the actual can, we can't tell it any better from a blurry photo. As for expiry dates vs. best by dates of food in general and soda in particular, we already have those covered in other questions.
There is no expiration date.
At most, it would be a 'best buy' or 'sell by date'.
See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/food-product-dating/food-product-dating
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.220864
| 2016-05-22T18:32:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69170",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119623
|
What are the tradeoffs between soy sauce and salt to pick when to use which between the 2?
What are the tradeoffs between soy sauce and salt to pick when to use which between the 2?
Does it come down to dry vs wet? Both seem to do the same job of being mediums for adding sodium/saltiness to something. One in a dark liquid form and the other in solid form. Are there other subtleties and nuances for optimizations? I've personally mostly phased out soy sauce out of laziness and minimalism, salt doesn't have an expiry date unlike soy sauce to my understanding. I'm curious as to what I may be losing out on in terms of options.
Potato chips are salty too... why not just eat salt, instead of eating potato chips?
It's possible you have been using a poor brand of soy sauce. I've had cheap stuff that seemed to be little more than salt water with caramel color.
It's the chloride ion, not the sodium ion, that provides the salty taste.
There are literally hundred of different types of soy sauce. The main differences are between "Chinese" and "Japanese". Do try to taste both.
@ghellquist You've gotta look into the differences between light and dark, not to mention whether wheat is used in addition to soy, and what ratio... The differences within any one country's soy sauces shouldn't be overlooked! Clearly, you need another bottle of sauce. ;)
I think the OP is asking about saltiness specifically. As in, this recipe calls for Soy Sauce to salt the dish, but I don't like soy sauce. How much salt do I add instead? Is the sodium on the nutrition facts a good guide?
I'd say the western equivalent to soy sauce is stock powder rather than salt. You can use stock powder similar to salt in many dishes without ruining them, but it will substantially affect the flavour.
Would you put soy sauce on a baked potato? how about your eggs? What do you mean is there a difference? How is that even a question?
Taken a certain way, this question could be borderline offensive to soy sauce haha. Eat a bowl of salted rice then a bowl of unsalted rice with soy sauce (not too much! Doesn't need to be swimming in it. Just a dash.). That's the difference. I guess you wouldn't really know if you always mix it into recipes and have no idea what is responsible for what flavour.
@issel I have had eggs served with soy sauce. It is delicious!
@Issel I also used to eat soy sauce on eggs, but I prefer salt on them because I like the eggy flavour
Soy sauce is not just salty, it has a strong taste of its own. So, to answer your question: you would use soy sauce when you want the taste of soy sauce, and salt when you don't and just want saltiness.
Your question is a bit like comparing pure sugar and mint syrup: both add a lot of sweetness, but the syrup has a lot of extra flavors, you can't just substitute one for the other.
Or rather, like sugar and maple syrup! Because the maple taste isn't quite as "breathtaking" as mint and may go unnoticed between other strong flavors, and the cheap fake ones are indeed just sugar and water, paralleling the soy sauce situation. (And, of course, you can substitute one for the other to a degree, like with soy sauce and salt.)
Perhaps the most significant reason to use soy sauce is that it adds umami, a flavor that is different from saltiness. In addition to the umami, additional flavors soy sauce brings are expected in dishes that use it as an ingredient. These flavors are not provided by salt alone. Also, soy sauce might have a "best by" date (of significant length), but it doesn't expire.
Salt doesn't just make foods "salty", it can also enhance sweet flavors and be used in more than just savory dishes. You can't add soy sauce to fruits without adding its own extra flavor.
@Luciano sure, but that is not a result of the salt itself, rather it is our perception of its interaction with other ingredients. My main point is that there are flavor elements contained in soy sauce that salt alone cannot replace.
My mom has a 2L bottle of soy-sauce she parcels out into the smaller bottle like once every...year? For years now lol
Soy sauce is pretty broad category of sauces from light soy to dark soy sauce, ponzu citrus soy sauce, sweet soy sauce, tamari which is a bipoduct of making miso, also the fermentation agents and methods differ greatly from japanese soy sauce (aspergillus oryzae) to say Korean soy sauce (natural yeasts and lactic acid producing bacteria). Also by salt do you mean table, sea, or kosher salt just to name the common ones? TLDR you have to clarify your question. Also to answer your question or what I think your question is, why use soy sauce over salt? Soy sauce has high levels of glutamate giving it the ability to enhance the natural flavor of your proteins that you cook and/or marinade in it, also it has salt in it so it's a flavor enhancer and a seasoning. Down sides the salt is not going to be evenly distributed in the liquid so always stick to a recipe and/or taste your dishes when using different brands and/or types of soy sauce, soy sauce can burn giving your food a bitter taste, isoflavones, https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-in-estrogen, https://www.healthline.com/health/estrogen-in-men.
Your answer started strong with mentioning that there are many types of both soy sauce and salt… but then went into the weeds with unproven health claims.
phytoestrogen high concentration in soy sauce and other soy products if you want me to get into the chemistry I can. Also depending on the percentage of salt, water, wheat, aspergillus culture, and soy beans you can get sedimentation and/or crystallization of salt and/or salted debris depending on filtration of final product. Also glutamates are additives, and soy sauce has a burning point. These are all things you can look up, so thank you try again. I can provide sources unlike many of you.
I just happened to stumble upon a post on instagram that should answer your question pretty well - albeit specifically with regards to applications concerning grilled fish. However, I think the general idea applies - that soy sauce does enhance and contribute new flavors to whatever you are marinating with it, with much more complexity than what just salt alone can do.
Quoting from the author's post caption:
In my previous IG posts, I sometimes referred to the background/reason why soy sauce reduces fishy odor, why soy sauce becomes darker upon heated, and why soy sauce creates good flavor upon heated. So, I learned that all these functions of soy sauce contribute to the palatability of the food, which could also be confirmed by the chart of correlation values on the last slide.
None of this content is mine, all credits go to @takashi_tamari.
Salt is Vegan, Soy Sauce may might not be depending on the brewing process.
Also, some people cannot consume Soy for dietary reasons, my wife being one.
It's very unlikely for plain soy sauce to contain animal-derived ingredients. If you stick to naturally brewed soy sauces, it's pretty much guaranteed. Don't confuse soy sauce for fish sauce or soy sauce like ingredients.
in particular, the main dietary requirements would be soy allergies (kinda obvious) and not being able to eat wheat (whether due to coeliac disease, wheat allergies, or gluten intolerance).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.221050
| 2022-01-25T04:53:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119623",
"authors": [
"Bloodgain",
"DKNguyen",
"Fred Larson",
"Issel",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"MaxD",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Seth R",
"Sneftel",
"Tristan",
"Turbo",
"chepner",
"elias altenberg",
"ghellquist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97542",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69274
|
Green broccoli rice
I live in Brazil and around here is very common to make broccoli rice (rice, broccoli and sometimes garlic).
I have eat it many times in restaurants, they are either white or green like the pictures below.
When I do at home I only manage to make it white, how can I make it greenish like the second picture?
Around here the white one is more common but from my experience the green one has more flavour.
Are you sure it's actually the broccoli making it green? Seems that, if it has more flavor, the green could be other flavorings rather than just broccoli.
Going by pictures, the first one looks more appetizing to me, but forget about that. My first instinct to achieve the result of the 2nd picture would be to first boil the broccoli, then boil the rice in the water of the broccoli. The second picture looks like there's not one surviving broccoli floret, so perhaps they cook the broccoli to a mush, scoop out the broccoli leftovers, then boil the rice in the broccoli water, and mix in the remaining broccoli afterwards.
I agree with Willem -- the second one looks like the broccoli was likely either cooked to mush, or cooked & puréed. In some ways, it reminds me of red rice (rice cooked in tomato juice). I also remember seeing a cooking show once (I think it was Roger Mooking on Everyday Exotic) where he took a knife and 'shaved' the broccoli (just taking off the buds from the florettes); you could then cook down the stems and add the buds later.
I've seen a couple of recipes that make what they call a "broccoli pesto" with puréed broccoli and garlic. Perhaps that makes sense?
Have you searched for recipes? If so have you found any that don't just involve mixing small pieces of broccoli into the rice, like the first picture? I tried searching for "arroz de brócolis" on http://www.google.com.br/ and saw some promising-looking things, both in web search and image search. If you look through a couple of those you might even be able to answer your own question! (I took a stab at it but I imagine someone who speaks Portuguese would do better.)
@WillemvanRumpt Don't let the picture fool you, the second one has much more flavor! (IMO)
Mashing/pureeing the broccoli is probably the best bet here, as folks guessed in comments. That second picture looks like it has really tiny pieces of broccoli, small enough that you end up with it coating the rice.
This seems to be confirmed by recipes online that look relatively similar. For example this recipe says:
Coloque os talos e as folhas até eles ficarem al dente. Retire e coloque em água bem gelada (para interromper o processo de cozimento). Pique os brócolis bem fino e bata com a faca até ficar quase com um mingau.
Coloque a manteiga numa frigideira e frite bem os brócolis picados sem deixar secar. Acrescento o arroz. Mexa bem e sirva imediatamente.
Or with Google Translate:
Place the stems and leaves until they are al dente . Remove and place in ice-cold water (to stop the cooking process). Chop the broccoli finely and mix with the knife until almost a mush.
Place the butter in a frying pan and fry the broccoli and chopped without leaving dry. Add the rice. Stir well and serve immediately.
and their picture looks similar to yours, though a bit more yellow:
As for whether that'll give you more flavor... probably kind of? It'll certainly spread out the broccoli, so that you taste it in every bite of rice, but there won't be any just-broccoli bites.
I'd also wonder if some basil is snuck in there, on the pesto and "more flavorful" front.
@Ecnerwal Might be good, but I don't think it's part of the normal recipe in Brazil. I went through at least 15 recipes and saw none with basil, and only one with parsley. (Coincidentally I was in Brazil recently and had this a couple times, never noticed basil.)
If nothing else, by coating the rice in broccoli purée, you'll get more of it in contact with your tongue (both by covering up the rice, and by increasing the surface area of the broccoli).
I was a little worry about cooking the broccoli then the rice on its water, I always try to not overcook broccoli because I learned that mush broccoli is awful. The tricky seems to be to put it on cold water just after they cook, as the recipe you mentioned stated. I also saw a recipe online saying to add baking soda to the cooking broccoli to enhance its green color (but I don't know how would affect the rice).
From my experience, I used to cook green rice, however I don't use broccoli in this coloring method. I use spinach instead.
I boil the spinach, then blend them all with their water until being very smooth. then I cook the rice using this water.
I guess u can try this method, then add the broccoli as whole pieces in it.
Unfortunately, I have no pics to post here.
I asked my mom if she knew how they do, she didn't know but she bet it was boiled spinach as you said, but I'm a little skeptical because I didn't see a single recipe mentioning it.
The tomatillo (Physalis philadelphica), also known as the Mexican husk tomato is the perfect apporach, as an alternate opposite to the red one also commonly used in rice and other foods. Raw blended sauce is also a usual choice, but the multiple and inclusive transformation processes (sautee, broiling, frying, boiling, etc.) along with other greenish blended sauce related ingredients (Avocado, coriander, parsley*, Poblano pepper**, Serrano green chilli***) hit a better spot. The less different ingredients, the more you'll keep original favor. You may find many matching sauces with similar ingredients on market and most of them may be hot (green habanero chilli), just find the difference by asking or differenciating its container shape (hot sauses are contained in drop-serving bottles while the rest tend to be spoonable).
*Parsley is often confused with coriander (chinese parsley), coriander is stronger.
**Poblano pepper is NOT hot.
***Serrano chilli IS HOT and is smaller than the Jalapeño. It also has a ligth green color and unlike the Jalapeño, it is a better ingredient in cooking. They may be hot by origin or they can actually become hot(ter) if you broil/bake/sautee/... them (lemon in serrano and vinegar marinade in jalapeño can actually mantain, lower or make its hotness more acceptable). Heinz is ptobably the most available brand if you are looking for already made options. Hotness/Itching strongly depends on how country is used to it. Also the words pepper and chilli are often used interchangeably, making it some hard to catch what is and what is not hot (however, since all mentioned and similar are peppers due to its shape, chilli is more apt to the hot), so about other green chilli/pepper possible options not mentioned here: inquire or go on your own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.221614
| 2016-05-26T16:31:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69274",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talles"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37740
|
Milk temperature for white sauce
Should I introduce the milk hot or cold when making white (béchamel) sauce?
Searching around I found multiple opposite opnions, like on this answer (see the comments).
Also different advice from famous chefs:
"heat the milk in a separate pan until just about to boil" - Mario Batali
"a great tip is to make sure your milk is really cold, this will stop your sauce from going lumpy" - Gordon Ramsay
"if you have a hot rue, you have cold liquid; if you have a hot liquid, you have a cold rue" - Marco Pierre
As you see from the variety of advise from reputable sources, many combinations of hot/cold roux and liquid will work.
From a convenience point of view, you want at least one of them hot in order to speed the integration. If you started both of them cold, it would probably work but take a while to warm up to melt the butter in the roux, and free the flour particles to integrate and create the sauce@mdash;and it will won't fully thicken until the mixture is at a boil, so this is inefficient. You would probably also have to mash and stir more frequently to prevent local burning.
If you start with both hot, it will also work, although you might have to whisk relatively quickly—but who has both a hot base and a hot roux sitting around? Usually, at least one was prepared in advance, even if only by a few minutes. Batali is recommending this method, but note that in the professional kitchen, where he lives, time is the most constrained resource, so this is his method of choice. His line cooks probably have hot roux ready at all times.
A hot roux is easier to scoop and measure.
A hot liquid will quickly melt and dissolve the roux.
But in any case, if the roux is properly made, the starch granules are surrounded by fat, and so are not going to cause lumping in any case, despite Ramsay's advise. As soon as the mixture is warm enough to melt the butter, the particles are going to move away from one another, and won't be able to clump together before they are hydrated.
So I would not worry about this in the slightest.
You can also make several weeks worth of roux at one time and keep it in the freezer. Scoop it out like ice cream, and have your whisk ready. Hoorah!
So basically I should just follow the advice from Marco Pierre, hot rue + cold milk or cold rue + hot milk, and never hot + hot, right?
You won't go wrong doing that.
In my experience the secret to great roux sauce is to add the milk very slowly at the beginning. Keeping the hob temperature low, add a splash of milk to the butter/flour mixture, stir, and repeat. Gradually increase the amount of milk added in each turn, and soon you'll have a smooth white sauce with no lumps. When the sauce is looking more liquid than solid you can increase the hob temperature slightly too, but don't over-do it as the sauce might curdle.
I haven't found any difference between using room-temperature milk, and milk straight from the fridge. The biggest factor is not adding too much milk at the earliest stages - patience is the key!
Agreed ... see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/4421/67 for more details.
I learned it from my mother many years ago :-)
I could have sworn that I'd read somewhere (McGee?) that the main effect of adding the liquid very slowly at the beginning, is that it gets heated up before you add the next batch. Thus, it's a legitimate method of incorporating the liquid, but it's equivalent to bringing the liquid to (close to) the boil separately and then incorporating that into the roux more quickly. However, I can't find this now - certainly not in McGee...
@ErikP. - ah, heating may or may nor be one effect of adding liquid slowly,I'd like to see that if you ever find it, but it is far from the only effect. The basic technique (thick paste and thin slowly) works for cold liquids and powders as well, in minimizing/preventing lumps. I've found even with hot milk adding too quickly can cause lumps that are difficult to smooth out because the difference in texture is too great.
If you heat the milk there is no need to add it slowly or in tiny amounts. Heat it in the microwave, and While it's heating, crush together the butter & flour with a fork. Then add the hot milk to the pan and scrape in the butter/flour mix. The hot milk gets to work on the butter/flour and immediately the flour does its job and thickens, it's prevented from lumping by being mixed with the butter; stir briskly until it's all incorporated, then add the cheese and flavourings. You'll thank me!!!
You are talking about something different here. Yours is called beurre manié, which is prepared cold. A roux is always cooked before the addition of liquids.
I have had trouble when adding cold milk to very hot roux. The first milk to hit the pan thickens too fast into a paste that I then have to work out of the sauce. I have had decent luck using a cool roux with cold milk, but the smoothest and fastest sauce has been with hot roux and hot milk, added 1 cup at a time.
What do you mean by "added one cup at a time"? The general recommendation is to add milk very slowly, as mentioned in David's answer. Do you do this or do you dump the entire cup in at once? In my experience, there's no difference between milk temps results if you just add it very slowly at the start.
@Catija I don't know about such a "general recommendation" but for me, slowly never works, dumping is the way to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.222157
| 2013-10-19T15:00:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37740",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Darlene Barrett",
"David Kirkland",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Skye Roach",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"talles"
],
"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
}
|
38003
|
How to bake chips in microwave using grill?
Is it possible to prepare tortilla chips using the grill in a microwave? Can I bake anything for example, Indian version of samosa in a microwave using a grill rack? Here is a picture of a microwave with a grill rack:
Erm... tortilla chips are normally deep fried, which is not something you would do in a microwave. There may be a language problem here. What do you mean by grill? Neither the US nor UK meaning of that term makes sense in the context of a microwave oven. Can you try clarifying and rephrasing your question?
Grilling in a microwave is about equal to trying to get a tan at night. Like installing solar panels inside a dark cave. BTW, what did you mean when you said "I just saw while browsing" as a response to request for more information by SAJ14SAJ?
According to Consumer Reports, these microwaves typically have traditional heating elements in addition to microwave heat, or they're combo convection/microwave ovens. The rack is to move food closer to the grill element, or to allow better airflow for convection models.
In that case, you'd use the microwave like a small grill or convection oven rather than a traditional microwave - see the instruction guide for your make and model (typically available on the manufacturer's website.) In this way, you can prepare crispy items like oven-baked tortilla chips or samosas (I prefer oven-baked samosas over fried myself! Mmm.)
The microwave is actually a great tool for making chips of any sort, its ability to quickly dehydrate food is what makes this possible, here is an example of parsley chips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8DkQeMxz3E
And here is Nathan Myhrvold making kale chips:
http://www.rachaelrayshow.com/recipe/12945_Nathan_Myhrvold_s_Microwave_Kale_Chips/index.html
The basic idea is to get a thin food that can quickly dry out, spray it with oil, and microwave it.
I have a very powerful microwave (1300W), so in my experience, the plastic wrap usually melts, but you can lower the power if that happens. You can use the grill in your microwave instead of the plastic wrap, the only purpose of the wrap is to make sure that the water in the food can steam out of it without getting trapped next to it.
You can also make puffed grains too, for those, you need to put parcooked grains that have been dried in the microwave, inside a paper back, and spray them with oil. I made crunchy chickpeas this way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.222666
| 2013-10-30T10:46:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38003",
"authors": [
"Adisa Tiara",
"Cynthia",
"Darsey",
"Elif Karakuş",
"Fastnlight",
"Gavin Goddard",
"IceTea",
"Janet Janet",
"Lauren Masselli",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89643",
"la_leche",
"rollstuhlfahrer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60106
|
Is it possible to determine if fish caught from fishing is safe to make into sashimi or sushi?
I know that fish bought from a grocery store isn't always great quality or safe to consume raw and this was elaborated in this question.
However, is it generally safe (if prepared properly) to turn a fish caught from a local fishing spot into sashimi/sushi? Are there any specific factors to look out for such as water quality and pollution? If it is not generally safe to do this are there methods one can use to determine the safeness of the practice?
The biggest concern with fish caught in the wild is the presence of parasites. You'll have to look up which species of parasite are present in the species of fish that you wish to use, and treat it accordingly. Tapeworm is common in salmon, and several other varieties of fish have various parasites capable of infecting a human host. Most sites I've seen suggest that you need to freeze the fish at -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 Celcius) or colder for 7 days or -31 Fahrenheit (-35 Celcius) for 15 hours to guarantee any parasites are dead. Many home freezers may have difficulty keeping temperatures this low. Also the freezing process, if done in a home freezer, has a good chance of ruining the taste and the texture of the meat. You may want to look into flash freezing methods to avoid this.
Supposedly there are certain species of fish that do not have any parasites, or at least no parasites capable of infecting humans. You will want to do your own research on this to be certain.
Beyond parasites bacteria are the other biggest concern. Make sure you put the fish into a cooler immediately, and freeze it as soon as you return home.
Sources:
http://seafoodhealthfacts.org/seafood_safety/patients/parasites.php
http://www.sushiencyclopedia.com/sushi_concerns/sushi_parasites.html
According to my knowledge, to avoid risk of catching some nasty virus (e.g. anisakis) it's better to put in the freezer and then defrost. This procedure will kill them.
FYI - that's a parasite, not a virus.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.223017
| 2015-08-21T06:03:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60106",
"authors": [
"1.21 gigawatts",
"Natasha Shepherd",
"Nox Skaven",
"Orla Lo",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Vera Abelsen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"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
}
|
59296
|
Are garbage cans food safe, or made of food grade plastic?
At Mann Lake you can buy two kinds of honey extractors:
Stainless steel
Plastic
The first is more expensive than the second, and the second is waaay more expensive than the third option:
Plastic garbage can
I can add the necessary fittings to make the garbage can look and function like the plastic honey extractor, but would like to know whether there are any garbage cans to avoid? Note that the can won't be used for storage, just processing of honey during the extraction process. Does this make a difference?
Other beekeepers have done this.
A heavy assumption may be that plastic container manufacturers produce both food grade and non-food grade plastic products. The process of switching between these plastics may be expensive to produce the different products may be expensive. As such, it's typically just easier to make all plastics food-grade quality.
The following seems relevant: How to Identify Food Grade Buckets
Wikihow is often dubious paid-for content!
I'm not sure whether these would be large enough for your needs, but a large and most definitely 'food safe' plastic receptacle in a standard-ish size is a brewer's bucket or 'fermenting vessel'. They're a fairly generic product and usually are around 5 gallons with a bit to spare.
I recently filled a fresh clean new plastic garbage can with tap water, put a lid on it, and forgot about it for a month. When I looked at the water, there was a definite oily sheen on the surface. Likely plasticisers. That's not something I'd want to ingest without knowing exactly what the chemical composition was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticizer
What you want is something that is listed as NSF rated for food storage. I know both Huskie and Rubbermaid Brute containers (10 gal, 20 gal, 32 gal, 55 gal) that are gray, yellow or white have that rating. If you have a restaurant supply store in your area, you could go look around for "ingredient bins" and commercial garbage cans. Just remember, a white Brute bin with lid that slides open and is sold as an "Ingredient Bin" will probably run $85 while the same white Brute bin with a flat lid and sold as a "Garbage Can" will run you closer to $45.
All plastic is "food safe". The term "food safe" has been much abused in recent years because of a perceived risk of leeching of certain chemical from the plastic into acidic foods, or into hot foods
Actual studies have shown this problem to be below the recognised safe levels, and/or to happen at much higher heat than reported
What is really of concern, is re-usability. Many cheap plastic containers, like garbage containers, are not made to be reused or cleaned in a food safe way. Many are also made from recycled materials and may have containments within them?
The best source of food safe containers is the large drums used for mayonnaise and other sauces. Professional caterers and food outlets usually have stacks of these out the back looking for a good home. A few quick phone calls should locate some
Erm, this is most certainly not true. Even to take as an extreme, there are plastics that will dissolve in liquid at a high rate, and many will dissolve in oils (so if you stored your peanut oil in one, it would end up leaking, AND contaminating the peanut oil). There is also the concern about plastics that may have been made in ways that could end up with lead, mercury, heavy metals, etc., in the plastic (likely not intentionally, but with less care to avoid it, and less testing).
The types of plastics that dissolve in oils are used in disposable cups etc. I doubt the OP or anyone expect food to be stored long term in those. I already mentioned the risk of recycled materials being contaminated too?
Other plastic types might be porous (hygiene issues), treated with inedible lubrication compounds, use toxic dyes or softeners, or indeed be contaminated recycled material... so "all plastic is food safe" is simply incorrect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.223222
| 2015-07-23T19:10:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59296",
"authors": [
"Denise Marie",
"Dorita Henderson",
"Joe M",
"Rhian Leddington",
"TFD",
"Tom W",
"Tracy Aitchison",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Werner",
"Yvonne McTaggart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59803
|
How to keep cake topper from toppling over
I have a wedding cake to do this weekend and the bride wants each cake tiers on separate tree stump. The top tier will be a 6 inch layer with a 4 inch layer. The tree stump for this top layer the bride wants the tree stump height to be 20 inches tall. But the cake topper is a Burlap heart shape with the base of 2 1/2 inches wide.
The topper is 6" tall and I'm using buttercream frosting for the cake.
What can I do so that the cake topper will not topple over? I thought about using white chocolate to adhere it to, but don't have any way to heat the chocolate when setting it up. It's an outdoor wedding with no electricity. I suggested to the bride that she let me glue the topper to a dowel rod but the bride doesn't want anything screwed or glued to the base.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciate.
How tall is the topper? What type of frosting are you using? Does it seem unsteady?
The topper is 6" tall and using buttercream frosting. The top layer cake will be set on a 20 inch high tree stump thus making the height of the cake, stump over 2 foot tall so putting the 6" tall 2 1/2 inches wide base scare of it toppling over. The bride doesn't want any thing screws or glue to the base.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding... Is it at all possible to add a photo of the topper? Do you have it in your shop?
http://www.hobbylobby.com/Floral-%26-Wedding/Wedding/Cake-Toppers/Ivory-Heart-Cake-Topper-with-Burlap/p/3353
OK, so the base isn't burlap, it's plastic. That makes more sense why she wouldn't want to drill into it.
Why do you think the topper might topple over? Uneven surface, people jostling the table, wind...?
You can make the base wider with white chocolate. No glue, and you can do it in advance so you don't need to have any electricity at the site.
Put a parchment paper round into an appropriately sized cake pan or a plate or shallow bowl. Stand the cake topper in the middle of the parchment paper. Carefully pour or pipe melted chocolate around the edge of the base and build it up, coating the base and widening it. Allow the chocolate to cool, carefully peel away the parchment paper.
If the weather is likely to be warm, you may want to make the additional chocolate layer thicker so that it will not melt quickly and release the topper.
You could also widen the base with some other material (cardboard covered with foil, for example -- make a large cardboard disc, cut a hole in the middle for the stem of the topper, cut a slit on one side of the hole the size of the base, slide the base through and center it) and cover that with chocolate or frosting, but I think plain white chocolate would work well and it sounds like the bride wants to keep everything touching the cake edible (except the topper itself, of course).
There are lots of other ways to attach a topper to a dowel that don't involve glue. (eg, screws)
Here are some other alternatives:
fix the topper to a wider base, so that you can just set that on the cake. Something like plasticard (thin, white, can be drilled & screwed from underneath (use stainless steel pan-head screws; might want to wash them first to make sure there's no cutting fluid on anything else on them)). You can then cover the new base in flowers, fruit, fondant, or icing (either to match, or to make 'moss')
Insert dowels (or stiff straws, or similar) into the cake to support the topper, all the way to the base of the cake, and then trim them flush with the cake. Set the topper on the dowels. If you're using slick plastic, you might be able to lift the dowels back up an 1/8" after finding the bottom plate before trimming flush, so that the topper can sink just slightly into the cake. (mark the dowels when all the way down so you have a reference mark, then spin them as you lift up to minimize friction ... you might want to set a central dowel just to test if this is going to be problem with your cake or not, so you know the topper will cover it if something goes wrong).
update:
Make a wider base from plasticard, but afix it with something non-damaging that you can let set up before you get there. (eg, frosting as a mastic, or hot glue)
Attach a dowel to a wider base (eg, a counter-sunk screw that just barely catches a fender washer ... you'll want a larger dowel, and pre-drill it so it doesn't split), then use frosting or hot glue to affix the topper to it. As another alternative that doesn't require as wide of a dowel, find an appropriately sized T-nut that the dowel fits tightly in (the threads should compress the dowel some). The dowel should be shorter than the height of the cake (as we're not going to be able to trim it once it's inserted).
The bride doesn't want anything glue or screwed to the base. I am adding dowel rods under the base of the topper. But with it being 2 1/2 width base afraid of it toppling over.
@Cakelady I'd go for the dowels. Three should be good (a table with three legs can't wobble).
@Cakelady : is the issue that she wants the topper undamaged? If so, you might be able to use the idea of the larger base, but afix it with frosting, so it has a chance to harden up in advance, but can be cleaned off afterwards.
Even hot glue would peel off afterwards without damaging the topper.
I would suggest a miniature "tree stump" made of sugar; will match the theme and hold well if you stick the topper in the sugar.
Something like : http://www.foodmigration.com/2005/11/pulling-sugar-burning-thumbs.html
Do you realize you're recommending someone learn to pull sugar in the next 3 days? (When they also have to bake & decorate a wedding cake.)
The bride wants Round White Buttercream cakes. Any other suggestions?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.223597
| 2015-08-11T15:53:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59803",
"authors": [
"Cakelady",
"Catija",
"Chris Carpenter",
"Debbie Carroll",
"Janine Freeman",
"Jason Lin",
"Joe",
"Maria Rossella Dalmas",
"Michael Tse",
"Sherilyn Toms",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Tom Ulrich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59079
|
What to do with leftover almond peel?
I always soak almonds at night and peel them the next morning. I'm just wondering if I can do anything with the leftover almond skin. Any suggestions?
Is there a reason you don't just eat the entire almond?
@Catija : if you're making almond milk, this is a common thing to do, as you don't want the flecks of brown bits.
Not really a culinary use, but they'd make a fine mulch material for an herb garden?
I suggest you simply add them to your compost bin.
@Catija almond skin have bitter taste as it contain enzymes that protect the almond from spoiling, Also it contain Phytic acid that lower the ability to digest iron and calcium.
@SZCZERZOKŁY Apparently there are thoughts that actually almond skins may have healthful properties: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523744/
I made bacon Mixed together 2 tablespoons oil, 3 tbs soy sauce or tamari, 2 tbs nutritional yeast, 1 tbs woostershire, 1/2 tbs maple syrup, 3/4 tbs hot paprika in a bowl. Mix in 3 cups loose Almond skins. Bake 375 for approx 20 minutes on non stick surface until crispy. BLT waiting to happen. Or use as bacon bits on salad...
I just made them and was wondering how they would do as they cooled. I am in a humid climate and they are crispier now then when they came out of the oven. They would even be good by themselves as a snack:)
That's a neat idea! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Don't forget to take the [tour] and to browse our [help] to learn more about the site and the SE system in general. With this answer you have gained even enough rep to meet other users in [chat].
I made these last night and they are very yummy. I left out the worcestershire and maple syrup. They don't really taste like bacon, but are a fun slightly crunchy snack.
I tried this with my own ingredients (similar, but -wostershire and +tomato paste and +garlic powder). Note: they cook quickly and mine started to burn. 10 min at 175C was too much. So, just watch them!
They're really thin, so it's a really small amount of food. I wouldn't feel at all guilty about pitching them, but if you do want to use them, that means the main way it'll really matter is if you use them for texture or appearance.
But usually we do the opposite: remove the skins from nuts to make something with a smooth texture and uniform color. So I don't have a lot of really exciting suggestions in that department. I suppose you could grind them up a bit and mix them into something that you want to look speckled, probably baked goods?
If you don't want that look or texture in anything though, just don't use them. Sure, you could grind them up fine and put them in something that's got its own color so you can't see them, but they won't really be adding much of anything at that point.
You can use them in baking cookies, cupcakes,or you can even dry them, grind them and then add in yoghurt or condensed milk or ice cream.
You can even use them to cleanse your skin by simply grinding and mixing with your daily face wash.
Hope this helps...
Nutrition is off-topic here, and the OP didn't really ask anyway. They just asked what to do with them; seems there's no need to convince them to use them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.224079
| 2015-07-14T18:01:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59079",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Mukhtar",
"Caroline Hedges",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Bishop",
"Catija",
"Charlene Mukundu",
"Deborah Hume",
"Dia Lawless",
"Drew Paris",
"Jane Mcguire",
"Janet Engelhart",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Judith Manson",
"Melinda Abson",
"Parker Rivera",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sherri Woods",
"Stephie",
"dougp01",
"fontophilic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73995",
"ikoretskiyahooca",
"kevins",
"klx pn"
],
"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
}
|
59128
|
What kind of cabbage is on my photo?
I bought it very cheap during the closing of the grocery market. The seller said that it was some kind of lettuce, but it tastes like upper leaves of cabbage.
That's definitely a lettuce, not a cabbage. Cabbages are round.
It appears to be curly endive which is a lettuce. It is crisp and has a bitter flavor. Dole Know Your Lettuce
yes it is. crisp and bitter
Also known as frisée.
I used to work in produce and at first glance, I thought this was a Bok Choy Cabbage, but I also believe it's the Curly Endive Lettuce.
Bok Choy looks nothing even remotely like the photo in the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.224429
| 2015-07-17T16:39:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59128",
"authors": [
"Bernard Coppe",
"Bren Herbert",
"Cindy",
"David Richerby",
"Jamie Starcher",
"Laiq Rind",
"Marti",
"Michael Cameron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36884",
"khex",
"rosemary orji",
"vrouwen zoeken man"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89812
|
How do I cook with Salsola (land seaweed)?
I've seen Salsola in buffets, but don't know how to prepare it. How do I prepare it, because I can't seem to find a recipe anywhere?
Salsola soda can be eaten raw or sautéed quickly - as a very rough rule of thumb, think “spinach”.
If you are looking for recipes, it’s helpful to know that in Italian cuisine it’s called
Agretti or
Barba di frate
If you search for one of these names plus “recipe”, you should find enough recipes to work from there.
This article by Alys Fowler at The Guardian discussing Salsola with tips on growing and preparing may be helpful to you.
@Stephie Also, from Wikipedia: S. soda is sometimes confused with a plant known in Japan as okahijiki (land seaweed), which is actually the species S. komarovi. The harvested leaves of the two species have a similar appearance. (Literally translated, Oka=land, hijiki=seaweed.)
So how do I make that land seaweed in buffets?
@acoder not answerable - there’s no “specific buffet preparation”. You need to analyze the dish in question or at least describe it in much more detail.
@Stephie this is all over the country
@acoder The country? Which country? Your country is not necessarily my or Stephie's country.
usa i used to travel a lot as a merchant marine. look at the picture.
i still have no luck finding recipes
I had no problem whatsoever when googling „barba di frate recipe“ or „agretti recipe“. You might want to start here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.224546
| 2018-05-14T16:16:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89812",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Kareen",
"Stephie",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50403
|
Do pan "pores" exist, what are they, and what are their effects?
There are a number of common cooking lore techniques which revolve around the idea of "pores" in the surface of a pan. Two of the ones I've heard most often:
(1) When heating a pan where sticking is a concern, one should wait until the pan is hot before adding oil/fat. Supposedly the "pores" will close as the pan heats, leaving a flatter surface for the oil and less places where the food can get caught. This is often cited for cooking on stainless steel, but sometimes for other materials as well. (Some of the answers to this question, for example, cite this as a rationale for preheating pans before adding oil.)
(2) When seasoning cast iron (and sometimes other metals), one should be sure to heat the pan before applying oil. Supposedly, the "pores" open up as the pan heats, allowing the oil/fat to penetrate the surface better and create a better seasoning. (This has been mentioned a number of times here too, and it also is referenced on the Wikipedia page on seasoning pans, where preheating will "open the 'pores' of the pan.")
One obvious problem here is the contradictory logic of these claims: in the first case, one heats the pan to "close" the "pores," but in the second case, one heats the pan to "open" the "pores." Which one is it?
I've heard these claims about "pores" and their very existence disputed. At best, many commentators who seem to know something about properties of metals will say this is a strange shorthand term for the uneven surface of pans at the microscopic level. (The end of this post and the discussion in comments, for example, contains some speculation along those lines.)
For years, I dismissed a lot of this discussion of "pores" as some sort of weird cooking lore myth. For example, it's good to heat cast iron before seasoning to ensure it's thoroughly dry, regardless of the status of the "pores" in the metal. And some people have done experiments claiming it doesn't matter whether you preheat a pan before adding oil to avoid sticking.
But I recently came upon a reference to these "pores" in Shirley Corriher's Cookwise, where she refers to the first claim I listed above: heating a pan to "close the pores" before adding oil/fat. Alton Brown cites Corriher's claim too in a couple places, including in his Gear for Your Kitchen, where he refers to it as something you had to worry about to stop food from sticking in those ancient times before Teflon existed. Corriher and Brown have been known to be wrong occasionally, but they generally are careful before citing random cooking lore.
So, are these "pores" real? Do they expand or contract when heated? Are their supposed culinary effects real? Or is there some other mechanism or surface feature of metals that is being referenced here?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm hoping someone may be able to point to a more reliable discussion of what's going on from a reputable food science (or science in general) source. I have my own thoughts about what may be going on here based on my knowledge of thermodynamics, metallurgical crystalline structures, and general materials science. But in cursory searches, I haven't been able to find any solid discussions of these supposed "pores" based on actual scientific evidence.
There are pores, I've seen them in a micrograph. They aren't normal biological pores though, it's a misnomer. Your description of "uneven surface" fits better. And to the best of my knowledge, they close when heated, because the metal expands, reducing the gaps. I've never heard the "open the pores" claim. If I can find the micrograph, I'll post a full answer.
I work for a carbon steel cookware producer in China and just like Athanasius, I too have become interested in the question of "Do pan “pores” exist, what are they, and what are their effects?" I have also watched the RouxBe video about making a stainless steel pan more non-stick through pre-heating. To summarize the main point, it says to heat the pan until the peppercorns (the pores of the steel) stop opening and closing. The right time to add the oil is when the pan is hot enough and the peppercorns have closed, thus creating a flat steel surface on which to add the ingredients for cooking.
Although I think RouxBe is without doubt an excellent resource for learning about cooking, I was a bit doubtful about the peppercorns theory, because just like Athanesius, it appears to contradict the whole concept behind seasoning a pan.
I have briefly discussed this with my boss, somebody who is very knowledgable about carbon steel (he has run a factory in it for nearly 25 years). He says that the first theory is wrong, and that the pores do not close, they in fact open up (as pointed out in the second theory for seasoning). But actually it is in fact these 'pores' opening up at a hotter temperature which does make the pan more non-stick. When the 'pores' of the steel open up they create more space for the cooking oil to seep into for a better non-stick. In this way the food particulces cannot get stuck into the irregulaties (pores) of the steel and the high heat dries the surface of the steel and cooks the proteins quickly, thus reducing the chance of them 'setting' themselves on and into the steel. This, along with the Leidenfrost effect, whereby any moisture on the ingredients will turn to water vapour and create a barrier between the proteins and the steel, is why a hotter pan has a better non-stick effect.
Agree! Pores get bigger when heated, at least in normal metals. Think about any hole in a piece of metal. If an object is stuck in the hole and you heat it up to free it. If the pores close upon heating, that would crush the object rather than free it. Look up coefficient of thermal expansion and 3D expansion. You can get exotic materials that behave differently, but cast iron is not one of them. Surface pores are just a casting product.
This is the microstructure of SAE 304, a steel type commonly used in pans:
At this magnification, its "pores" look like cracks. Now see it at other magnifications (still a SAE 304, other types of steel look completely different, especially if you look at martenistic steels):
It gets even more complicated than that, because steel structure differs between the surface and below the surface:
As you can see, the holes are nowhere "pore" shaped. But they exist; steel is not even at the microscopic level.
I cannot point you to more cooking-relevant sources, but this at least confirms that holes exist in the type of steel used for pans. Somebody else will have to tell us what happens to them when heated.
Note that there is a version of the "pore" theory which insists that the "pores" are still moving at certain temperatures and static when the pan is properly preheated. I'm not sure if it's true. On the one hand, it's presented in a rouxbe video, which is generally a very good source, and I can imagine steel doing funny things on the crystal level. On the other hand, the use of the "pores" term and the lack of explanation of the underlying mechanism make me doubt it.
Thanks for the research; I'm confused on a few points. (1) On a macroscopic level, holes generally don't get smaller heated: if you heat a hollow cylinder, the entire thing will enlarge slightly, including the hole in the middle. Are things different at these scales for some reason? (2) The link you gave (which, you will note, was already in my question) explains that the non-stick effect is due to the Leidenfrost effect, which has nothing to do with surface unevenness. And comments there imply that sticking may be caused by "pores" contracting/closing when cold food cools the surface.
No,the hole in the middle of the cylinder will get smaller. It will expand both to the outside and to the inside at once. To see what I'm meaning, open an image manipulation program and enter the letter o, this is your cylinder cross section. If you apply a "resize image" effect, the hole will get larger - I think this is what you are imagining is happening to the pan, but this is the wrong way to think about it. Imagine typing a bold o instead, this is what expansion looks like on both the micro and macro level.
As for the article we linked, just watch the second video, the part with the peppercorns. It talks about pores independently of Leidenfrost. I actually forgot that it was in your question too, because I didn't reread it now, my mistake.
(1) No, sorry, you're mistaken, at least at the macro level. (2) Yes, I watched the videos before I posted the question; in fact, they caused me to post the question. I'm looking for some actual scientific sources (not hearsay) that might, for example, show the actual behavior of these holes/grooves/pores at higher temperatures and perhaps demonstrate that their changes at high temperatures are actually meaningful in a culinary sense.
Thank you for pointing that with the holes out. Now I am starting to wonder where I got my idea of shrinking holes from. I'm afraid I can't give you any direct sources on the hole behavior part, but as long as we have nothing better, I think having this answer is better than nothing, at least for showing what the "pores" look like in reality. So I will leave it because of the pictures, even though it's obviously incomplete. I cleaned up the comments below the question, but leaving them here, so people getting into the same mistake as me will notice it.
I agree the pictures are helpful in understanding what surface characteristics may be referenced. And I did just rewatch the video, which makes me more curious than ever. It implies that the pores (peppercorns) move around in random ways during the heating phase, but then at some point they stabilize, and that makes them less likely to "bite down" on the food and make it stick (whatever that means). There are just too many metaphors going on ("pores," peppercorns, "biting") for me to figure out what is actually happening. But anyhow--thanks for your input; I'm not the only one confused.
@user45215 - that's not very generous. I did some digging and J. Wulff is likely John Wulff. If that's correct, he was an MIT metallurgist. His heyday was the 50's, so perhaps this is now out of date. https://academictree.org/physics/peopleinfo.php?pid=64588
@blacksmith37 indeed, that was the point I was trying to convey. The initial claim is that steel has pores, but when one looks at its surface structure, the unevenness is not really compatible with the idea of "pores".
Mechanical engineer by trade here with a smattering of materials science background, I think I can weigh in a bit on this topic. There are a few questions that I think are getting conflated with this whole discussion.
First off, I'll open by saying that no, I have no reason to believe that carbon steel skillets or cast iron pans are "porous" in the same way that a sponge is, in the sense of having small voids in the material where liquids and such can seep clear through the material. The discussion about surface finish though has some merit to it - but it's very unlikely that you're having any effect on the microstructure (crystal alignment) or the macrostructure/shape of the crystals at cooking temperatures. Frankly, if your cast iron pan is at transition temperatures like that, you will see it in the formation of a black film growing on the outside of your pan as the carbon migrates out of the steel - and this would basically be soot, not long carbon polymers like your pan's seasoning.
The likeliest mechanism for improving the non-stick properties of a pan at temperatures actually has nothing really to do with the pan, but the oil. Commenter Wayne Short is correct that at the temperatures and sizes we're discussing, coefficient of thermal expansion does nothing. The oil however, will see a massive drop in viscosity. Think of your pan sauce's consistency at temperature versus after it's chilled on a plate. That marked decrease in viscosity will absolutely help with wetting the surface and filling in imperfections, and will make your cooking experience much better.
For those machinists who say that cast iron feels more porous, your instincts are correct, but the root cause is actually not pores. What you're feeling in machining/surfacing cast iron is the incredibly high carbon content that's dissolved into the pan - if memory serves right it usually exceeds 1.8% carbon by mass. As you work carbon steel on a mill or lathe, you temporarily generate enough heat and pressure at the tooltip that the carbon comes out of solution and basically applies graphite lube on your tooltip. This makes it cut very differently to normal steels. To add to matters, cast iron is extremely brittle compared to a more standard steel, so that even further changes the way it machines. Normal steels will form chips that tend to be longer and much more ductile for that reason - cast iron is basically shattering constantly, while steels act much more like you're peeling the surface...
Before someone says it: yes, there are absolutely steel/metal products which are porous. A previous comment mentions powder coating metal parts and seeing oil films baking out. This happens with metals, just not on your pans - it's a consequence of manufacturing technologies, not of any inherent porosity in steel. An extremely common manufacturing technique is called Powder Injection Molding (PIM), also known as Powder Metallurgy. The easiest way to describe this would be to think of building sand castles on a beach. On an industrial level, manufacturers take molds, fill them with grains of metal powder, and compress them into shape. These 'green' parts are highly porous and loosely held together (just like your sand castle), so parts are then sintered in a high temperature oven. The sintering process effectively welds each of those grains together - but because you never reach the melting point, the grains stay in the positions they were in when they were pressed in to shape. The consequence is a highly grainy structure - and this is porous enough that many designers take advantage of these pores by soaking oil into them. For moving parts such as bronze bushings, this results in a highly effective self-lubricating property. As the part wears slowly, oil is also released, which then self-lubricates. Off-the-shelf bronze bushings like this are often called oilite bearings, but the technique isn't only applied to bearings, it can be used on basically any PIM-produced part.
Edit: I thought of something else that may be much more of a factor than oil viscosity. Metal doesn't change much through that temperature range, and oil changes viscosity quite a bit - but gases and water change a LOT in density. It's possible that by pouring oil onto a cold pan, any gases and water trapped underneath form microscopic bubbles where the contact isn't perfect, and these bubbles of trapped gas expand as you heat up the pan. Water may drive off mostly, but trapped air won't do enough to form a bubble that boils out. That means the oil doesn't wet the surface perfectly.
Now contrast this with pouring oil onto a hot pan: the water is already driven off, and gases near the pan are at the lowest density they'll see through the cooking process. You pour cold oil onto them, and any gas that gets trapped under the oil will cool rapidly. The rapid drop in volume will suck the oil into the voids, significantly improving wetting of the surface. On a microscopic level, you'll get a whole lot better contact in the interface between your pan and the oil. This will likely improve not your non-stick properties, but also the strength of the seasoning layer you form.
tldr The point of oiling a stainless steel pan is to lubricate the (already mostly smooth) surface, and the point of seasoning cast iron is to fill the irregularities with a layer of non-stick polymer that results from burning off the oil.
Are the pores real?
This depends on the material the pan is made of. Cast iron is not porous in the way sponges and unglazed ceramics are. Neither is stainless steel. However, both surfaces are covered with irregularities, most of which are too small to be seen. There are no "pores" to open and close like pores in your skin--but the irregularities do change shape & size when they're heated.
Do the they open or close when heated?
Because the sizes and shapes of the irregularities vary, the effects of different temperatures on shape of the metal will vary as well. Very small divets may close at low temperatures, and slightly larger ones may not significantly change the shape of the surface until they're heated. It's not a linear relationship, since we're dealing with many different divet-sizes & shapes.
Stainless steel vs. cast iron
This might sound a little circular, so be warned.
Cast iron needs to be seasoned to prevent two things from occurring: rust and sticking. Contrast stainless steel, which doesn't rust, and usually isn't seasoned. The answer to your question is in the size of the irregularities, which change shape non-linearly as the pan is heated.
Stainless steel has a much finer grain. Therefore, it is best to heat it to a comparatively low temperature and allow the oil to completely coat it (getting into all the little grooves and so on) before cooking. When seasoning cast iron, the point is to burn off the oil until even the larger indentations are filled with the residue. It requires a much higher temperature--and the reason it needs to be seasoned in the first place is because it's so irregular.
Thanks for the thoughts. Does your #2 imply that the stainless steel thing is a myth, then? If only "very small divets" will close, would this really have any effect on sticking? After all, most people seem to agree that visibly scratched stainless shouldn't have a huge effect on sticking, so do these microscopic changes actually have a practical impact? Also, do you have any sources for this information? I know enough about materials science that I could speculate on what's going on too, but I'm looking for a reliable discussion of this stuff.
I am retired but for this purpose I'm putting my machinist's hat on temporarily. I have machined a lot of cast iron in my day and when it is machined the cuttings that come off of the part break up into small pieces as compared to how steel cuts giving off cuttings of a wiry or curled nature. The nature of cast iron and the way it cuts in the machine shop leads me to believe that it is porous throughout.
I use my cast iron frying pan a lot and keep it seasoned. When I clean it I simply rinse it out, fill it with hot water and a light scrubbing with a copper scrubbing pad and a final rinse...no soap. The next time I use it I heat it up and put either margarine or olive oil in it and spread it around the bottom of the pan with a paper towel. That brings back my non-stick surface.
Back to the porosity, it is my contention that the porosity allows a certain amount of the oil to completely penetrate the frying pan from the inside to the outside. Evidenced is the black crust buildup on the outside of the pan. I am very careful about spillage when I'm cooking and when I'm cleaning the pan I'm careful about the runoff from the pan so I don't believe that the crust is accumulating on the outside from something that I'm doing. It seems to me that the oil is going through the pan by way of the porous nature of the cast iron.
Your right it does over the years soak threw. Hot oil is forced out as pan heats but some is forced down into the pan. My grandfather was a blacksmith. As a young man I did some help at the forge. & help casting. In heat treating cast iron carbon soaks in at low heat. Steel were pours are hammered close high heat & much more time to soak in.
Not sure if this applies...
When my friend does Powder Coating (it's similar to paint but more durable), he washes the steel first with alcohol. Then he heats the steel, and an oily film appears. He says that he has to do several cycles of heating, re-washing with alcohol before the steel stops oozing a surface film when heated. Only then, is the surface ready to receive the powder (powder is applied to a heated surface).
I've asked him about where the film comes from. He says steel is "porous".
This is more of a comment offering anecdotes rather than an answer
A question, When you take a old cast iron skillet. One 50 years old. Treated with care. Never been washed with soap. You dry wipe it with a cloth. Till it is dry on the inside. No oil. no carbon comes up. You then heat it. Were does the light oil film come from if not out of the iron in the skillet when you rewipe it with a clean white cotton cloth. That oil has to come out of the iron. To do that it needs soak in. If the pours are not closing Then is it from the oil expanding? Also how do you explain the oil that develops on the bottom of cast iron skillets after long years of use.
This answer is correct even if worded like a comment. Anyone who actually works these metals such as welding or super heating knows that oil is often impregnated throughout the iron and not just on surface. I've TIG welded engine parts such as cam and crank gears (that spent years in oil) after cleaning them with acetone and huge amounts of oil weeps out of the metal as it heats and it will catch fire as the metal becomes molten if you don't heat cycle it first.
Cast iron doesn't have pores. It does have a rough surface at a microscopic level and those uneven-nesses are called surface asperities. Some cast iron pans are sold more or less "as cast" and will have a rough surface you can feel because they are cast in sand moulds (moulds made from special sand compacted to make a casting cavity). But even machined cast iron pan surfaces are rough compared with a typical stainless steel pan, and stainless steel pans also have asperities (they are microscopic).
Seasoning a cast iron pan does two main things: 1. it evens out those asperities by filling them resulting in a smoother surface; 2. the thing it fills them with is a slippery polymerized oil which reduces the friction of the surface as well. This is pretty much exactly how teflon-coated pans work, add a low friction polymer to a microscopically rough surface to create a non-stick surface. The difference is the polymer is made from cooking oil and is less durable than teflon.
The pan needs to be hot enough to polymerize the oil molecules and create the slick, somewhat durable surface. I haven't tested both, but I would expect that a clean, dry hot pan would be best, since, as someone said, the water is gone and water and oil generally don't play well together, but it might matter too much. Try it an d see.
As an aside, cast iron is not one material, there are a few different groups of cast irons based on composition and heat treatment (grey, white, malleable and ductile are the most common) which have different properties for different applications. I would guess most cookware is grey cast iron, its the most common and the mechanical demands on cookware wouldn't justify anything more robust. The good machinability of grey cast iron usually attributed to the presence of graphite flakes in the material and its hardness, resulting in small chips that fall away readily, but actual tool wear and load can vary a lot depending on the material composition (by factors of two or three).
Source: Degree in mechanical and materials engineering, worked in metal production and mining facilities, played around with cast iron pans in my kitchen :)
Metals do NOT have "pores". Some answers are close, most are creative although wrong. Cast iron has rounded ( nodular and mealleable) or flakes of carbon/graphite . The carbon particles may be visible at low magnification and are black so may look like pores. Poor castings may have porosity voids but it would be exceptionally rare for any to be at a surface.
The pores on the surface of a pan are microscopic. Oil covers them completely. The surface of the oil is smooth. It isn't perfectly flat. It follows the shape of the pan, including the larger irregularities of the surface. But it is smoother than the microscopic irregularities.
When you season a pan, you heat the oil. Oil is made of long molecular chains. When heated enough, they cross link. That is, they form bonds that join them together into a solid mass. When this happens, the oil changes quite a bit. It no longer dissolves in soap. It forms a hard, smooth, slippery surface.
So I don't see how it matters whether microscopic pores open or close. Either way they will be buried.
Actually, oil is made of a mixture of long (heavier) and short (lighter) molecules. They do not only just cross link when heated. They also "crack", break into smaller molecules. At smoke point, you see the vapours of the "crackates" along with some of the normal smaller molecules escaping. The reduction in lighter molecule concentration (and thus increase in heavier ones by default) causes thickening and gumminess in addition to just polymerisation.
A fact of metals is that no metals have pores, cast iron included. It is very hard to find good information on the subject however. Cast iron can have "porosity" which is not the same as "pores".
For the poster who thinks that the cooking oils travel THROUGH the iron to build up on the outside of the pan I can say to them to break open a cast iron skillet and all you will see on the inside is clean, pure grey iron with no black from having oils getting "into" the iron itself.
Your answer would be substantially better if you explained what "porosity" means, and how it differs from having "pores".
Incorrect assumption based on your limited experience. Try this. go to salvage yard and buy a cam gear from any old engine. take home and clean with your choice of method, solvent, acid, etc. hit it with an acetylene torch or tig torch. watch the oil weep out.
If you heat a cast iron pan to 400f, the pores, if they exist, will expand 1/5 of 1%. To get an idea of how much that is, if you had a 1" hole in your pan it would expand by the thickness of 1 hair. Yep, 1 hair. Do you think this 1 hair makes a difference in a 1" hole. 1/5 of 1%.
if you look at the other answers, maybe 1 hair doesn't make any difference but because a pan surface is full with these "hairs" then it does.
I agree with @Luciano. A single hair makes no difference at all. But many thousands of them add up. Trying to make a comparison with observations that, even if correct, do not accurately reflect the reality of the question, is neither helpful nor contributive; not to the OP, and not to others who may be interested, or who have added their input.
Do you have a source for this?
@pyro see the other answers
The "pores", if they exist, would be the grain boundaries of the material microstructure. A thermal expansion of 0.005 is certainly enough to change the thickness of those boundaries.
If you expand something at a microscopic level, this can mean that a large molecule - like a long fat polymer molecule - can or cannot fit in.... Also, if something fits snugly when cold it will come loose when heated, if it fits snugly when heated it will be bombproof when cold. And structure plays a big role indeed - would you rather wash oil off a smooth pan or out of your hair, since you mention hair?
Cast iron has many pours. Oil will sink in. As you heat it the pours close. cool they open. Steel the pours are hammered or mashed together reducing there size. To carbon harden cast iron you carbon at about 350f. To carbon steel at around 900f. This is in a black smith shop. Hammer & forge. This is why you heat steel. Close what pours are left threw heat expansion then oil. So the oil floats on top. Cast iron. Heat Add oil. to thin it. let cool. The oil will soak in. As the pours open. When heated the oil will be forced out. You may still need add a light oil wipe. That in a black smith shop is the difference in iron & steel. The pours being hammered shut. to make steel but taking more heat to harden & much longer for the carbon to sink in. Today rolled steel is used. Stamped to shape, then sent to heat treat. Were it may be 3 days or more. Been 30 years last I was in a steel mill. May be more modern answers here. Grandfather was a blacksmith hammer & forge man. This could be what they are talking about. heat then oil so oil stays on top. Rather than some being forced out of cast iron as it heats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.224745
| 2014-12-07T15:48:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50403",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Balayage Midtown NYC",
"Cascabel",
"DeusXMachina",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"J Bergen",
"Jean Baptiste de Chocqueuse",
"Kaitlyn Norton",
"Leora Peck",
"Luciano",
"MKHC",
"Mark",
"Mikko Petäinen",
"Nancy baltzer",
"Shanna Stephens",
"WerWet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63750",
"mrjoltcola",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
36050
|
Food-safe rotary evaporator grease
For those of you who have rotary evaporators or other chemistry glassware in the kitchen, what do you use to grease the ground glass taper/ ball joints so that the lubricant does not either absorb or introduce flavors into the product?
Thus far I have not found anything that is a GRAS food additive marketed as a vacuum grease, but I have found some very expensive fluorinated/ PTFE compounds (Santovac 5GB) that would be insoluble in any food items being run through the system.
Many manufacturers and manuals say that you shouldn't grease them. However, for parts of the process you may be able to use Taylor ice cream machine lubrication or Vaseline (see below).
Dave Arnold who also runs the Cooking Issues blog, is the king of RotoVap in the kitchen. There is a full article over here on Dispensery Grade where he discusses RotoVap in the kitchen.
Here's an excerpt from the comment section of the article:
What are you using to grease the glass joints (air inlet and vacuum
take-off)? Regular vacuum grease is probably not a good idea.
Something like chapstick or shortening? Thanks.
Reply Dave A // Dec 12, 2009 at 11:22 am
Howdy Stephen, We use Taylor ice cream machine lubrication or
Vaseline.
If you go with vaseline, make sure you get the food-grade version.
Chapstick.
.....................................
rather than padding with dots, could you explain (even if you feel it's self evident) why it won't affect the food (just because we put something on our lips doesn't mean we're willing to eat it, eg lipstick or flavoured lip gloss) and why it will serve the purpose of lubricating the equipment or seal?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.227311
| 2013-08-15T19:15:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36050",
"authors": [
"DAF",
"Feriman",
"Finlay Percy",
"Gary",
"Kate Gregory",
"Nickie perkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39848
|
What quick Thanksgiving treats can I make?
I don't have much cooking experience, and I want to contribute to our Thanksgiving dinner. I've just popped some popcorn but don't know what to do now.
Anyways, I need some simple 5-30 minute snacks I can make to add something to our Thanksgiving dinner. I'm open to suggestions! We have an oven, microwave, griddle, popcorn popper, lots of pots and pans, big sink, so I'm probably good in that regard.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I see you managed to get an answer already, but in general, we don't do "what should I make?" questions - there are just too many possibilities. If you have more questions like this, you can ask them in [chat], though you'll have to make a real post or two and get a couple upvotes for the site to let you in.
How about applesauce muffins? They require minimal effort, taste amazing, and take about half an hour to make (which includes waiting time where you can make other things).
I have three tupperware containers full of applesauce! Hmm...let's see..
Glad to have helped! There are plenty of great and simple apple recipes out there! Frosting is also easy to make, and there are countless simple ways to decorate if you want to add a little something. Those are a matter of personal preference though, as oppose to a necessity!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.227502
| 2013-11-28T15:58:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39848",
"authors": [
"Austin Burk",
"Cascabel",
"Laura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73855
|
Frying pan Teflon damage
I have a problem. Let's say I buy a frying pan for about 130 EUR. But after 5 months of using it 3 times a week, it looks like the photo. What am I doing wrong please ? (I never scratch the pan. I always wait until it's cold before washing it, I protect the Teflon with shoam)
Edited: to react to your comments, my habits are: preheat the pan for about 6 minutes on the biggest flame without oil - to prepare it for a steak. But i use it like this for about 20% of time. Is preheating damaging the Teflon? If so.. what material should i use?
What utensils do you use with it?
If you're going to stick with Teflon, you're probably paying too much. I haven't found that you get more durability above about €50 (you may get better heat spreading, a flatter base etc.)
"what material should i use?" - open to debate of course, but for steak, cast iron is an excellent choice (high heat capacity + mostly non-stick surface if seasoned correctly, inexpensive if you know where to look) - though I would pre-heat it on a medium flame as it does tend to form hotspots when heated too quickly.
These don't look like scratches to me, more like heat damage. You are either using it for the wrong tasks (e.g. steak), or using it improperly (e.g. preheating it), or the extremely frequent use is simply too much and tires the material.
Without knowing more about your cooking habits, we can't tell you what to change.
Edit: just realised you are using it 3 times a week, not 3 times a day. Scratch the last reason (too frequent use).
To expand on the preheating: you obviously need to preheat the oil before frying, but not the empty pan. This pretty much rules out dry frying as well.
@ChrisH Maybe you can get away with frying in preheated oil, if you use enough oil, but nowadays people tend to use very minimal amounts of oil, and preheating a tiny amount of oil in teflon is not good - it is easy to overheat, and if it doesn't overheat, it starts creating tiny sites of polymerized oil, and that patchy seasoning starts to reduce the nonstick over time. Most foods suitable for teflon do just fine without preheating the oil, so my advice is to not preheat it.
Plenty of things we cook absorb cold oil like sponges, but they tend to cook in more oil than just an onion (for example)
Consider a ceramic titanium non-stick pan. Much more durable surface than Teflon.
Search for Scanpan; I have two, use them daily, no scratches.
The problem with ceramic is that they simply fail without getting damaged.
@rumtscho how do you mean? How do they "simply fail"?
they become as sticky as normal stainless steel.
@rumtscho Odd, no sticking for me, the ceramic titanium is my go-to egg pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.227654
| 2016-09-10T06:56:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73855",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Nat Bowman",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69139
|
What kind of mussels are these?
These are the mussels we bought:
3
Do you have a picture of the outside of the shells? Those don't look at all like mussels to me, but maybe I'm not seeing the photo right.
Those are not mussels, they look like limpets to me.
I'm pretty sure those are Arc Clams. See this link, they look the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.227988
| 2016-05-20T23:29:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69139",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69179
|
Can I use a rosettes iron as a branding iron?
Is it possible to use a rosettes iron as a branding iron to stamp decorations on cheesecake and bread?
Rosettes
Food branding iron
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.228053
| 2016-05-23T07:19:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69179",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67101
|
Sweet and Sour?
In comments related to this question, there was discussion about pH, fructose concentration, what compounds a fruit contains, etc. influencing or determining "flavor".
Much more recently, I had a couple kiwifruits, which seemed to have a very sweet flavor but left me with the feeling of a mild acid burn on my tongue and lips, similar to the feeling of eating too much fresh pineapple. Both of those fruits are listed as Acid fruits here, along with strawberries (which have a flavor experience of being sweet and not acidic).
This question indicates that the perception of acids in food is more a function of how many anions are in a food (as a % of total molecules), not the pH. At the same time, pH may be important for certain chemical processes in food preparation.
This question, among other sources, frames sweetness and sourness as opposites, and strange (but common) to put together in a dish - yet these two seem to be together naturally in some fruits (e.g. kiwi & pineapple as discussed above). This question suggests that sugar masks perception of sourness (but not acidity) and this one suggests sweetness actually reduces sourness (but not acidity), rather than just masking it.
Is there any connection, linkage, or correlation (even if negative) between sweetness and sourness, ideally based on an understanding of what attributes in a food underly these? Are they independent of one another?
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
I\m thinking the two are independent. Think lemons. Very sour, yet high in sugar, which is sweet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.228097
| 2016-03-05T01:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67101",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cute_Bunny_And_Familly",
"Cynthia",
"Gary Groves",
"Jerry Peebles",
"Martin Mcloughlin",
"Micheal Johnson",
"Naomi Theisz",
"None None",
"Richard Collins",
"Sarah Mg",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"peter Jørgensen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62191
|
Only the core of my banana is black. Is it safe to eat?
This banana had a bit of bruising I wasn't too concerned until I noticed the core (and only the core) was dark brown/black in color. In addition, it's somewhat dry and hollow, unlike normal banana flesh.
I've read elsewhere on the Internet that this happens when they've been dropped (which, incidentally, this one has been). Is this true? Are bananas like this still generally safe to eat?
From a 1989 Chicago Tribune article:
... some said that almost all the bananas they had purchased lately had such an unpleasant, dark center that they were inedible.
We received a more thorough explanation from Chiquita Bananas along with the admission that the problem is occurring with more frequency than ever before. Russ Caid, special director of banana and technical services for Chiquita, said that the condition is called black center syndrome. He explained that once bananas have begun to ripen, they are very fragile and must be handled with care. Dropping a crate of ripening bananas as little as one foot can cause them to have black centers. Banana growers and shippers are aware of that and insulate the bananas from any rough handling. However, once these bananas are closer to their final destination, either at distribution centers or the supermarket, handling may become less careful, causing black center syndrome.
Caid said that at Chiquita they are very concerned about the problem and are trying to orient and train people at all levels of handling to eliminate the condition. Unfortunately, he concluded, there is no way to tell if a banana has black center syndrome until it is peeled.
According to my grandfather, it's still under-ripe - he liked them after they were brown/black all over outside and pretty well brown all the way through inside.
So I'm pretty sure it's perfectly safe to eat.
I know this is old but for anybody reading here for info in the future...
when a banana is almost black just in the 3 central cores it is because it is beginning to change from fruit to seed and is perfectly fine to eat. If the banana is brown but not from bruising it's usually from being chilled below 0 Celsius either by the shop or in air freight as that is not heated and bananas go brown when frozen. All fruit is good to eat as long as it doesn't smell or taste funny so just use your senses.
That looks to be. It is not a hole up threw the seeds or center. There are times a insect will go up the center of a banana. A fungus can set in. Some people have got sick of such. We throw them away. Or brown centers like yours. But bananas are most times free for the taking were I live. Or we need give some away. Mix them in feed for the pigs or such. The banana you eat are picked so unripe this is not normally a problem with them. The insect getting in them. But dropping near ripe bananas can do what you see there. It is not a hollow hole so safe to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.228280
| 2015-10-01T04:51:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62191",
"authors": [
"James Kumke",
"Karen Diane Ridley",
"Trisha Guerrero",
"Vinson Warnicke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147733"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65819
|
Coins in bread?
Is it customary, in Greek or any other cuisine, to put a nickel (or any other coin) inside the bread?
I know it is tradition to bake an inedible baby figure into Mardi Gras "King Cake:"
but I had not heard about this nickel/coin tradition.
Assuming one does not eat the actual coin itself, is it even safe?
Is there something special about the nickel metal, or is the use of a coin symbolic in some other way?
Yes, this is definitely a Greek tradition, a New Year's bread called vasilopita
Vasilopita (Greek: Βασιλόπιτα, Vasilópita, lit. '(St.) Basil-pie' or 'king pie', see below) is a New Year's Day bread or cake in Greece and many other areas in eastern Europe and the Balkans which contains a hidden coin or trinket which gives good luck to the receiver, like the Western European king cake. It is associated with Saint Basil's day, January 1, in most of Greece, but in some regions, the traditions surrounding a cake with a hidden coin are attached to Epiphany or to Christmas. It is made of a variety of doughs, depending on regional and family tradition, including tsoureki.
According to the article, the coins at one point were often quite valuable...
In older times, the coin often was a valuable one, such as a gold sovereign. Nowadays there is often a prearranged gift, money, or otherwise, to be given to the coin recipient.
Provided the coin is cleaned before being inserted into the dough, I don't know why it wouldn't be safe... coins aren't generally made with dangerous metals like lead and gold coins, as mentioned in the quote above, would be perfectly fine.
You don't say where you get "nickel" from... Greeks are on the Euro and I don't believe they use the term "nickel" for a five cent coin. They did have a five-cent drachma but it and other modern coins were made of cupro-nickel, a combination of nickel and copper, while others are made of aluminum or silver.
The first issue of coins minted in 1954 consisted of holed aluminium 5-, 10- and 20-lepton pieces, with 50-lepton, 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-drachma pieces in cupro-nickel. A silver 20-drachma piece was issued in 1960, replacing the 20-drachma banknote. Coins in denominations from 50 lepta to 20 drachmae carried a portrait of King Paul (1947–1964)
The coin is symbolic for religious reasons. Here's the story as related on a religious site:
One year, during a time of terrible famine, the emperor levied a sinfully excessive tax upon the people of Caesarea. The tax was such a heavy burden upon the already impoverished people that to avoid debtors' prison each family had to relinquish its few remaining coins and pieces of jewelry, including precious family heirlooms. Learning of this injustice upon his flock, St. Basil the Great, the archbishop of Caesarea, took up his bishop's staff and the book of the holy Gospels and came to his people's defense by fearlessly calling the emperor to repentance. By God's grace, the emperor did repent! He canceled the tax and instructed his tax collectors to turn over to St. Basil all of the chests containing the coins and jewelry which had been paid as taxes by the people of Caesarea. But now St. Basil was faced with the daunting and impossible task of returning these thousands of coins and pieces of jewelry to their rightful owners. After praying for a long time before the icons of our Master Christ and His All-Holy Mother, St. Basil had all the treasures baked into one huge pita. He then called all the townspeople to prayer at the cathedral, and, after Divine Liturgy, he blessed and cut the pita, giving a piece to each person. Miraculously, each owner received in his piece of Vasilopita his own valuables.
"You don't say where you get "nickel" from..." I get it from the photo, of a baked good apparently made in the US.
@WBT But what does that have to do with Greeks? They don't have American nickels in Greece.
There are Greeks in the US. One of them baked what prompted the question.
"I don't know why it wouldn't be safe..." The safety question comes from potential migration of the metal or other coating into the bread; you can see some of the discoloration in the surrounding bread in the photo.
@WBT But you give none of that background in the question... do you see how that might be confusing to people? Also, if you have issues with part of my answer, you don't have to accept it. It's often recommended to wait a day or two before accepting an answer.
They say a picture is worth 1,000 words, so I thought the photo would help, or that someone might understand the more basic question "why is this nickel in this bread?" ("Is it the specific metal or the 'coin' symbolism, or both, or neither, that matters?" I couldn't tell when writing the question, but I know there's dietary value in some trace metals.) Thanks for the note about accepting answers; as a result I'll be willing to change it if somebody else posts a better one. Yours is quite good, thanks. My comments just respond to some questions you seemed to be raising about the prompt.
@WBT I might help to understand that to most people Greek cuisine is the cuisine of Greece. It would be very odd it if were customary in Greece to use an American coin as an ingredient in cake. (Along those same lines, most of the people living the in the US who are considered Greeks by Americans are considered Americans by everyone else. In other words, if the pictured cake wasn't baked by a Greek citizen it wasn't baked by a Greek.) Finally it's not at all easy to see that coin in your picture is actually an American nickle, so it does little to help illustrate the context of your question.
@RossRidge sorry, I thought it was easier (than you think it is) to tell that the coin in the photo is an American nickel. Again, when asking the question I did not know if the specific metal was important. Also, the nationality of the baker is not nearly as important as the intention to make or imitate the cuisine of Greece, which is what the question tries to focus on, and that is why specific information about who made it is left out.
It's a tradition in Scotland as well. A boiled suet fruit cake Clootie Dumpling is when eaten at Christmas especially has small coins and charms included in the mixture. The mixture is put in a clean muslin cloth and boiled.
Although traditionally eaten at Christmas the pudding is also eaten at other times but the coins/charms are only used at Christmas.
Usually the coins used to do this now is the 5p piece. Before decimalisation it would have been 6 penny pieces or old silver 3 penny pieces.
when I was a child my (Irish/English) parents always insisted there be three coins inside each Xmas pudding. We had some silver coins my mother saved for this use alone. It was good luck to get a piece with the coin in it.
My (English) mother added coins wrapped in aluminium foil to the Christmas pudding when it was served, ensuring that each portion contained one coin.
There is a similar tradition in Bulgaria. On the Christmas Eve is served Christmas bread with a coin inside it. Then everyone takes a piece of the bread. The one who finds the coin inside his piece will be very lucky and happy during the next year.
The Christmas bread can be in different shape with variety of ornaments and symbols.
According to the old tradition the coin have to be silver, maybe because long time ago the coins were mostly made of silver. But today people use an ordinary coin.
I am not sure what is the metal which is used in coins today. It really changes the color of the bread surrounding the coin and maybe it is not a good idea to eat it. I have seen some people wrapping the coin in aluminium foil for backing.
The Christmas bread may have also a piece of cornel buds and a bean. Then the coin is for wealth, the buds for health and the bean for luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.228560
| 2016-01-25T02:42:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65819",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cherryl",
"Jimmy Barnes",
"Jos S",
"Kate Gregory",
"Krisha Smith",
"Peter Bennett",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ross Ridge",
"WBT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"jill lyons",
"norm blair"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42936
|
Prevent brioche buns from spreading during rise
I am trying to work out how to make the perfect brioche bun for burgers.
I followed the Pink Whisk recipe, but that had a few problems.
The main one was that the buns spread wide during the rise, rather than up. This is a problem I have had before with bread bun recipes.
How can I ensure that my buns rise up, and not sideways?
If you had the same problem with different recipes, it's probably caused by technique. The key to round buns is surface tension. If the skin is taut, the expanding gas will cause the bun to expand like a balloon instead of "flowing" sideways.
When shaping your buns, make sure you create tension by either repeatedly folding the outer edge inwards or by using a rotating movement with a cupped hand - the base of your thumb and your pinky press lightly onto the dough ball while swirling it around. Do not use much flour (if any at all), because the dough should stick ever so slightly to the work surface. If you turn the now round bun over, you should ideally see a "spiral" on the bottom and the skin of the bun is pretty tight:
A video incuding slow-motion can be found here, for example.
If you find this too complicated, use your standard "fold under" method and repeat until the skin is taut.
Try placing the buns closer together on a smaller baking tray, this should stop them spreading and force them to rise.
Extremely late to the party but since this answer shows up quite high on Google thought I'd chime in. You could always try using ring molds or a pan designed for burger buns or large muffin crowns. Any bun that has a crease between the heel and the crown would have been baked in one of these pans or in a mold. The slight indentation (usually about an inch) gives the bottom of the bun something to cling to as it rises and encourages the dough upwards rather than outwards (spreading). Just be careful with the amount of dough used in each mold as too much dough will create a weird mushroom shape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.229202
| 2014-03-23T10:07:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42936",
"authors": [
"AKHILESH YADAV",
"Antti Rytsölä",
"Brandon Kauffman",
"Dan",
"Sean",
"Sherry Prince",
"TSES",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155374"
],
"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
}
|
15902
|
Plum preserving/storage method that tastes like plums, not prunes (I just picked 30 lbs)
I just did some neighborhood foraging and picked 30 pounds of red plums. They are delicious, but even I will have trouble eating them all this week.
Last year we made jam/preserves but it ended up tasting very prune-like, i.e. not the tasty fresh plum flavor. We tried varying amounts of heat and sugar and the prune flavor prevailed. We're open to canning, freezing, drying, making jam, etc. but want to do the best job to capture that tasty plum flavor. I've read some other answers on what to do with tart plums and peaches, but our plum challenge is a little different.
Question: what is the best method to preserve the fresh plum-like flavor?
A few details: these plums were most tart close to the pit. The skin and flesh were very sweet.
I think freezing would be your best bet - not fantastic for the texture, but when defrosted you could make a pie/cobbler or other cooked item with them. Plenty of web sites (eg http://www.fruitexpert.co.uk/using-up-a-plum-glut.html) say you can just halve them and freeze them on open tray, then when they're frozen move them into plastic bags. It's the lowest-effort option so probably worth trying on at least a fraction of your harvest.
Yes. I do this every year and they freeze beautifully, then make up into lovely pies / crumbles etc with a fresh plum flavour.
The "fresh fruit" aromatic compound in plums is likely ethyl propionate, which has a boiling point at sea level of just under 100°C. The prominent flavor compound for prunes, according to this study, is 3-methylnonane-2,4-dione, which has a much higher boiling point of about 235°C (likely much higher than the temperatures you would reach during jam/preserve making). Therefore, to preserve the fresh fruit taste, I would recommend not heating the plums higher than 100°C. This presents a couple issues, however:
such low temperatures are not sufficient to preserve the plums through Pasteurization; and
traditional jams/preserves are set using the naturally occurring pectins in the fruit, however, pectin does not gel until around 104°C.
Here are some ideas (although I have never tested them):
If you have access to a vacuum sealer, you can lower the required temperature for pectin to set by reducing the pressure of the mixture. Blend the ingredients for the jam in a blender and then vacuum seal. Boil the sealed bag at ~80°C, which should hopefully be high enough for the pectin to set, but low enough for the desired flavor compounds to stick around.
Use an alternative gelling agent that sets at a lower temperature, such as agar.
Note that neither of these methods will produce a product with a long shelf life, since it was not heated to a sufficient temperature to kill off bacteria. Therefore, they should be refrigerated and eaten relatively quickly. You could also experiment with boiling the product for a short period (seconds) at the very end.
Why the downvote?
This won't be a very scientific answer, but I likewise experience an over abundance of plums every year and I am likewise not a fan of prunes.
I've had a lot of luck though turning my plums into plum sauce, rather than actual jam (not the kind you put on spring rolls). I use less sugar, no added pectin, and only cook until the plums breakdown into a mushy consistency, then can in a water bath. Absolutely delicious on ice cream, yogurt, cake, or pretty much anything.
My other solution is to use some for plum chutney, but that seems to last a whole lot longer in my pantry.
Warning - this is a somewhat speculative answer, I haven't actually checked these methods for fresh plum vs prune taste, just logic'ed that they might work - especially given Mark A's answer about the boiling point of the relative flavor compounds.
A while ago, I saw a method of preserving strawberries that talked about the flavor differences from fresh to cooked preserves (jams and such). I don't know if the method used there will work for plums, or if the results will be similar using plums instead of strawberries - but it might be worth trying and at worst, might suggest a place to start looking for similar "uncooked" preserves specifically targeted at plums.
So this particular historical preservation method used unblemished fresh strawberries, cut up, sugar, and chopped up raisins - in a ratio of three parts (by weight) strawberries, to four parts sugar, to one part raisins. The raisins are used as a sort of preservative, and the recipe makes a kind of sweet pickled strawberry - they layered the sugar, fresh strawberries, and raisins in a covered jar, stored in a cool place for up to several months (for safety reasons, refrigerator would be wise nowadays) and over time the strawberries released enough liquid to cover the fruit with a thick syrup. The strawberries ended up a bit tougher and more dense (partly dehydrated, after all) but the flavor profile was apparently closer to "fresh" then "cooked" strawberries.
So, while I'm not sure of sugar and raisins will preserve your plums flavor in quite the same way, you can certainly look for sweet plum pickle recipes, or look into storing them in alcohol, or other sorts of uncooked preserves, and you can store these in the fridge or freezer if you want to be careful. The flavor will be more different the more other things you add, but you might like them anyway.
Another possibility might be to look into candying or crystallizing or glaceeing your plums - or making a mostarda, if you want, with the addition of mustard oil or powder - prick them all over, keep them in concentrated sugar syrups, and keep filtering out, reducing and replacing the syrup and letting the plums soak - I should note you want the old, slow method of soaking and reducing just the syrup and soaking some more, rather than the quicker method of repeated simmering if you don't want the plums to taste cooked. Over time, the water will leech out and be replaced by sugar (and be reduced out of the syrup), leaving you with a batch of shelf-stable candied plums. Again, since the plums aren't cooked, you should get more of the fresh plum flavor than the prune flavor. Find a good recipe for this, though, it takes a known recipe with good ratios to be safe leaving sugar syrup and fruit at room temperature for weeks or more.
I freeze my plums. I just pit them, halve them, pack them into bags in usable portions, and freeze them. A certain number of them go into making compote or fruit spread, but as Mark A noted, the pruney flavor dies tend to come through then. Freezing does not produce that effect, so when I use plums from the freezer for cakes and the like, they have a fresh, light taste instead of the heavier, back-of-the-throat prune taste.
Have you tried adding a strong acid medium like whey, kefir or wine/vinegar that might speed up the pickling process? Also, I'm not sure what cooking them will do to the flavor.
I have heard that adding oak leaves to pickles will keep them crisp...maybe there's something like this for plums to keep them tart.
Does store bought plum jam taste like prunes as well?
Sorry for not providing any solid answers...I hope my thoughts have sparked a light bulb.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.229432
| 2011-07-02T20:38:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15902",
"authors": [
"A.M.O.faruk",
"ESultanik",
"Ilovethaifood",
"Jan",
"Mark A",
"Nilanga",
"Valerie",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"kiwixz",
"l b"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12992
|
Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?
If cooking meat kills bacteria, and bacteria are responsible for problems with eating meat which has been left out, then why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out at room temperature and then thoroughly cooked?
A related question mentions that "Even if the bacteria is dead, toxins can remain if the food was out too long, causing problems". However, there's no further detail given. Are these toxins as dangerous as the bacteria themselves? How long does meat have to be left out to accumulate a dangerous level of toxins and thus be dangerous even if thoroughly cooked? Are these toxins the reason for the usual guideline of keeping meat unrefrigerated for a maximum of 2 hours?
update
The revelation, courtesy of Aaronut, that e. coli is actually dangerous because of its toxins — which cannot be denatured at temperatures which will leave meat in an edible state — has pretty much answered this question. And also given me further incentive to stop eating meat altogether :)
Our discussion (see the comments on hobodave's answer) has progressed into the realm of microbiology. Some highlights from my ongoing research:
Detail on heat-shock proteins. These seem to be the reason for the importance of keeping meat at a high temperature for a period of time.
Some background on heat resistance in bacteria. This also provides fascinating insight into how bacteria evolved immunity to antibiotics. Fungi.
I suggest also taking a look at our questions tagged food-safety. We've amassed a great number of quality Q&A on this topic.
I was asking a very similar question on Biology SE and received an awesome answer: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/68473/what-really-causes-the-toxicity-of-wrongly-thawed-meat
hobodave's answer is most of the way there but I think it understates the importance of protein toxins. With the vast majority of foodborne illnesses, the bacteria aren't particularly harmful at all; what you need to worry about is the protein toxins they produce.
E.Coli - probably the most well-known form of food poisoning along with Salmonella - is actually a harmless bacteria that already lives in your lower intestine. But there is a particular strain of E.Coli, notably O157:H7, that is primarily associated with food poisoning. The reason? It produces what's called a Shiga-like Toxin.
E.Coli contamination is actually dangerous on two fronts. Because the bacteria are so well-adapted to surviving in the human digestive system (as I pointed out earlier, that's their primary habitat), ingesting even a relatively small number of the bacteria will result in them multiplying and producing those toxins in your gut (and the rest of the way down). This is why it normally takes several days for you to feel the effects of this type of food poisoning; that's how long it takes for them to produce the toxins in sufficient quantity for your body to notice.
But they don't need to be in your gut to produce those toxins; a piece of meat at room temperature provides good enough conditions and more than enough raw material for them reproduce and emit those same toxins. So if you leave it sitting out too long, then it really doesn't matter how many bacteria you kill, you are going to end up with E.Coli poisoning fast, because you don't even need to wait for them to produce the toxins; they're already there.
The problem is that you can't "kill" a protein toxin with a brief burst of heat because a protein isn't alive. It's just a protein. The temperatures and times needed to destroy that toxin would be similar to the temperatures and times needed to destroy all of the protein in the food, draining all the nutrition value and quite possibly turning it into a lump of charcoal.
Salmonella seems to be a fountain of misinformation with all sorts of people saying that it doesn't produce toxins. This simply isn't true. Inside the host it produces what's called an AvrA toxin (which isn't "toxic" per se, but allows the bacteria to grow to larger numbers), and some strains can also produce a CdtB toxin, which is highly toxic. (Apparently there's also a similar toxin produced by other strains.) I'll be honest, a lot of the medical mumbo-jumbo is way beyond my ability to comprehend, but it seems that a lot of the public confusion comes from the fact that salmonella can do some nasty things even without the toxins - but that doesn't mean that the toxins themselves can't do plenty of damage even if you manage to kill the bacteria.
The same applies to many other types of dangerous bacteria; C.diptheriae produce the diphtheria toxin, C.botulinum produce the botulinum toxin (botulism); even the infamous mad cow disease was, as far as we know, caused by a protein, not a bacteria, which is why it was able to be transmitted to humans even through cooked beef.
Are protein toxins the only reason why the USDA insists on a maximum 4-hour cumulative danger zone? Probably not. As hobodave says, the more the bacteria multiply, the harder is to kill all of them, even at high temperatures. The figure of 74° C / 165° F that the food agencies give us for poultry is not going to kill exactly 100% of all the bacteria, and if it only kills - I'm just throwing out a number here - 99.999% of them, that may be good enough for relatively fresh poultry but won't be enough if you've got a whole bacterial colony to worry about.
We can only speculate as to exactly what's entailed by the "danger zone" but my guess is that it's actually a combination of statistics, probabilities, and safety margins, which include, but are not limited to, the effects of protein toxins.
Very informative, thank you. So I guess that while the cow is still alive, its antibodies would be limiting the numbers of e. coli and cleaning out the toxins that it is immune to? Otherwise, there wouldn't be any difference between leaving the meat out at room temperature and leaving the cow out at room temperature before slaughtering it. —————— Also, see my comments on hobodave's answer for some more questions about the 99.9*% per amount of time kill ratio at a given temperature.
@intuited: I really don't know what you're getting at. Most bacterial contamination does not come from the animal itself, it comes from the processing. If you're running your own farm and slaughtering your own animals then you don't really have to worry about a lot of this.
Also @intuited, do keep in mind that bacteria grow exponentially (at least until they run out of food), so you would need to exponentially increase your cooking times as well - assuming that were actually enough (which it likely isn't).
@Aaronut: If heat really does kill a given percentage (e.g. 99.9999%) of all bacteria every so many seconds, then this implies a direct relationship between the time bacteria have to grow and the time it takes to kill them off. E.G. suppose that cooking for 2 seconds kills 10% of the bacteria, and that bacteria multiply tenfold every minute. If there are 10 bacteria when I take the meat out of the fridge, then after 6 minutes there will be 10⁶ bacteria. If there are 10⁶ when I start cooking, then after 2 seconds there will be 10⁵; 2 seconds after that there will be 10⁴; and so on.
@Aaronut: That's assuming that the surviving bacteria are not doing so due to higher heat resistance.
@Aaronut: I don't have to worry about it unless there's a possibility that my living cattle have been exposed to e. coli, which they can carry without symptoms.
@intuited: The math here is not as simple as you seem to be suggesting. See Thermal death time for how this actually works. And keep in mind that there are many heat-resistant strains of bacteria that can survive far longer than 2 seconds (up to 2 minutes). There are also multiple-site and multiple-hit/multiple-target theories suggesting that is quite a bit more complicated than even the relatively simple aforementioned model.
@Aaronut: regarding the percentage of bacteria killed. You had mentioned that you were "just throwing out a number" of 99.999%. The USDA tables I've seen have indicated 6–7 decimal reduction, meaning 99.9999% – 99.99999% reduction in pathogens. Typically 6D is used for listeria and E. Coli, 7D for Salmonella
Just double-checked on this:
"The 1999 FSIS final rule, Performance Standards for the Production of Certain Meat and Poultry Products, requires a 6.5 log10 relative reduction (6.5 log10 lethality) of Salmonella for cooked beef, roast beef and corned beef (9 CFR318.17)." See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/9cfr318.18.pdf
How is it that E. coli take days to produce sufficient toxins in your gut but then only a few hours in meat at room temperature?
One important thing to know is that heat doesn't instantly kill bacteria. At least not at temperatures that leave edible material behind.
Bacteria take both time and temperature to destroy. The higher the temperature, the less time required. Take Salmonella senftenberg for example, it takes 60 minutes at 140 F (60 C) to kill 99.9999% of the population. But at 160 F (70 C) it takes less than two minutes. I go into a lot more detail in my answer to, "Is it safe to eat a cooked steak that briefly touched the plate holding raw meat?."
The other important thing to realize is that at these temperatures some of the bacteria population survives. It takes as few as 100,000 Salmonella cells to make you sick, and much fewer for E. Coli. So if you've left your meat in the danger zone you could easily have a starting population in the billions. I provide more detail in my response to, "Can chicken not completely cooked then cooled be fully cooked later?."
To address your concerns regarding bacterial waste products: yes, they are dangerous. In some cases they can be more dangerous than the bacteria themselves. Botulism is actually caused by the botulinum toxin produced by the C. botulinum bacteria. Even worse, the waste products are not easily destroyed by heat. They typically require much higher temperatures and much longer periods of time to destroy them.
As noted in the answer to "How dangerous is it to refreeze meat that has been thawed?", if meat has spent more than 4 hours in the danger zone over the course of its entire "life" it cannot be trusted. Since you cannot know exactly how well your meat has been handled throughout its lifetime I generally do not recommend letting it sit out for more than 60 - 90 minutes, at least when I'm serving it to people. I also don't ever work with cuts of meat that would require 2 or more hours to reach room temperature.
So.. the USDA guidelines state that 2 seconds at 74°C will kill 99.9999% of salmonella or e. coli. So 4 seconds will kill an additional 99.9999% of the remaining 0.0001% of the original billion, leaving 0.0000001%. After 10 seconds, there will remain only 0.0000000000000001% of the original numbers. Even if there were a trillion bacteria to begin with, that's only leaving a ten-thousandth of a bacteria, which seems pretty safe. …
… (continued) So assuming that botulism is not a possibility, which I understand is the case unless there's been some anaerobic fermentation happening, is there really a risk in eating thoroughly cooked meat? Assuming that "thoroughly cooked" means "cooked for long enough at a high enough temperature to kill enough bacteria to reduce their numbers below the danger threshold". I guess this is really a question of how high the numbers of bacteria can really rise: if there can potentially be a googol of salmonella on a chicken breast, it would take a while to kill them all off.
Note that the math used in these comments is not to scale. I'm erring on the side of safety though, unless I've got things mixed up.
Whoops, just looked at the charts on that link again. So for the heat-resistant varieties, it's 2 minutes (at 70°C) rather than 2 seconds (at 74°C). Still, 10 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time, at least not for something that's being slow cooked and won't have its outside charred while the internal temperature is being maintained.
@intuited you can use heat to kill off like you are talking about, but there are a lot of different bacteria and botulism isn't the only one that produces toxins while it's growing. Most importantly, bacteria breaks down the meat, which can be good (dry aging), but if you do it wrong you end up with rotted terrible meat. That said, if you make sure that it is cooked to 250 F (121 C) for at least fifteen minutes, you will have killed all possible bacteria. However any meat cooked to that temp is going to be shoe leather, you can eat it, but you aren't going to like it very much.
@sarge_smith: Any specifics on what bacteria toxins I might encounter? Could they kill me, or just make me unpleasant to be around for a few days?
@intuited: Your first comment neglects the fact that the bacteria that survived the first "wave" of heat did so because they were particularly heat-resistant. Thus there is no guarantee that another 2 seconds would kill the same proportion. I imagine its quite likely much less. I also imagine that its quite possible that given a large enough sample there is some subset that could survive for a remarkably long time at 74 C. Anyway, this is entering the realm of microbiology which is not my area of expertise.
@hobodave: I was going by what you said: "For any given temperature the proportion of bacteria killed is constant. 1/6th the time kills 90%, 1/3rd kills 99%, 1/2 kills 99.9% etc." Though I guess it doesn't really imply that 2x the time kills 99.99999% (or whatever). I guess I'll have to find microbiology.stackexchange.com.
As well as ecoli. Staphylococcus aureus (lives on you skin as well as the environment) and b.cereus can generate a heat proof toxin.
B.cereus is commonly associated with cooling rice at room temperature - it's usually not a problem with a small bowl which cools slowly but a large batch may remain at the optimum temperature long enough for b.cereus to spew out a load of toxins. If this rice is then put into the fridge an warmed or even boiled later then enough of the toxin may remain to cause nausea and vomiting (though seldom anything more serious).
So you have to think about the temperature at all stages of buying, preparation and storing.
Harold McGee has a pragmatic approach here:
http://www.curiouscook.com/site/2011/08/bending-the-rules-on-bacteria-new-york-times.html
Something that only one person touched on regarding processing is a) the distribution of bacteria and b) the distribution of heat. Furthermore, there is the issue of denaturing protein. You don't cook an egg to charcoal, but you reorganize its protein enough to render it incapable of forming a chicken. You also destroy potential salmonella, which is common in birds and reptiles. Think about a chicken or hamburger. With a chicken the source of e.coli and salmonella is the gut. Rapid processing may splatter this everywhere in a mist. It is advised to not rinse chicken before cooking because you will further splatter potential bacteria across your sink and counter. But the bacteria is on the OUTSIDE of the chicken surface, not within the muscles unless they've been punctured. The surface gets much more heat. Internally, your concern with beef and pork are parasites. With ground beef, potential bacteria is mixed throughout. Internal temperature is important. Don't be scared away from meat - there are many human parasites transmitted by snails that could be left in their slime on lettuce. Rinse it well.
Agreeing to hobodave, I can recommend a joint thermometer. You stick it into your roast, and it reports the temperatur from inside.
In the oven you can have 180°C, which should be the same at the surface of the roast, but in the center it is only 60° or 70°C after an hour, depending, of course, on the sort of meat, on the size, form and bones.
There are small pictograms on the thermometer where you see recommendations for beef, pork, chicken and so on - I guess partially for the taste, but maybe partially to the risks of eating not well done meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.230025
| 2011-03-10T00:12:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12992",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Risk",
"Estelle",
"Jace Robinson",
"JohnEye",
"Lukas",
"Ray",
"Tikhon Jelvis",
"Will Krokett",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"intgr",
"intuited",
"sarge_smith",
"sigma",
"user26870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70866
|
What do the numbers on my deep fryer dial mean?
I'm very new to cooking. I bought a second-hand deep fryer, without a user manual. The dial has these numbers on it:
What do the numbers mean? Do they refer to wattage, or temperature (degrees C/F?)?
How do I find out what types of foods are best suited for each of those numbers, or what settings are appropriate for each food? For example, to which setting should I set the dial for fried chicken?
I am pretty certain these are degrees in Celsius. They cannot be degrees in Fahrenheit, that wouldn't deepfry a thing if they were. Similarly, unless you have a fryer which can only fry a single nugget at a time, they can't be watts, they're an order of magnitude too low for that.
I have no idea what the settings "Temp" and "Min" could mean. Had they been on two different dials, I would have assumed that one sets the temperature and the other the times of heating in minutes (but the second makes only little sense since you can't leave deep frying stuff alone and come to it later after it has turned itself off). A guess would be that "Temp" is not a setting, but the label of the whole scale, and the designer erroneously added a dot like in the scale positions. Then "Min" would be keeping the oil barely warm.
The degrees you choose will depend not just on the type of food, but on the exact recipe. The starting temperature of the food, the size of the food, the batter type etc. all make a difference in the choice. If your recipe doesn't tell you, you are stuck experimenting. I would suggest starting from 190 and changing from there.
If you do find temperature suggestions, be sure to check with a thermometer if the setting is accurate. Most appliances outside of the sous vide niche are wildly wrong about their temperature.
It looks like temperature control in degrees C. That setting will vary based on what recipe you follow, and the type of oil used for deep frying.
I couldn't find that model on the manufacturer's website, but got some product info from a retail site here.
I believe the other answers that suggest the number dial indicates degrees celsius are correct.
Wikipedia says the ideal range is 350–375 °F (177–191 °C).
I found this chart on Pinterest.
390 F = 199 C
370 F = 188 C
I think the temp chart is a bit high. I would use the Wikipedia temp range (the article had two supporting references)
I would use 191 C where the chart calls for 390 F
I would use 177 C where the chart calls for 370 F
Per your Q, I would use 191 C for fried chicken
(side note: I like how the chart does a double fried french fry)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.231399
| 2016-06-21T15:18:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70866",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59667
|
Substituting Cream without Coconut
I'm mastering my vegetable curry recipe and while it is spectacular in its current form using heavy whipping cream, I have some wild notion that the recipe would be more appreciated if I could manage to replace the heavy cream with a vegan option. I tried coconut cream but that has far too distinct a flavor, plus one member of the family hates coconuts and can detect it easily.
So I am looking for a substitute for heavy cream that's not coconut based, and ideally not soy, but I'll try just about anything.
I am also ok with having to concoct something from a variety of sources. So if I have to use almond milk, but thicken it with an almond butter or some other ingredient then I can handle that.
I'm not 100% sure why the heavy cream benefits the recipe. To me heavy cream has no flavor. So maybe what I'm looking for is to create a cream of similar viscosity that is vegan and has as little to no flavor as possible... or I guess it could be the heavy cream uses the other flavors in the curry as a catalyst.
The goal is to make my 100% organic vegetable curry to be vegan without hurting the flavor.
I see some pointers here but I'm wondering if there's a more specific technique others know of meeting the requirements here.
I've had good luck substituting cashew cream for heavy cream in soups and curries. I've had a lot of people actually prefer it!
To make it, you follow the basic procedure for making nut milk, but skip most of the steps. Soak cashews in enough water to cover them for at least an hour or two, then puree in a blender until it's as smooth as you can get it. Add a little more water until it's the thickness of cream, throw in a pinch of salt, and you're done.
It's good for things where you need the richness of cream, but don't want other characteristics like sweetness or tanginess that other substitutes might have. I've even seen it used as the base for cheesecakes, and vegan cheeses and cheese sauces.
That is likely to be very authentic, even - cooked/roasted and blended cashew/peanut/sesame/almond... pastes feature in a lot of recipes from indian authors...
I would use a vegan plain yogurt thinned with vegan milk** of your choice to replace the heavy cream, and with an addition of some ground cashews (soak first in some of the vegan milk, then grind to a paste). Many North Indian recipes use ground cashew (or to a lesser extent, ground almond) as a thickener and it makes the gravy richer. (See recipes for Malai Kofte for examples.) This will give you a fairly neutral flavor and stays reasonably authentic.
I think heavy cream is probably being used in your recipe to make a richer recipe (both in cost and texture), the type of thing that might be served at a fancy meal for a party or feast day but not for every day, and a more "every day" style of sauce might have had less cream added or just plain milk or yogurt.
I realize that you're trying to perfect one specific recipe, but I wanted to mention that there are also plenty of Indian curries which don't use any milk products at all to begin with, so if you're catering to a vegan crowd or just trying to reduce use of animal fats, you do have a lot of options that don't start with a cream-based sauce.
And, I know you already said you want to avoid coconut, but apart from that, replacing cream/milk/yogurt with coconut milk is quite common in South Indian cooking but might seem out of place in North Indian food. If you want to try to keep your curry reasonably authentic (or be able to produce multiple styles of curries) you may want to consider developing one recipe with more of a North Indian slant made with, say, almond-milk + almond-milk-yogurt + ground cashew, and a second recipe with more of a South Indian style made with coconut milk for the times when that particular person won't be at the table. :-)
**Most US grocery stores these days have a large selection of alternatives to dairy products, although this does vary regionally. For example, in San Francisco where I work you'll find a lot more options than in Bountiful, UT where my parents live. You may find some shelf-stable milk replacement products near the baking aisle, but most of the ones that are more pleasant for drinking plain or cooking with will be near the regular dairy products.
There is a lot of variation in flavor and quality of different brands, and you may find that soy and coconut based products are the closest to dairy milk. Almond and rice products tend to be thinner. There will usually be some "original" flavor and some vanilla or even chocolate. For cooking you will want "original" flavor, of course. It will not taste identical to dairy milk. In my opinion, coconut-based milk replacements are usually the most neutral and often have a better texture. In my opinion, they don't really taste much like coconut in this form.
I'll have to look into what a "vegan milk" is. I've never really looked into those things in part because I have this idea that packaged foods targeting vegans will be unnecessarily more expensive. But I like the idea of almond milk and almond milk yogurt. I'm not trying to be authentic at all. I just threw a bunch of things in a pot with curry powder one day and everyone loved it so I kept progressively making it better, looking into recipes, etc. It's been requested at school pot lucks and things and a lot of them are vegans. Thought I would try to cater to everyone. Thanks!
Catering to everyone can definitely throw some interesting challenges in. :-)
Yeah no kidding but people get a swift kick when they tell me something I made is one of the most delicious things they've had and I then tell them it's all organic and vegan. Like knowing ahead of time automatically makes them assume it's all going to taste like dirt, so it might sway their opinion. I'm not even vegan or even vegetarian per say. I just like the challenge. - PS I'll mark this as accepted when I use the suggestions successfully, then I'll update the question with the recipe. Thanks again
I get the same response from my husband if I tell him I made something gluten free (catering to SF coworkers) or eggless (catering to his mom). If he eats it before he knows, all well and good. If he knows first he won't touch it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.231649
| 2015-08-06T17:21:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59667",
"authors": [
"Afsaneh A",
"Alisha Jansen",
"Jon Munnik",
"Kai Qing",
"NadjaCS",
"Steph Hanson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37350",
"rackandboneman",
"richard platt",
"wottevaz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63158
|
How can I preserve Winged Beans until my next batch matures?
I am very proud that I have managed to grow a healthy crop of Winged Beans ( Psophocarpus tetragonolobus) in my small backyard garden. And the crop is quite reasonable. I was wondering if anyone had tips on how the beans could be stored. I am tempted to flash freeze them in sealed vacuumed bags.
Edit: These will be beans that I want to reserve for cooking... The beans that I am retaining for planting need to remain on the stake till the pods completely mature and dry.
Edit #2: Recipe added here for clarity, the beans are cooked and consumed pods and all.
Stir-Fried Winged Beans (Kacang Botol) with Tomato and Garlic
1/4 cup vegetable oil
6 cloves garlic, thinly sliced
dried red chiles, to taste
1 pound winged beans (kacang botol), cut into bite-sized lengths
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 large tomato, diced
1 tablespoon soy sauce (gluten-free if needed)
1 teaspoon toasted sesame oil
Heat a wok or your largest skillet over maximum heat. Add the oil, and when it is shimering, add the garlic and chilis. Stir-fry for ten seconds, without burning, and immediately add the winged beans and salt.
Stir-fry for about 30 seconds, until the beans brighten in color.
Add the tomatoes and stir-fry about 30 more seconds, until the tomatoes just slightly begin to break down and form a sauce. Remove from heat.
Stir in the soy sauce and toasted sesame oil. Taste and adjust seasoning and serve immediately.
Are you asking how to preserve beans which you want to cook, or beans which you want to plant?
thank you for the edit, I was already thinking that I may have to migrate your question to Gardening.stackexchange.
So I haven't grown beans, but aren't you supposed to let beans (other than green beans, peas and snow peas) dry on the vine whether to eat or to grow?
I am going to post this question in gardening as well
@Escoce black-eyed peas are regularly picked fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.232166
| 2015-11-04T14:29:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63158",
"authors": [
"Cathy Lavelle",
"Catija",
"Diane Wilson",
"Escoce",
"James Aker",
"Minda McGonagle",
"Tom Wild",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kevin brion",
"rumtscho",
"Đức Huỳnh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73094
|
Are these grocery store oyster mushrooms OK to eat?
I bought these at the grocery two days ago. They have been in the fridge. They are firm. The white fungus in the gills is firm too. No bad smell. Can I cook and eat?
My first thought is, given the ways mushrooms are cultivated, the most likely fungus to be in the gills of your oyster mushrooms is other oyster mushrooms, since direct access to the spores is pretty likely. I have no proof, though, and while I probably would risk it (given the lack of soft spots or bad smells), I'm not sure I can recommend someone else take that risk without more information than I have. Maybe if you go back to the store and see if these are common on other oyster mushrooms and/or check with an employee that they're good (or at least salable)?
they're store bought mushrooms, they have no immune systems. expect that stuff to happen to them.
They're likely mycelium rather than other moulds, its not uncommon for certain varieties of stored mushrooms to start producing mycelia (the root system of mushrooms generally). According to this link, mould on mushrooms is more likely to be green,black or brown
http://www.gourmetmushroomsinc.com/fresh-restaurants-faq.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.232375
| 2016-08-12T20:23:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73094",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"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
}
|
73871
|
A salad chopper I can put in the dishwasher?
You probably know these kind of gadgets that help you cut vegetables quickly:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C7069MI/ref=s9_topr_hd_bw_bjuyUN_g79_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-4&pf_rd_r=CQ3ZZHAVEXQ376TYPCZK&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=2223171242&pf_rd_i=678514011
https://www.amazon.com/Onion-Chopper-Vegetable-Fruit-Salsa/dp/B01CSZQFW6/ref=sr_1_13?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1473544287&sr=1-13
I've had a couple of them over the years so I could make simple salads quickly, but I always ended up throwing them away after a few uses, for a simple reason: They're difficult to clean. You may be saving 3 minutes by using a fancy chopper rather than a knife and a cutting board, but then you're losing these 3 minutes right back because you can't put the chopper in the dishwasher, so you have to carefully clean all of its twists and turns. Some of them have parts that you can put in the dishwasher, but so far I haven't seen one where the main part, the one that has the fancy mechanism, can be put in the dishwasher.
Do you happen to know a salad chopper that could be put in the dishwasher entirely for easy cleaning?
Wasn't that the selling point of the 'slap chop' ? The thing split open so you could more easily clean the blades. I don't know if it was dishwasher safe, though.
Arguably with a bit of practice, you'll be faster with a knife.
A lot of formally not dishwasher-proof gadgets - if they are not electric, and do not contain wood or non-stainless iron parts - do fine in the dishwasher. The most critical thing here would be the blades, and at least one of the ads suggest the blades are dishwasher proof - no sharp blade LOVES being in a dishwasher, but this suggests the alloy chosen being corrosion-proof enough to get by.
Alternative or "green" detergents, or minimizing detergent use, might be a bad choice though, since these are often less effective at dissolving/dislodging food scraps inside things.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, I would not expect to find such a gadget at all.
The problem is that a dishwasher dulls blades badly, and the blades in a chopper cannot generally be sharpened (you cannot fit a sharpening stone in there). So, there is no good technical solution for your use case.
If you find somebody who wrote "dishwasher safe" on their chopper, go ahead and try it. Maybe their engineers found some innovative way around the problem. But it is also possible that they simply wrote that there, disregarding the problem that will occur after several washing cycles. Also, most of them will likely simply expect you to clean the chopper by hand, that would explain why you have trouble finding one rated for the dishwasher.
Have you tried using a hinged chopper? Less moving parts and presumably less to clean.
For example: OXO Vegetable Chopper
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.232515
| 2016-09-10T21:58:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73871",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58569
|
How to replicate this bakery's bread
A local bakery is going out of business and they sell the most delicious bread. The pretzel bread is my favorite. All of their loaves tend to be heavy and dense, they stand up well to slicing, and the bread is soft and chewy when you bite into it. Any advice on how to try and duplicate it? The owner told me that the bread is made completely by hand, that was the only thing he would give away.
The loaf of pretzel bread that I bought today weighs 1 pound 12 ounces.
I wonder if the baker being the kind of person who won't share baking tips with fans of their work is related to them going out of business.
@Preston- I was a little annoyed when I offered to pay for a recipe and the baker acted like he was insulted as he flamboyantly waved his arms and said "No! Nooooo, noooo, no! No way! Those are my personal recipes. That's my business!". I really had to stop myself from saying "yeah, and your business has failed!". Instead I just explained to him that I understood, but I just really wanted to duplicate the bread at home, because nobody in the area has bread that good.
The store used to be a Breadsmith franchise and then suddenly one day I noticed that the "mith" had been knocked off of the store front, so it read "Breads". I was just looking at the Breadsmith website and every bread that the store sells is listed on their website. I'm beginning to think that those are not the owners personal recipes that he came up with on his own, like he claims them to be.
The "going out of business owner" sounds like a real horse's posterior (probably somewhat related) - I'd be leery of taking anything the guy says at face value, from what you have reported so far (ie, he's probably fibbed in what he has told you and other customers) - you've already found the fib in the "personal" recipes, odds are good that "all handmade" and "no fats/oils" may also not be true. At the least, be skeptical.
Breadsmith is a kosher bakery and, as such, are completely non-dairy (everything is pareve). Therefore, it is very likely that this recipe is dairy-free. It might have oils, though, but pretzels typically don't, so I would guess that it is in fact fat free.
If it's pretzel bread, it may be dipped in a hot soda solution before baking, or lye for the brave and very, very careful. That would mostly be about the crust, rather than the density.
Several sources suggest baking baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) to convert it to (food grade) sodium carbonate for a stronger (than bicarbonate) alkali without needing to find (or handle) food grade lye (sodium hydroxide.) What is easily available varies by region, what you are comfortable using varies by person and over time. Washing soda is sodium carbonate, but is not food grade.
There are many ways to get dense bread:
Adding low-gluten or non-gluten flours (rye, oats, rice, barley, masa
harina, bean flours, (or non-flour items, such as boiled or baked
potatoes rather than "potato flour" or instant mashed potatoes,
cooked & mashed beans rather than bean flour.)
Not letting it rise as long. Letting it rise too long. The former is preferable.
Putting in more flour, especially if you tend to the "super-soggy
dough" end of the spectrum. Of course, if you are starting your
baking efforts with trying to replicate this, you may not have a
place that you tend yet. Aim for a firm dough that does not stick to your
hands when working it, which is considerably drier than most baking
instruction [which is chasing the elusive baguette] tends to want you
to go.
Cook a bit cooler for a longer time.
He also told the other customer that there are no fats or oils in the breads.
You can also get dense bread by using a high gluten flour (like bagels)! Oh, the complexity of bread!
@SourDoh - the suggestions are not cumulative (that is, every point other than the first will work with high-gluten flour, and the "putting in more flour" one is particularly applicable to bagels. I rather like that pretty much whatever you do, it comes out bread [I just made a batch with mostly cake and pastry flour, which some fool (not, for once, me) had stuck into the "bread flour" container. A bit different, to be sure. But not "ruined" and not "not bread" - just different.]
You mentioned in the comments that the bakery used to be a Breadsmith franchise, and it is likely that the owner simply continued using Breadsmith's recipe. Here are the ingredients for the pretzel bread listed on an old (Google-cached) version of Breadsmith's website:
unbleached, unbromated wheat flour;
water;
canola oil;
sugar;
barley malt;
salt; and
yeast.
Here is a recipe that I found that has most of the same ingredients in similar ordinal proportions:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/recipes/pretzels
The only difference is that this recipe contains milk instead of water, canola oil, and sugar. If you are fine using milk, then I would suggest trying that recipe. If not, here is a rough approximation of water/canola oil/sugar proportions to match the water/fat/sugar content of a cup of whole milk:
200 mL water
2 tsp canola oil
1 tbsp sugar
I would also recommend warming the water, dissolving the sugar in it, and then blooming the yeast in it. The sugar will help feed the yeast.
That recipe doesn't include dipping the bread in an alkaline solution, though. Here is a good recipe that explains how to do it.
This has the looks of a heavily enriched bread. Being dense is only a side effect of this. The taste people like in enriched bread doesn't come from being dense, and if you tried any other method of making it dense (e.g. using whole flours), you'd be disappointed.
Look for recipes which use sufficient milk, fat and eggs, and try these. Although lots of fat will make it tender, not chewy. But maybe you didn't mean "chewy" as in gluten-chewy (typical for bread, gets reduced with fat) but as in doughy (turns slightly sticky when compressed).
From the looks of that loaf, most of its enrichment comes from milk, with some egg, but not too egg-heavy (will be easier to tell if you say the picture was correctly white balanced). It possibly has sugar too, but not very much of it. I'd have to touch and eat it to know if it has more fat added than what comes from whole milk. Try a standard milky recipe, or maybe a Rosinenkranz without the raisins and 1/3 of the sugar.
If you like the crust's chewiness, that indeed comes from the lye in a pretzel bread. I don't find soda to be an adequate substitute, you need much higher pH than that. It may be easier to first try to replicate the crumb properly and once you're OK with that, start experimenting with bathing the crust.
If you are a novice baker, you should 1) also learn the correct process of breadmaking (to spot bad recipes which cut corners and can't replicate properly made bread) and 2) learn correct yeast ratios. Most home recipes use awful amounts of yeast. Especially with the kind of crumb you want, too much yeast won't work well. 2% fresh or 0.7% dry is plenty (that's baker's percentages, 2% means 2 g per 100 g flour, not per 100 g dough), lower goes too. Enriched bread can take some more, but I wouldn't suggest it for dense crumb. If the recipe wants more, still use only 2% and disregard their proofing time suggestion, proofing until it has doubled its volume in each phase.
The one thing which has me somewhat puzzled, as mentioned above, is that this results in a bread which is very tasty and has the look you photographed, but is not what I'd call chewy - as Stephie called it in a comment, "Muerbes Brot", which is an adjective normally connected with shortbread pastry crusts which fall apart in the mouth. If you find it insufficiently chewy, but everything else is all right, try with with somewhat stronger flour (I assume you are from the US based on the way you use the term "pretzel", so you should have access to various strengths of bread flour), maybe even bagel flour, or add gluten to your flour. But I'd start with standard bread flour (~12% gluten), that will already make it chewier than the European versions, they use AP flour.
Update I baked the Butterlaible Stephie suggested in the comments. I wish I could share with her the rep I'd get from this answer. It's a visual match at least. It's certainly dense, and while not "chewy" by my standards, it's also not as tender as some other enriched breads.
A few notes:
I didn't use lye, this is an egg wash, so not Laugenbrot/pretzel in my case
I made it without malt, with less yeast (1.7 g for 250 g flour), left out the sugar for the sponge
the crumb is surprisingly yellowish, even though it contains no eggs. The recipe author mentions she used a yellow wheat too, if your baker has a yellower crumb, it might be caused by this wheat or be colored additionally with beta carotenes
Verdict: it's certainly a good place to start and see how well it matches. If it is a good overall match but missing some detail, you might want to ask another question for this one specifically.
@Stephie I find that "Laugenbroetchen + Salz" is a typical German combination, just like "chocolate and peanut butter" is a typical American one. Sure, it tastes good, but somebody from another country wouldn't feel that something is missing if a lye-dipped bread is not heavily salted. And breads from the brioche family tend to be sweet, so in this case, I'd go for slightly sweet, not slightly salty. Else, I agree that a Hefezopf recipe will be a good start. Something in the look of the bottom crust makes me think the tenderness in this loaf is more due to high lactose than to high fat.
@Stephie I had not encountered this specific bread type, but I assumed that the average eater will connect it with the standard meaning of mürbe, which I'd translate as "tender", or the opposite of "chewy". So, it is possible that the picture looks similar to the type of bread you describe, it's just that I'm a bit confused to whether the bakery's bread is "chewy" in the sense I would use, or if the OP is describing some other quality with that word. Also, this discussion makes me want to look up a recipe for Mürbes Brot and bake it, out of curiosity and also for having a treat.
@Stephie thank you, that's the link I found in a search a few hours earlier. It's undergoing first proofing as I type (but no malt, and with more gluten). I'll post results when it's ready.
Thank you for your suggestions! I overhead the baker today telling a customer that it's a traditional German soft pretzel dough.
@Kris look at my update, this might indeed be your bread, or at least a good approximation to start from
@rumtscho See my comment above; it is very likely that the recipe Kris is trying to copy is actually dairy free. It might possibly contain vegan fats, though (e.g., margarine, oil, or vegetable shortening).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.233121
| 2015-06-27T00:03:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58569",
"authors": [
"Amy Daum",
"Danielle Johnson",
"David Ziesig",
"Diana Bonn",
"ESultanik",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gwen Clancy",
"Jeff Jackson",
"Jim Barra",
"Kelly Ashe",
"Kerry",
"Kris",
"Michael Gallant",
"Mila",
"Musaaliha AbdulBaasit",
"Nina De rochefort",
"Preston",
"Robert Betts",
"SourDoh",
"Tomas Strelciunas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41511
|
airy bread rolls done in bread machine
What are some techniques for making bread and/or kaiser style rolls that are very airy with large holes inside, kneaded in a bread machine then baked in an oven? I have tried a few recipes but none with the desired "holey" type.
Can you plewse better describe what you are after? perhaps show a picture of a loaf with the texture you want?
Clive, welcome to Seasoned Advice! We don't do recipe requests here so I edited your question to make it more topical.
The style of bread you show looks like a high hydration, long proofing loaf. This may not be completely suitable for making 100% in the bread machine. I won't put this as an answer, since I am not expert in what the current crop of bread machines can do, but I suspect you would be better off making this type of loaf without the machine, or only allowing the machine to mix the dough, but then proofing it overnight (or longer) in the refrigerator.
Thanks SAJ14SAJ I shall try that next time. Most times I just use the bread machine to knead the dough in dough cycle till the first rise then remove it shape it and allow to rise covered till double about 45m to 1 hour.
Airiness, whether with big holes or little holes, occurs when the proof is near complete. That is, the yeast has stretched the gluten very close to its maximal length without going beyond. All other things being equal, the key to airiness is knowing when the bread has risen fully, and then to put it immediately into a very very hot oven. This applies to kaiser rolls, panned loaves, baguettes, ciabatta, pizza, artisan, sandwich, you name it (and especially shaped things like challah). It doesn't matter if you knead in a bread machine or not, though some machines will change the dough temperature, which will speed up a first rise.
So how much rise is enough rise?
Some recipes give a particular number of hours. If you aren't in possession of a temperature-controlled proving box, don't go by time. Watch the dough, not the clock. A small temperature difference between your kitchen and the one in which the recipe was developed will change the speed of fermentation dramatically. Other recipes say to do a second rise until the dough has 'doubled in bulk' but with unpanned loaves that's difficult to judge visually, short of doing something clever with water in a plastic bag...
For all my bread I use the poke test to judge how far the proof has gone: flour the surface of the dough, then sink a fingertip into the dough. You want it to have enough bounce left to still rise in the oven, but you don't want it so stretched that it's started collapsing before your eyes.
Another tip: preheat the oven if you think the bread might be nearly done proving. If it's not, the oven will wait, but a dough on its way to overproofing is inexorable!
A few more tidbits to amplify what SAJ14SAJ, DrRandy, and Jolenealaska said about higher hydration and longer fermentation.
Ciabatta is a good example of a high-hydration bread. It makes very good rolls also, with qualities I think you're looking for. Here's a recipe from KAF for ciabatta
rolls. This looks like it's about 70% hydration (ratio by weight of water to flour), and others are higher than that. Here's another from the kitchn. They're going to be rather different than Kaiser rolls (e.g., chewier crust, very different crumb) but I prefer ciabatta :) and it might be worth a shot for you.
As for the long-fermentation strategy (e.g., ~12+ hours), if you've never tried it before, you might have to try it a few times to see what works for you (with respect to your patience and schedule, your equipment, your yeast, your kitchen, ...) Here's an example also from KAF for baguettes
that uses long fermentation and sponge method (mixing a pre-ferment first, then combining with the rest of the dough). Personally, I prefer this slower-rise method in general for baking -- it takes more time, but it uses less yeast, and has (for me) better flavor and an overall more pleasant result. Instead of shaping these as baguettes, cut them smaller and shape as rolls.
Another thought that you can use with an existing recipe is to try a higher oven temperature or a baking stone. This is not going to work for all recipes, and may not be the result you're looking for, but both of these could help increase your initial "oven spring" (the initial loaf expansion soon after putting into the oven due to expanding gasses and final yeast activity) and give you bigger holes.
Have fun!
For extra credit, check out KAF slow-rise baguettes for a straight dough (mix everything at once). You'll have to do some translation of the bakers-percentage but this also shows a method for keeping the dough in the refrigerator (retarded fermentation). Whee!
More on that: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43793/can-i-rest-my-ciabatta-dough-overight-experiment-results
Those big holes are typically the result of a high-hydration dough. Such doughs are generally too soft and wet to be made in a bread machine, even for mixing purposes.
I've actually had good luck using a bread machine to mix very high-hydration doughs (ciabatta), but it's no good after the mixing stage. I don't know that it's worth the hassle to drag out the bread machine though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.234002
| 2014-01-27T19:10:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41511",
"authors": [
"Boris",
"Clive",
"Jennifer Strange",
"Jess",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lyn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"StyleGroves spam",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96850",
"serv-inc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45113
|
Will a small "breather tube" on my bottles harm the oil/vinegar/liquor inside?
I have several glass bottles with speed pourers like this:
I am thinking of using these bottles to hold my oil/vinegar/soy sauce/etc as well as liquors for my home bar, for efficiency of pouring as well as consistency.
The bottles have a green plastic cap. But it doesn't cover the small "breather tube" or air hole (1mm diameter). For example, if I hold a capped bottle upside down, a few drops come through that tube. I don't know if it is a simple tube or not. Over a period of weeks/months, would this open air hole expose the liquids enough to affect the taste? Or is this so minor it will hardly make a difference?
(This website says that fruit flies can get in through the breather hole, but I wonder if that is a concern with my 1mm holes.)
Olive oil softens the ridges on the plug. Light effects the oil, wrap the bottles in colored foil like plant stores use. Color coding can help ID the contents. Keep cool, sealed in small bottles.
The exposure to oxygen that you'll get with bottles like these will affect your ingredients, but that will vary depending on how long you're storing them. If you go through enough oil, vinegar, etc. that you're refilling these every few weeks, I think you'd be just fine. If storing for three months or more, you may start noticing your oil getting slightly rancid and your vinegar getting slightly oxidized, or you may not start noticing the difference until much later. A lot of other factors will impact how quickly this progresses - exposure to light and a higher ambient temperature will result in faster quality declines. If you're not refilling these any more often than every six months, any gains in efficiency likely won't be worth the impact on quality.
There's some evidence (see here) that leaving ethanol solutions (like liquours) exposed to air can result in evaporation and a change in the ABV, but I would think that exposure from a 1mm hole would be negligible and you could keep these bottled for multiple months without much impact on quality. Again, if you're going through such limited quantity, your efficiency gains will be pretty minimal as compared to keeping your liquors in their original bottles. I wouldn't recommend storing or pouring liqueurs from spouts like these; in my experience, the residual sugar can build up over time and restrict flow through the pouring spout. Sugary liqueurs will also attract fruit flies, and it's possible that a particularly small and persistent bug could find its way down the air hole. You can use plastic wrap or buy plastic covers to place over the top of your spout to help ward off flies - any reputable bar will cap their pour spouts overnight.
If you keep vermouth or other fortified wines in these, store them in the fridge. Dry vermouth in particular will oxidize quickly and develop off flavors if exposed to air, like any white wine - lowering the temperature will help somewhat. Sweet vermouths and sherries are a bit more stable but not indefinitely so, and their higher sugar content can lead to buildup like liqueurs.
If your ultimate goal is consistency, be warned that professional bartenders typically practice extensively before attempting to "free-pour" and hit accurate amounts with speed-pouring spouts like this. The reason is because differences in ABV and viscosity cause differences in pouring speed, so you'll wind up with different volumes depending on what you're pouring. Even if you're very accurate with your pouring times, you'll need to train yourself to deal with these differences. The best way to be consistent in your home bar is to skip free-pouring and measure using a jigger or other device.
Good point on "extensive practice" for free pouring. This is important economically and well as well as for safety. You don't want to make overly strong drinks for you quests, as this would impair their ability to know if they are still in a responsible state
Vinegar vapor as well as alcohol vapor are both denser than air, and both have reasonably high boiling points, so you won't lose much to the air over time (months) through a 1 mm hole.
More on the fruit fly issue for things like vinegar and soy sauce...
Spoiler alert (literally and metaphorically): I don't mean for this to be gross, but stop reading now if you are eating or squeamish. ;-)
Fruit flies love vinegar. So much so that some DIY fruit fly traps use vinegar as the attraction. I can't find a link describing my favorite trap style but the main ingredient is apple cider vinegar and the holes can be surprisingly small.
Anecdotally, I have seen small tabletop soy sauce bottles that are chock full of fruit flies. Look before you pour!
I used to use pour-spouts for many things for practical reasons, and I have largely abandoned them for different practical reasons! So, my personal preferences and recommendations, especially for fruit-fly attractors:
refrigerate
use solid caps
buy perishable liquids in small quantities that you'll go through sufficiently quickly
Aside from the fruit flies, oils can go rancid with exposure to air (possibly accelerated by air bubbles passing through the vent-hole when pouring). Also, oil drips can accumulate and get gummy.
I like that spout design, but I hope they work better for you than they do for me!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.234423
| 2014-06-24T18:14:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45113",
"authors": [
"Ananth Kamath",
"Catrin Jones",
"Optionparty",
"Rachel Guliker",
"Spammy Spam SPAM",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41675
|
How can I stove-cook meals for groups of 6-8 with only one burner?
I often host dinner parties for groups of 6-8 people at my apartment. I usually cook simple meat-based entrees using pan-frying, sauteeing, braising, poaching, etc., usually accompanied by rice/salad.
The challenge is that my apartment has a very small kitchen area with only 1 stove burner:
(I have no oven -- just a microwave, rice cooker, and water boiler.)
I have this frying pan (which measures 12 inches across the top, 9 inches across the base, and is 2.5 inches high):
Is this an ideal size? Or is it too big for my stove burner? The only alternative I see is to cook my meals in 2 batches, but that seems like it could make it hard to time things properly.
I'm confused by your question... you seem to be saying that it's working for you so far? If so, why are you worried that it's too big?
@Aaronut: I just bought the frying pan. I know I will be able to cook food with it, but I don't know if it will provide the best results. I am just a novice cook.
While you may not use them every day, a high quality convection toaster oven or counter top oven, and a good auxiliary electric burner will make your kitchen logistics much easier. When my gas was out, these two appliances took up the slack.
A crock pot (slow cooker) might also be an asset. It would give you a lot more options and you can even make desserts in them.
Generally, it is said that you should avoid pans which are not the same size as the burner. You are wasting energy in both the "smaller" and "bigger" case. Besides, as Jessica mentioned, you are wasting time and getting lower quality food with a larger pan, because you have to stir a lot, and still get unevenly heated food.
But if the alternative is to cook two batches in a fitting pan, I still think that you are saving electricity and time with the inefficient large pan. So I would stay with it.
I can also recommend buying more burners and an oven, if you are going to cook. A portable burner is very small and can be stuffed into a cabinet when not needed, to save counter space even in the tiniest kitchen. It can be cheap, or you can get an induction one for better quality heating and energy saving. A toaster oven is, in my experience, much more useful than a microwave. This will depend on the way you eat - if you frequently get frozen meals, the microwave is more convenient. I do all of my normal baking if a toaster oven, and it does everything, even complicated cakes, so if you are serious about cooking, it might be a better use of space than the mw.
Besides the recommendations for 'one pot meals' (stew, pot roast, chili, hearty soups, etc. ... which would require a deeper pot), as you also have the rice cooker, you may want to consider rice-based cuisines:
Chinese (stir fries ... but don't crowd the pan; cook a vegetable or two at a time, then put it in large bowl to the side; cook the meat (possibly in a batch or two), make the sauce, then mix everything together in the bowl.)
Cajun / Creole : étouffée, gumbo, red beans & rice.
Japanese : donburi, curry rice, hayashi raisu, chirashi sushi
Filipino : any stew (menudo, adobe, caldereta, puchero, afritada etc.) with garlic rice
Thai : curries (massaman, rendang, etc), soups, etc.
Indian: any dry or wet curry
Other things to consider:
You can also use the burner & rice cooker together : sauté meat and vegetables, then add them to the rice cooker with rice and cook. This could work for dirty rice, jambalaya, charleston red rice & sausage, etc.
You can add flavorings to the rice cooker so there's more variety each time (eg, tomato juice for red rice; tumeric, sauteed onions, cloves, cinnamon and cardamom for indian dishes; sofrito or salsa for mexican dishes.
Not everything has to be cooked. There are plenty of dishes where only part of the dish is cooked, and then assembled. (spring rolls, bahn mi, taco, lettuce wraps, etc.; bonus points if you can get your guests to do the assembly)
Most rice cookers can double as steamers. So you can steam some vegetables as a side to go with the main dish.
Consider dishes that don't require any cooking. (cole slaw, marinated vegetables, etc.)
Consider dishes that can be served at room temperature, (spanish tortilla, fritatta (although without an oven, you'll have to flip it), fried chicken) or even cold (eg, gazpacho, although it can be a lot of fine dicing if you don't have a blender)
You may also be able to cook something on the burner, put it into the rice cooker to stay warm, then cook another dish ... but I wouldn't try holding things that way for too long (and it may only work with fairly wet dishes; you might want to put a towel over it to help hold in the heat)
... and that's not even getting to the microwave. (to steam vegetables, heat water to soften rice noodles, warm up sauces that you made in advance (slowly at low power), anything you can make a day ahead of time and then warm up before serving (eg, most soups), etc.)
I see no reason a single burner stove should be an insurmountable obstacle to cooking a one-pot dish serving multiple people. It is ok if the pan is a little bigger than the burner. The main problem with a burner smaller than your pan is it may cause uneven heating, however, frequent stirring or rotation of food in the pan so everything is over the warmest part of the pan will help minimize that effect.
If you only have one hob then it sounds like you need proper pots. There are loads of meals you can make in just one pot. I am a 'do by instict' rather than 'do by measurement' cook so I am sorry that this is quite vague. Why not make a casserole? Par boil your vegetables (carrots, parsnips, leek...whatever you want). Drain veg and leave aside. Sauté onions and add meat. Once meat is cooked drain any excess fat and readd veg. Make enough gravy to cover meat and veg (you can choose your gravy depending on the meat you use). Add any necessary herbs and bring to the boil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.234854
| 2014-02-02T00:15:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41675",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brooke",
"CarolB",
"Franco",
"Larisa McShane and spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Steph",
"Zoha Nasir",
"daftar hits spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97264",
"okcoker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42383
|
What kind of steak is this?
I'm trying to identify what this steak is typically called, so I can know whether I am trimming and preparing it properly. I've been unable to find any photos of similar cuts.
I recently purchased a side of beef and we have some packs labelled "rib steak". These steaks look like this:
The steak is wedge-shaped. As I've indicated, a curved rib bone runs along one edge of the steak, and a strip of thick tissue runs along the other edge. About half of the cut (the narrower half) is mostly fat. When I trim this steak, I end up with the portion which I've colored red in my drawing.
Thanks in advance.
What part of the world are you in? Meat cutting practices vary. And do you have an actual photo? The false perspective drawing is very confusing.
I'm in the southeastern USA. I'll try to add an actual photo later today.
Can't you ask who you got the side of beef from?
I believe that you have what's commonly known as a rib eye. It comes from the same primal as the prime rib roast (or standing rib roast). Rib eye steaks are also known as rib steaks, delmonicos, scotch filets, etc. They can be found bone in or boneless and with the fat caps trimmed or not. It sounds to me like you have a bone in rib eye that hasn't had the fat trimmed.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was a ribeye because it doesn't look nearly as round or as wide as the ribeye photos I have seen.
Yes, the meaty portion of a rib eye tends to be much more compact, roundish, not oblong.
It is common for "rib eye" steaks to be boneless and thus the flat, fat cap and rib have been trimmed away. This usually leaves you with a roundish steak. With the bone in and all the fat, they usually look more wedge or chop shape.
Bone-in rib eyes are also called Cowboy Steaks in some parts of the US.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.235431
| 2014-02-27T18:15:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42383",
"authors": [
"Amos Joshua",
"Daniel Brotherston",
"Didgeridrew",
"Jak",
"Joel The Wizard",
"Maria Rivera",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"bandar cara spam",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98971",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42814
|
how to make dense texture bread?
I would like to make the dense&soft bread like the bottom one and the taste is plain not sweet. What techniques will make bread closer to the one I want? I also want it to be chewy, not just soft.
Requests for recipe recommendations are off-topic; everyone has their own favorites. However, if you have a recipe already you can ask for help improving it - just be specific about what you want.
I have no experience before, just want to know where to start for chewing and dense bread.
Opposite question of interest http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1731/how-can-i-get-my-bread-to-be-more-fluffy-and-less-dense?rq=1
Add a higher % of Whole Wheat to flour ratio.
Swapping recipes is off topic here. But asking what technique to use to achieve a certain result is very much on topic. So I edited your question to not contain the red flag word "recipe". I also put the "chewy" requirement from your comment into the question body.
@Optionparty whole wheat does improve density, but makes a very different type of dense bread. It is neither soft nor chewy, and doesn't look like the picture.
It is hard to say without seeing the whole loaf, but the crust and crumb of that bread look like a pullman loaf.
Pullman bread (usually called pan de mie in Europe) involves baking the bread in a pan with a tight fitting lid. As the bread proofs, it comes in contact with the lid. This restriction causes the bread to retain a very fine crumb since it can't expand too much. This fine crumb, and the soft crust caused by being completely surrounded by a pan, make pullman loaves ideal for sandwiches.
Sometimes mass-produced proof-and-bake breads for grocery chains will have a similar texture, but it is usually a combination of making the bread with shortening and a bit of sugar for tenderness, and a lot of dough relaxers and oxidizers to control the texture.
It is hard to achieve what you want. Starch makes bread soft, gluten makes it chewy. Normally, you would want flour low in protein for soft bread and flour high in protein for chewy bread. The protein in the bread combines to form gluten during kneading, which is chewy. The chewy bread is also less dense, as the rising process is a bit like filling tiny baloons with gas, and the gluten "baloon walls" stretch better and make larger holes.
What you can do is to opt for AP flour, which has a medium protein content. It will be softer than bread made with bread flour. You have to use a finely milled flour, whole wheats won't work at all (they will make the bread dense but not soft). I am a bit puzzled as to what amount of kneading to suggest. For bread like on your picture, I would say that you should underknead a bit, to make it soft. But the more you knead, the chewyer your bread gets.
To make the bread softer, I would use milk instead of water. Breads made with (full fat) milk normally look like the one in your picture.
Adding an egg yolk (or pure lecithine, if you have it) will make it a bit softer too, and give it a smooth quality. Don't add whole eggs, as the egg white makes it more dry/tender, less supple/soft. A little bit of fat is also a filler which makes for softer, denser bread. These are not as important as the milk though. You will have to try around a bit and see what you prefer.
The optimal hydration is probably 60%. I have seen (and made) bread of roughly your style with 60% and AP flour. More will give you larger holes; less will make the bread denser, but also less soft.
To make it dense, you want a short rise. Skip the punching altogether; rise once, then shape, proof in the pan, and bake. Don't use a pizza stone or a preheated pan, these will give you large holes.
Adding potato (either mashed or dried flakes) also can help achieve a soft, tightly crumbed loaf.
@SAJ14SAJ maybe you overlooked what the OP posted in a comment: he/she also wants a chewy bread. The starch added from the potato will reduce chewiness. Still, it is one more option to try out while aiming at the desired balance.
@rumtscho Thank you so much rumtscho. The hydration is the %of water (or milk) compared to the rest of the recipe, am I understand correctly? and when you say skip the punching altogether you mean that you suggest not to knead? just mix and let it rise 1 time? you are really cool ^^
does the straight dough process or sponge dough process make differences which one is suitable for my project?
Hydration is usually measured against bakers percentage, where the flour is 100% by weight, and each other ingredient is in a ratio to that, so a recipe with 1000g flour and 600g water would have 60& hydration. I understand that some European traditions use the water as the 100% ingredient.
@user23839 a short sponge shouldn't have much effect either way; don't do any long (overnight) fermenting. You should knead the dough. I'd knead until I see the first signs of sheet building (window pane), but without waiting for the dough to start pulling itself together, maybe about 10 minutes of hand kneading (or slow mixer speed). Then let it rise once until doubled. Now, instead of rekneading and a second rise, shape directly, let it rise in the pan, and bake.
thank you so much t-t you are really nice. I love this community ^^
My dough doesn't get window pane after I knead for 10 mins and I continue until 60 mins, it still don't get window pane. Why? My recipe is AP flour 370g, Milk 225 g, sugar 10 g, salt 6 g, 1 egg yolk, Yeast 7 g, butter 40 g. I start mix half of milk with sugar, salt, butter and the other half milk with yeast and flour( start with 1 cup and keep the rest) then I mix 2 parts and egg yolk together and mixing and adding the rest of the flour cup by cup then I feel it too sticky then I add a bit more flour to it. and I knead very hard for 10 min. Room temperature is 34 C. It doesn't get window pane.
Mr. Rumtscho may I have your email please? I will send photo of the bread to you
the texture of the bread are very loosely. I'm not sure it is because I knead it too hard or too long or I add too much flour during the kneading process or there are something wrong with the recipe or if I bake too long in the oven? (I use 180-190 C for 50 mins) or because there are no water in the recipe? t-t
Can you suggest me how long I have to leave it proof in the pan before bake it?
Reducing the amount of yeast, in my experience, will make a denser bread. Below is a photo of a French style white loaf made with 50% the amount of yeast I would normally use. The bubbles are noticeably smaller, and the texture is different.
Does reducing the amount of yeast give the desired effect, or get any closer to it, for you?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.235650
| 2014-03-17T05:56:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42814",
"authors": [
" D e l i l a h ",
"BoreBoar",
"Elodia Techak",
"Junk McNuggets",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Seth Robertson",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jsea",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"user100059",
"user23839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42986
|
Please help me to fix my bread to be more soft and smaller hole
This is what happen last time how to make dense texture bread?
I follow what rumtscho said and went a bit out of the track. and this is my result:
the hole is quite big which is not what I want. The process and recipe that I used for this you can read it below the rumtscho answer (the comment part of the answer). I knead it for 60 mins. anyone please help me achieve what I want.
I also tried the second recipe which is this one: http://wlteef.blogspot.com/2007/06/hokkaido-milk-loaf.html
and this is the result:
it is still very far away from what I want which is this(the below one I bought it from bakery shop and this is what I want):
anyone please help me I feel something went really wrong.
Personally I think the second loaf you made is pretty damn identical in terms of crumb density to the shop-bought.
the shop-bought are softer and it has much smaller hole and the holes are evenly but the one I made is not. can anyone please give me suggestion
is it possible that the bakery shop use cake flour to make this? that why the texture are very evenly and soft with small hole?
This is the same question previously asked, just with more information added.
it's not duplicate.
It is a duplicate - it's literally the exact same question. You've even posted the same photo. That is why we allow (and encourage) people to edit their questions here. You never accepted an answer to the previous question which implies that it hasn't been answered yet, further reinforcing the conclusion that this is, in fact, just an extension to that question. If you have clarifications, failed recipe attempts, etc. to discuss - edit them into your previous question. We want people searching for techniques on making dense bread to find one authoritative Q&A on the subject.
The bakery is probably selling bread produced using the Chorleywood process, which is a high-volume, high-speed process that uses low-protein flours and additional ingredients (emulsifiers, gums, enrichment) to produce bread that is very light and easy to slice compared to home-baked bread. It's challenging to replicate in a home kitchen, and there's good reasons not to try as home baked bread tends to taste better and may be better for you.
If you are getting really dense bread:
you may be over-kneading. You said you kneaded for 60 minutes, which is far too long. I rarely ever knead more than 10 minutes. Over-kneaded bread has too much gluten developed, and will be tough
it may be too dry. Much of the air in bread comes from water turning to steam, dry dough will end up with a close texture. Try adding more water and kneading with oil instead of flour
It may be under-proofed. The yeast may be retarded by too much salt, not enough heat, or being too old. It may also be you just didn't leave it long enough. If you want a light and fluffy loaf let the first rise go until trippled
You may have knocked the dough back too much after the first rise. Many people beat the heck out of their bread after first rise, but this will undo much of the work the first rise did in creating air. Handle the dough gently when shaping and moving it into the baking pan, or you may end up losing your air
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.236162
| 2014-03-25T07:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42986",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Persian Room",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sabbir Rahman",
"Spammer",
"Sweets and Candy",
"Thomas Choat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"keithhackbarth",
"user23839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43339
|
Why my banana sauce is not smooth?
here is my recipe
100g banana
* 1 egg
* 1 tbsp. corn starch
* 3 tbsp. granulated sugar
* 150ml milk
I use folk to beat bananas. Then put everything together and then strain. then put it on stove and do double bowl. After the sauce becomes thick. It looks like this:
It is not so smooth in texture and when I eat it I can feel something like small fibers from bananas. What technique you suggest me to make it more smooth? I have consider two main ways, first make the fibers to become very very small by using blender. second do not let the finer comes out of the banana by don't beat it too much by using folk.
Should I use blender to make it very very smooth? or I should use folk but beat just a little bit to prevent the finer to come out?
What technique you suggest me? what about the portion of milk and corn starch, is it also effect the smooth or not smooth texture? if I place the bowl too long on stove, is it gonna give bad texture not smooth?
A blender certainly sounds like the easiest method.
If you prefer straining, but your sieve isn't fine enough to filter out the things you don't like, use cheesecloth. You can use enough layers to get a really fine strain, though bananas are thick enough that you'll have to squeeze it through.
The other thing you can try for things like this is a food mill, with the finest disk you have, but it sounds like you don't even want tiny tiny particles, so that may not be good enough for you - and it takes a bit of time and elbow grease.
You could try passing it through a fine sieve, this is a common method for getting smooth sauces and so forth.
Fine sieve, you mean the thing that use for sieving the flour? I did use it to strain but as the result is in the picture, you can see that it doesn't work. There are still some bananas finer and not smooth texture.
@user23839 Think more along the lines of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Sieve.jpg
The bananas will come out much better if you puree them in the blender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.236452
| 2014-04-07T16:30:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43339",
"authors": [
"Abson Technologies",
"Rebecca Lane",
"Rylan Mills",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"spam",
"user101487",
"user23839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42999
|
How to slash bread to let steam out
I'm trying to make loaf bread with filling swirled into it.... I had issues with the chestnut paste because it had butter so it left gaping holes...the redbean paste held up better..but it was really dry and I need to make it wetter...
On an other thread, Why does bread with filling separate and how do I prevent it? they mentioned using slashes but I don't know how it would work?
Do you slash before you let it rest for the final proof or after? If you cut after, wouldn't it deflate everything?
help please
Do you form the dough into a rectangle, add filling, and roll it up like this raisin bread? http://www.finecooking.com/recipes/cinnamon-swirl-raisin-bread.aspx Is the dough rich with fats like coffee cake, or drier like white bread?
Recipe specifics would help here
Hi, I'm using a white loaf bread recipe and I'm trying to add things into it (like red bean paste)
Yes, I flatten it like that recipe you sent and and spread on whatever it is I'm trying to roll and roll it up.
the original recipe is in Chinese and the proofing method seemed weird to me...I had my mom translated it and then I modified it. It works great for loaf bread but I really want my red bean bread, http://asiansweethut.blogspot.ca/2014/05/soft-white-loaf-bread.html
A major problem (that I have had, and sounds like you're having) with filled-and-rolled bread is that the filling (e.g., if it contains water, butter, etc.) will steam and expand, yielding gaping holes in the middle of the bread. You want this in things like, e.g., croissant and pastry, but not in stuff like cinnamon swirl bread or so. It will also be very different between a batter bread (e.g., quick breads) versus yeast-leavened breads (which it sounds like you're using here).
I don't think slashing the loaf will be effective in this case. You've got a rolled bread, which might have many layers -- you'll need to slash through every layer in order to have the steam escape. Here are some other possibilities, depending on the nature of your loaf:
Try docking (poking the loaf with a bunch of holes); I can't find any good link on this. Use a chop-stick or wide-ish skewer to poke many holes, all over the loaf, all the way through the bread, after you have panned it. This can be effective for breads where you want some steam to escape without slashing the top. Poking LOTS of holes all the way through may allow steam to escape during oven-spring.
Try a Russian braid. Roll, then cut through lengthwise, then and twist or braid, then put into loaf pan. For example, ATK did this with their cinnamon swirl bread, and this yields a similar swirl but without trapping as much steam. Do an image-search for more examples.
Aside from slashing/cutting etc.,
If you roll very tightly with minimal trapped air, you may be able to improve the situation. But this is tricky and may not be effective anyway.
How about mixing in the paste into the batter or dough? If you do this at the right time in mixing, you'll end up with chunks of the filling (similar effect as swirl) with perhaps less steam-trapping effect.
Hope it helps. Let us know how it comes out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.236647
| 2014-03-25T13:58:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42999",
"authors": [
"Agnes Chow",
"Deborah Holman",
"IndexZero",
"Jennifer S",
"Zack Wolske",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"mir",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43434
|
Why is dark chocolate dark when pure cocoa is light brown?
Kind of a simplistic question, but my curiosity cannot be assuaged. When you look at pure cocoa powder, it has a light brown color, like a milk chocolate bar. And yet a dark chocolate bar, which is much higher chocolate content than milk chocolate, is a vastly darker color than cocoa powder. Even a 100% pure cocoa chocolate bar is a very dark color.
Pure cocoa powder
Milk chocolate bar
Dark chocolate bar ~75% cocoa
Dark chocolate bar 100% cocoa
What is at work here? I know chocolate has fats and solids other than cocoa in it, but that just makes it more confusing why a pure chocolate bar is dark as well. Does compacting the cocoa into a solid form (which is how I assume you make a pure cocoa bar) darken it that much? Are there differences in preparing the cacao beans (like different roasts for coffee)?
The "% cocoa" label on chocolate tells how much of the bar is made from any combination of three derivatives from the cacao bean... cocoa powder, cocoa liquor, and cocoa butter. While, technically, the "100% cocoa" standard could be met by "compacting the cocoa into a solid form", that is not how chocolate bars are made... no one would want to eat that.
even more confused now
There are probably several factors in play:
The chocolate liquor used to make the chocolate may have been dutched (processed with alkali) which makes it darker. AT the extreme end, it is almost black, like an Oreo (which is made with highly dutched cocoa).
The fat phase surrounds the cocoa particles, and makes them appear darker, much like wetting cocoa powder with water makes it appear darker.
The cocoa used to make the chocolate may be roasted to a greater or lesser degree, which affects its color, might like with coffee. Thanks to Didgeridrew for pointing this out.
Milk chocolate is necessarily lighter, as the milk particles are white, and help make the entire bar a lighter shade.
The cacao percentage is not a major factor, as even low cacao chocolates (like the very, very sweet German's Baker's Bar) are quite dark.
Like coffee, cacao can also be roasted light or dark to meet specific flavor criteria. Many low-moderate quality beans are roasted dark to remove bad flavors and to yield chocolate with a roasty flavor but one that does not have the subtler flavors of more carefully roasted and higher quality beans.
It's because the cocoa is a powder. It's reflecting more light. If you have access to any wax, think about how it turns white when you scratch it or how if you break a candle you will see white on the broken surface. If you add cold water to cocoa powder and stir patiently you will see a glossy dark brown colour like the dark chocolate.
Possibly interesting: a research paper explaining the physics of why things are darker when they are wet. This link was in a comment to an answer to a more general question on Physics.se.
Yes, this is the underyling reason for the 2nd item in my list.
Your assumption seems to be that the color of a substance should be the same, no matter in what phase its matter is. This assumption is not true in general. For example, a block of sugar is transparent, but powdered sugar is white. Egg yolk is a saturated yellow, but egg yolk foam is whitish pale.
The different color is not explained purely by the fact that it is in a different form. If you grate a chocolate bar, it will change its color, but to a more grey-whitish one, not to the redder one in your picture. Here, the different composition of elements and the chemical change of elements (both explained in SAJ's post) certainly play a big role. But even if this wasn't the case, the color wouldn't stay the same.
Roasting the brown cacao power turns it dark and destroys many of its nutrients. Raw cacao after being fermented and dried is the best form and retains the nutrients that are desirable for this super food.
Welcome! Can you rephrase this in a way that doesn't address nutrition, which is off-topic here?
because of roasting. Commercial chocolate comes from mostly quite cheap beans, often in african countries with poor quality beans. The chocolate needs to be "over roasted" to kill off not only the bacteria (on ALL beans even good quality ones) AND also the off flavors that come from having not been properly fermented and dried! some commercial chocolate is almost black at 80%. Compare it to an 80% bar from a bean-to-bar manufacturer and you will notice the difference
I've definitely seen high-quality shade-to-boutique chocolate bars which were significantly darker than cocoa powder. For that matter, if that's "commercial chocolate", why would it not affect commercial cocoa powder as well?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.236925
| 2014-04-11T16:12:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43434",
"authors": [
"Adi Harmony",
"Asami Naturals",
"Catija",
"DTPW",
"Didgeridrew",
"Lee Aslet",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"Thornwood Cleaners spam",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"user15438246",
"wojciech"
],
"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
}
|
74028
|
How do I use this store-made tomato paste with pasta?
I am boiling the water, and then adding my spaghetti into it, and cooking for 7 - 8 minutes. It all works fine. However since am new to cooking, I don't know how to use the store-made tomato paste. Do I just add it to the pasta after it's done? Or do I add it while the pasta is being cooked for 7 - 8 minutes? Or do I cook the store made tomato sauce by itself in water in a different pot?
Here is 2 images for that . https://s16.postimg.io/z0nl4ynxh/IMG_20160918_105039.jpg https://s9.postimg.io/3p7k5ynz3/IMG_20160918_105054.jpg
krikor, welcome to the site! We welcome all users, no matter whether they are new to cooking or quite "seasoned". You have come to the right place, because we love to help starting cooks! ^_^ Please don't forget to take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about the site and the Stack Exchange system in general. Note that we don't allow recipe requests on the main site, but once you have sufficient reputation, you could pop into [chat] where you'll always find someone willing to discuss that with you. Again: welcome and happy cooking!
Oh, that is not a real tomato sauce, this is mostly a tomato mush with a bit of salt. (The term "tomato paste" on the jar might a bit misleading, this product looks somewhat thinner.)
In a pinch, you can use it similar to a store-bought sauce by heating it gently in a separate pot on the stove (or in a microwave) and serving it with your spaghetti. But for a real sauce, it is probably too bland, missing spices and too acidic. Not what one expects from a sauce.
If you are really inexperienced, do a quick websearch for "easy tomato sauce" or similar. Many use tomato paste and you'll at least get a quick idea on how to use it, together with herbs and spices. In short, you want probably a bit of garlic, some herbs like basil (or even "italian seasoning"), possibly salt and pepper and - depending on the consistency of the tomato paste - a bit water (scoop a bit out of your pasta pot). If it's too acidic, add a pinch of sugar, not to make it sweet, just to balance out the acidity. Either toss the drained pasta in the sauce to coat or serve the sauce on top of the noodles.
It is real, as tomato paste is a concentrated form of tomato puree. Italian red/tomato sauce is often made with a combination of tomatoes, tomato sauce, and tomato paste, none of which are seasoned at the start. The ingredients are simmered down, starting with a bit of olive oil in the pot, and with seasonings added (salt, pepper, oregano, marjoram, thyme, basil, rosemary). Many cooks taste the sauce to check on acidity, and add a bit of sugar to adjust it. Garlic and red pepper flakes are optional (and often depend on one's Italian region of origin).
Use what you have, simmering it with the dried seasonings that you have available. After draining your pasta, return it to the pot and add the sauce, tossing it over heat to allow the pasta and sauce to incorporate (and thinning a bit with some reserved pasta water, if needed). Off heat, add cheese and serve.
Exactly: this isn't a real tomato sauce for pasta as-is, you have to make one out of it.
Also, I don't think it's been thinned with 70% water. The tomato solids are 30% of it, but tomatoes start out way less than 30% solids. The water's last on the ingredient list, so it shouldn't be 70% of it. And finally, the nutrition facts match the USDA nutrition facts for regular tomato paste (15 kcal/tbsp), which is quite thick, definitely not watered down.
My point is that your "appears to have been thinned...according to the label" doesn't appear to be correct. I think you're basing it on the label saying 30% solids, but as far as I can tell, that's not what that 30% means, and the rest of the label suggests it hasn't been thinned at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.237329
| 2016-09-18T07:40:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74028",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50624",
"krikor Herlopian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74218
|
Can someone identify this herb?
I found this herb in an Asian supermarket. The label didn't actually say what it was, and the clerks at the store didn't speak English well enough to ask them.
My first thought was mint, but I would expect mint leaves to be more wrinkly than that.
My second thought was holy basil, which would be a pleasant surprise as that's generally very hard to find. I looked at pictures of holy basil online, and it looks pretty close, although these leaves look a bit more pointy than in those pictures.
Can someone identify the herb in the picture?
My local Vietnamese store would call it linh tinh: Miscellaneous.
I don't know what the herb is, exactly - but, you might be pretty safe in just buying it, and smell and tasting it, and thereafter using it as its taste dictates. You have a fairly low chance of getting poisoned by an herb sold in a store for consumption, especially if you use it in moderation until you're sure of it. Unfortunately, the chances are low, not nonzero, as some people will eat poisonous things (they would assume no one would buy it if they don't know how to properly prepare it to be safe) - so, pick where your comfort level of risk might lie.
Looks like tree basil to me: https://thaifoodmaster.com/thai_food_ingredients/tree_basil
I don't think it's shiso, as that tends to have a more jagged edge. I suspect it's the botanically related Korean kkaennip (aka 'sesame leaf', which is also of the family Perilla):
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/07/seriously-asian-perilla-leaves.html
http://www.maangchi.com/ingredient/perilla-leaves
(but I can't discount bitter leaf, as that's not something I'm familiar with)
I believe that is a picture of shiso.
I think this is Bitter Leaf, renowned for its nutritional properties.
See http://www.prosisupermarket.com/admin/Product/bitter-leaf-10.jpg (I am not related in any way :) )
Hope this helps
For me it looks like nettles.
But while I have eaten those in the past I have yet to see a store selling them, so I might be mistaken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.237759
| 2016-09-25T06:34:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74218",
"authors": [
"Callus - Reinstate Monica",
"Megha",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59268"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46421
|
Water vs. milk/cream (or nothing) in traditional (French) omelets
Previous questions here have addressed the reasons why water or milk is added to scrambled egg mixtures in cooking. However, the two questions I've linked seem to parallel a distinction I've noticed sometimes in recipes or in instructions given by chefs and often repeated on cooking forums: one can add milk or cream to scrambled eggs, while only water is appropriate for omelets, particularly traditional "French" omelet styles.
Some chefs claim that using milk in traditional omelets will make them "tough" (or even "watery"), so they recommend only a small amount of water. (Some traditionalists, of course, also discourage any additions to the eggs before cooking for a French omelet, even leaving any seasonings or herbs until the very end.) On the other hand, I have seen other well-known chefs encourage the addition of milk or even cream to omelets to increase richness.
In my own cooking, I have found that adding any type of liquid can increase the lightness and "fluffiness" of the final omelet, and for that reason it's often worth the extra few seconds it adds in cooking time (which can risk toughness). But I've never noticed a significant difference in toughness when adding milk compared to water, nor have I noticed a significant increase in richness (which I find is often determined more by the amount of butter I put in the pan). In fact, the prohibition against cream seems a bit odd to me, given that many chefs also advocate a rather large amount of butter for omelets which often ends up being stirred into the eggs while in the pan.
So -- my question: is there actually any science behind the claim that one should only add water to a French omelet, since milk (and possibly cream as well) could toughen it? Or is this just another culinary myth? Also, is there any other scientific reason to withhold water or milk from a traditional omelet, other than very slightly increasing the richness of the egg flavor? (Keep in mind that the amount of liquid I'm talking about here is very small, usually no more than a tablespoon for 2-3 eggs.)
(Just to be clear, a French omelet is generally cooked quite fast in a hot pan, often stirred and/or shaken rapidly during cooking to raise the egg temperatures as fast as possible, and then folded and unloaded from the pan while the outside is pale to golden yellow -- never brown -- and left creamy ("underdone") inside. I've occasionally seen chefs advocate a slower approach, but the final product is always the same: barely colored on the outside, creamy to slightly runny on the inside, and the overall goal is to maintain maximum tenderness, often with little or no filling at all. This is opposed to a more "American" or "country" style omelet which can be tougher and perhaps somewhat browned to create a more durable shell used to hold a large amount of heavy fillings.)
Interesting question. I knew of this claim about crepes, not omelets, and I think I have seen it in action too (although I'm not 100% sure it wasn't a bias, maybe I should document it rigorously). If the effect is real, I'd expect the milk casein to be on the bottom of it, probably becoming a part of the egg protein mesh and changing its properties towards more rubbery.
That was my understanding as well. Water tends to steam or bubble, and can help 'aerate' the egg protiens. Milk products have their own protien, which can result in 'tougher' eggs. This is all from memory though; I am sure if you look up Alton Brown's episode on omelets, it will explain it better. I use his method all the time with great results.
These are very helpful comments, and I've thought along that line myself. But if this is true, then the question becomes: why is it then okay to add milk/cream to scrambled eggs if they aren't being used in an omelet? Wouldn't the toughness still be there? Either we're just more accepting of tougher scrambled eggs than we are of tough omelets, or there's something specific about the omelet technique that creates the problem. (And also, wouldn't we get casein from butter in the pan anyway? Yet I've never seen a recipe suggesting an omelet should limit its butter...)
Americas test kitchen has tested this in a prior issue. I cannot put my hands on the issue right now which explained their process and the results. It also contained a good deal of explanation about the science of the process. They tried all sorts of liquids in their omelette and scrambled eggs recipe. They found that water did make the eggs slightly fluffy but did not slow the coagulation process. This led to a tougher scramble than milk. They wanted the same result for an omelette with a denser texture. The end result being that butter was better for an omelet.
However, some of the result was later reported in a Smithsonian Magazine Article. It is a much more compact summary but fairly on the nose for your question.
Their answer was as follows:
Add milk to scrambled eggs, frozen butter to omelets: If you want
scrambled eggs, most of us know to throw in a bit of milk or butter
while scrambling. That’s because the lipids in the dairy coat the
proteins in the egg (11 percent in the whites and 16 percent in the
yolks) and slow down the process of coagulation, a.k.a. when the
proteins are denatured and unfurl, releasing much of the water in the
mixture. Adding fat helps keep some moisture in and fluff up the final
product. But the same does not go for omelets. “While scrambled eggs
should be fluffy, an omelet is more compact,” the authors write.
While milk works for scrambled eggs, it can add to much moisture to an
omelet. The chefs recommend frozen bits of butter instead, which melt
more slowly and disperse more evenly. And it turns out you can go
ahead and salt the eggs before you even cook them up. Because salt
affects the electrical charge on the proteins, it weakens the bonds
between them, preventing overcoagulation. Bring that up at your next
brunch.
The Science of Good Cooking: Tips From America’s Test Kitchen
Yep. They add an extra egg yolk to two whole eggs, no water, no milk, just a tablespoon of frozen butter, cut up. They preheat the non-stick pan over lowest heat for a full 10 minutes, they heat up oil with the pan but then wipe most of it out. Most oddly (for them) is that they use a fork to mix the eggs exactly (eggsactly?) 80 rotations.
If a perfect French omelet is on your list, that's a very good reason to do the 14 day free trial of ATK. They're always a bit fussy, but this has got to be their fussiest (and so, their most foolproof). They have broken the French omelet (so to speak) into the tiniest steps. If you can follow instructions, you can't screw it up. Follow along with the video, and you're golden.
(Above meant for the OP, BigHandsome has already heard/read it :)
Thanks for the answer. It's really interesting that they found the exact opposite of the myth I've usually heard, i.e., that it's milk which leads to tougher omelets. I also find the frozen butter thing a little hilarious and even more finicky that ATK's usually wackiness.
@Jolenealaska, thanks for the rec, but I've been making reasonably good French omelets for a while. Frankly, one of the things that made me question a lot of what ATK says is when I encountered this omelet video a few years back. Just my opinion, but the whole paper towel thing is rather ridiculous, as is the technique of the person screwing up the pan flip. It took me maybe a dozen times to master flipping the pan to do a fold without utensils, and if you tend to screw it up, most chefs just use a fork/spatula/spoon to fold it up anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.237959
| 2014-08-15T14:13:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46421",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"JSM",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy Farrelly",
"Lisa Rand",
"Liz Porter",
"deb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"leon Campagna",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60172
|
Whatever Has Happened to This Fork?
I left some dirty dishes over a summer internship. Now, cleaning up, I have found that some of the silverware has developed a rough surface. After sitting overnight in a soapy bath, it persists, although can be scrubbed off.
Here's a fork, which appears to be stamped stainless steel, showing the rough texture:
I don't have my microscope, and this camera image (try expanding it) is about as good as my eyes resolve.
My question: what is this?
Chemical pitting of electroplate from high pH dish detergent? Such a bloom might mostly be scrubbed off, but if you look closely... Might also just be an insoluble salt deposit, calcium phosphate or similar. If that's the case, it should wipe off with vinegar. From what I can see, it looks more like case 1 to me.
Have you heard about the Philosopher's stone? You might have discovered the opposite ...
@WayfaringStranger I scrubbed it off, and the surface finish is completely unharmed. So, deposition seems likely. However, I have used this silverware here for a year previously, without mineral deposits.
Maybe someone switched dish soap on you, or the water has changed. More calcium, or other divalent metals, in the water leads to quicker soap scum build up. pH change in water will also affect solubility of soap and ions. Occasionally municipal water systems put out non-standard water; either intentionally or by accident.
I have seen similar deposited after stainless cutlery and plates were soaked in hard water from bores and from areas with hard water. Its just a collection of salts that like making a home on metal surfaces. You can remove it without scrubbing by adding some citric acid powder or a little white vinegar to some warm wash water. Denture cleaning tablets have a similar effect in cleaning off this buildup.
The citric acid powder is a really good way of cleaning up the built up scale in kettles and water heating appliances. It makes my glass electric kettle shine like new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.238579
| 2015-08-23T17:55:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60172",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Frederick Martin",
"Gary Smith",
"Jenn Rudzena",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"geometrian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58872
|
Is this moldy vinegar salvageable?
I started making apple cider vinegar using the second method listed on http://thehealthyeatingsite.com/apple-cider-vinegar-recipe/
It's been little over 4 months and my mix is looking really weird. There's some white fluff on top of what looks like a vinegar mother. The more was to be expected (it's part of the reason why I went with this method, so I could get a mother for use in future batches). But the white fluff is worrying me a little bit.
Is it mold? If so, are the batch and mother salvageable?
There's also some odd, brown, tree like organism growing in the middle. That one is really throwing me off.
(click for full size)
Is it mold?
It definitely is. Whatever happened to it, it is bad.
Are the batch and mother salvageable?
I wouldn't think of that for a second. The mold is everywhere. Just get rid of it.
That is a ton of mold, at least. It shouldn't grow that well in vinegar. Looks like maybe the pH is wrong. Have you tryed pouring a bit of the liquid over baking soda? Does it even bubble?
I'd salvage the mother, and start over with a fresh batch of water/sugar/apple. How much sugar did you add? I have a video on making vinegar on my youtube channel, 4godliv. And I've taught two vinegar making classes. Before the mold gets this bad, spoon it out and spray some straight vinegar into the batch, to bring the acidity up. And stirring it should help keep the mold growth down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.238768
| 2015-07-07T21:41:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58872",
"authors": [
"Lana Hodge",
"Mandy Farr",
"Mubarak Adam",
"Noeleen Stockwell",
"Salli Sticlaru",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"will conner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55969
|
How can I make my tea stronger?
I know it sounds like an obvious question.
At work, my colleague has a drip-filter machine he uses to brew his tea. He puts about two table spoons for an eight cup pot.
This makes nice strong tea.
I use a glass infuser teapot, which I put two teaspoons in for about a mug of tea.
This has the advantage of being easy to clean up, and convienient. However, it's not nearly as strong as the drip tea.
How can I make my tea stronger? Do I simply need to put more tea in?
Nb. I'm talking about for black tea.
For green tea, I'm putting in 1.5 teaspoons, and adding a little cold water first, and that comes out fine.
You cannot make it stronger with this style of pot. You are limited by Nernst's law: the amount of solute extracted from the leaf into the tea does not depend only on the amount of tea leaves, but also on the current concentration of solute in the liquid surrounding the leaves.
If you make tea using loose leaves in a teapot, they float everywhere, with sufficient distance between leaves. Several processes in the teapot (convection, diffusion, etc.) let the solutes move around easier, and you get an even, weak, concentration throughout the teapot, so the layer of tea surrounding each leaf has low concentration and works against the leaf from all sides, extracting lots of stuff. If you make it using a drip style method, the leaves are packed together, but the water moving through them doing the extracting is fresh and has no solute in it at all, so it is able to extract a lot.
But with your style of teapot, the water is of course able to get into the infuser through the tiny slits, but once this has happened, there is very little exchange between the infuser and the rest of the teapot. The slits create a bottleneck, and you end up with an area of highly concentrated tea in the infuser and an area of low concentrated tea outside, with little communication between the two. The concentrated tea in the infuser can't extract the tea well.
You could always increase the amount of tea or the time you infuse, but both methods have their drawbacks.
Bottom line: you have to decide between well extracted tea or conveniently extracted tea. The same methods which make teapots easy to clean (concentrating the tea leaves in a small area without too much communication with the rest of the pot) reduce the extraction quality and strength.
As a stopgap you can hoist the infuser section out, let it drain, and put it back in a few times to force some mixing.
While Rumtscho has a point regarding the ultimate effectiveness of the tea pot, looking at the picture you've posted, the teapot you're using is far from optimal with regards to the trade-off between brew strength and easy cleaning.
Your basic teapot uses a mesh to keep the leaves from floating away:
You can see how that would give a lot more exposure to the water than tiny slits!
There are even similar products that have tiny holes all over instead of slits only at the bottom:
In general, a teapot that exposes more tea to water will be able to get a stronger brew. If you try a pot like that and still can't get it strong enough, you might need to switch to drip-filter, though in general, the more tea you use, the stronger the brew will be.
The infuser you have will not give you a good result because the holes are way too small for the water to properly circulate around the tea leaves. Replace it with a wire mesh infuser, or simply put the leaves in straight and then strain them out as you pour.
A method I've liked for (somewhat) convenient, and well extracted brews is to use my French press and fresh, loose leaves. Steeping and then pressing allows for a decent extraction, and still fairly simple cleanup. After removing and rinsing the press, I add a minimal (1/4 - 1/2 cup of water) and just get the leaves swirling, then dump them in the grounds/leaves composter.
Maybe you can try to put more tea leaves and perform tea-washing job (just several spoons hot water about 60-70℃ to clean the impurities on leaves).
There's a few things you can do:
Tea form: crushed tea (tea bags) will generally give you a stronger brew than full leaf tea. This is because tea bags will fully release their flavor in a single brew, while loose leaf teas release less, but last for more brews. Most likely your colleague's tea is pretty crushed, almost like coffee, which is why it releases so much flavor.
Tea type & oxidation: more oxidized tea types such as black, oolong and pu erh, generally taste stronger than less oxidized teas such as white and green tea. This isn't relevant for you since you're already brewing black tea, but perhaps try a 'ripe pu erh'. Those usually have a really strong and thick soup, and the flavor isn't too far from a black tea.
Temperature: brewing at higher temperatures will result in stronger teas. If you aren't brewing at boiling temperature, you can give it a try and see if it works.
Steeping time: brew longer and you'll get a stronger brew. The extreme end of this is cold brewing, where tea brewed with cold water, but applying a super long steeping time to compensate for this, see for example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Oyg_xWjZ4
Teaware material: ceramic, porcelain and clay teapots are worth to try out, because they isolate heat better than glass teapots. This also helps you to draw more flavor out of teas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.238942
| 2015-03-23T02:33:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55969",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Helen Green",
"Joan Ravenhill",
"Kathy Douglas",
"Leslie Hayes",
"Meri Bensman",
"Molly Mayfield",
"Pam Gregory",
"Portjefferson90",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44001
|
What is on top of this and how do you make it?
Chocolate fondant picture on yelp. As you can see this is a picture of a chocolate fondant. However what is on top of it? I have seen this many times.
It's a brandy snap, they're often baked around a pole to create a hollow tube like: http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/19239/brandy+snaps however they can be baked flat for a disc presentation, or on the underside of a muffin tin to make a bowl etc. As for good recipes, I don't know, so I'm not writing an answer.
It's similar to a type of cookie I just made a few weeks ago called Florentine Lace Cookies
@setek Brandy snaps (effectively Paillets Feuilletine) are not baked around a pole, they are baked flat. When fully cooked and still hot, they remain pliable for about 30 seconds. You then roll them into tubes, or drape them over something like an upside down muffin tin to make a bowl
Recipe requests are off topic, so I removed that part of the answer. I also embedded the picture.
@TFD oops you're right, my mistake, I guess I mixed them up with cannoli.
Most often they are called tuiles and they can be made in a number of ways, in some cases they are biscuit based or they can be made by melting sugar on a non-stick surface. and then cutting while the sugar is still warm and pliable.
If you wanted to make a classic biscuity tuile there is a recipe here:
http://www.finecooking.com/recipes/classic-tuile-cookies.aspx
For a sugar only variety you could consider using some fine sugar and a blow torch, in a similar way to a creme brûlée topping and using a metal cookie cutter to get the desired shape.
The benefit of the classic tuile recipe is that it can be adjusted in order to add flavourings e.g. vanilla or even spices.
Parmesan under a grill can also form a tuile as long as the grill isn't set to too high a temperature (chocolate and cheese go pretty nicely together...)
That looks like Paillets Feuilletine to me. There is a recipe here: How do you make Paillets Feuilletine?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.239623
| 2014-05-09T00:23:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44001",
"authors": [
"Abdelkadir Khellaf ",
"Javid Gara",
"Jolenealaska",
"Klian Gjolli",
"Ming",
"Mukul Kumar",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"Александр Семикоз"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44130
|
How do you get this pie top?
So I made a pecan pie, which turned out delicious.
However I was not a fan of the top of the pie.
How would I go about getting a top like that? How is this done in general?
Typically, you layer the pecans in the bottom of the pie shell, and then pour the custard/syrup over it. The pecans then float to the top, creating a two layer pie. You do want large enough pieces to float to the top--whole is traditional just for looking pretty.
Note also that you want to avoid beating air into the custardy/syrupy filling, which will rise to the top and help create the dryer layer above and around the nuts.
See for example, this recipe from Dear Martini, with an embedded video showing the method.
What if it's not a custard or syrup but more like a thick sugary mixture?
Its an egg sugar syrup.... call it whatever you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.239823
| 2014-05-14T16:25:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44130",
"authors": [
"Angele",
"How why e",
"Mr.BalzSack",
"Qxchange App",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ShivamD",
"Spherical Cowboy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45735
|
How to make a cover for a molten cake?
I recently visited a restaurant called Zuma, and they had this unbelievable chocolate molten cake.
As you can see they have a cover on top, like a sheet of chocolate. How would one make this? I am not particularly interested on they write the name(however that would be a bonus) but just the sheet to cover the top.
Thanks in advance.
did you taste it? It's probably just a thin sheet of chocolate that softened when put on the warm cake. You can buy thin sheets of chocolate with patterns printed on them in gold. (example: http://www.dr.ca/chocolate-transfer-sheets-wheat.html ) no affiliation I just did a search
@KateGregory That looks exactly right.
@KateGregory Great, thank you. Yes I did taste, and it taste just like melted chocolate. Time to try and make one of those myself!
I would suggest placing on the cake, THEN softening it with a distant torch :)
It looks like that's a chocolate transfer sheet, which is just a very thin layer of chocolate with patterns printed onto it and then baked
Here's a link I found of someone doing this at home:
http://forums.egullet.org/topic/105238-demo-making-chocolate-transfer-sheets/
I don't think I'd call that the same ... they're printing onto plastic as a transfer medium, then applying the printed image onto the chocolate. This might explain how they get the name onto the chocolate, but not how to make the thin chocolate sheet. (the site linked to mentions the problem of the middle being thinner than the sides -- it's because the screen flexes as you print; you typically press the screen down to the printed surface before squeegeeing it ... the screen thickness is what affects the printed image's thickness. (I worked for 2 years in our high school's print shop)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.239949
| 2014-07-20T22:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45735",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kate Gregory",
"ShivamD",
"extr3mis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jsanc623"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46489
|
Does the pasta have to stick to the wall?
One of the most popular advices about cooking, is about pastas (specifically spaghetti), which tell us to throw the spaghetti to the wall and if it sticks, it's ready. Now, why if people are trying to make their pasta less "sticky", does this advice tells us that it has to stick to the wall? Why a pasta that is ready has to stick to the wall?
if by "popular" you mean "shown in tv shows and movies by people who don't know how to cook", then I guess it is ... for everything else, see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/12004/67
possible duplicate of What's the best way to tell that pasta is done (when boiling)?
I suppose I'll port my answer over from comments:
The short answer is that the starches contained in pasta are sticky when the granules inflate with water.
The better answer is that this is bad advice, especially for your walls. Just taste, you don't need to be showy. Joe's link to this related question is spot-on.
Sorry, but this answer contains some incorrect facts. Gluten is not a starch, it is a mesh structure consisting of two proteins, glutenin and gliadin. They are sticky before they have formed gluten, but stop sticking much after they form it. They also stop being sticky once they are changed by baking (or cooking) temperature. The starch inflates with water separately from the gluten-components.
@rumtscho so, why is that pasta that sticks to the wall is considered cooked? (which is the answer I'm looking for)
@Braiam : the problem is that for many types of pasta, if it's sticking to the wall it's actually overcooked. How sticky the pasta is isn't necessarily related to how cooked it is ... although I suspect that it also needs to be soft enough to absorb the impact rather than bouncing off. But it won't work for 'gluten free' pastas or penne and other non-strand pastas, and isn't necessarily a good test for strand pasta.
@logophobe downvote removed, thank you for editing
You want to make pasta less sticky if you are not ready to use it when it is cooked. Otherwise, mix in the sauce and enjoy straight away.
Also forget about all the tricks. No oil or throwing. You just need salt and water.
To cook pasta correctly, follow the instructions on the box. They will give you a time they recommend. If you are going to eat it straight away, go ahead an follow this. I have had good results by simply setting a timer. You may still need to attend to it, to give it a stir and make sure it does not stick together in the pot.
If you prefer it to have more "bite", set the timer for a shorter length of time to that you can have a taste. Keep the timer running so that you can record this time down. In the future, just set your timer to your recorded time.
The timing on the box can be off. I just try it and see :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.240227
| 2014-08-18T17:48:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46489",
"authors": [
"Ashley Sheehan",
"Braiam",
"Camilo Martin",
"Daniel Patenaude",
"Debra Godfrey MCGilber",
"Elsa Morkel",
"Estelle Allman",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44058
|
Green streaks on raw meat: is it safe?
Here is a picture of raw "reserve beef for stew" that we just bought at our local (nation-wide chain) supermarket:
Where do these green streaks on the meat come from ? Is it normal and safe to cook it ? It is not really very good-looking...
They appear on most of the pieces.
The only things I can think of are bile or some sort of mold or bacterial growth. If the gall bladder was ruptured during butchering, bile could have spilled on the meat. That would be harmless, but having no way to be sure which it is, I wouldn't eat it. I would take it back to the store.
Reserve beef for stew is not an appetizing name, is it? Safe or not I wouldn't want to eat it!
You should be aware that it is perfectly normal for meat to oxidize and become grey in color. In this case, it is still safe, provided it has been stored properly.
I cannot be completely sure that this is the cause based on just your picture. If you have seen the oxidation-grey meat I am referring to and know this is not the same, then this is something different, and possibly dangerous (although Carey Gregory's bile hypothesis has some merit).
But nowadays supermarkets try to hide this process, afraid that their meat will look unappetizing to customers. They package meat in individual containers with low oxygen content (which also has the benefit of keeping it safer). If they still sell raw meat from the display, they only keep a small amount of display, preferably not pre-cut, and stacked tightly, so there is little surface exposure to oxygen. I've also heard that they use nitrites on the surface to prevent the grey-green tinge, but I am not completely sure this is true (it could be illegal, or the amount necessary to prevent the color change could be high enough for the meat to start feeling cured).
So, if you have never seen the grey meat I refer to, this could very well be an example of it. If
you stored the meat properly
the green surface is not slimy (at least, not slimier than the normal parts of the raw meat)
the green surface doesn't smell unusual
there is no texture difference, just the discoloration
chances are that this is not dangerous. You could still decide to be extra safe and discard it (nobody can prove that this is nothing bad), or you could accept the oxygenation explanation and eat it. Or maybe show it to a butcher or an older relative who was used to shopping meat before modern technology made oxidized meat surface a rare sight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.240503
| 2014-05-11T22:26:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44058",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"David McIntosh",
"GdD",
"Jeanne King",
"MsBsmoove ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"masterofnone"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63668
|
Does sprinkling salt on top of brownies give the same result as putting it in the batter?
Standard recipes for brownies have a teaspoon of salt in them. Questions like this one and this one explain that it's only for taste. Can you just put some salt on top after they are baked?
For example, the linked answer might imply that yes you can just sprinkle salt on the baked brownie afterwards. But is that true? I also don't understand the comment about "raw flour". None of the flour should be raw after the brownie is baked!
@Stephie I suppose a difference is that brownie recipes don't have any yeast in them. That answer doesn't really address the question as it relates specifically to brownies.
The answers also deal with the flavour-enhancing properties.
@Stephie It is rather general though. My brownie recipe has sugar, butter, vanilla essence, dark chocolate, plain flour, eggs and nothing else in it (if you omit the salt). For example, that answer might imply that yes you can just sprinkle salt on the baked brownie afterwards.. but is that true? I also don't understand the comment about "raw flour". None of the flour should be raw after the brownie is baked!
I leave the question of duplicate to the other members of the comunity, it needs five votes after all. If you feel that the other Q/A doesn't fit, I suggest you edit your question to point out where you see a significant difference.
@Stephie Sorry.. I meant sprinkle salt.
Yeast has indeed a bit more considerations due to salt inhibiting their growth. But we have a more general question encompassing all kinds of sweet baking, including brownies. It happens to contain the traditional American view, but I also posted a new answer on why I see it as limited.
Oh, on reading it for a second time, the second question ("can I get the same result by sprinkling") is not a duplicate. Lembik, would you like to edit this question or open another one focused on only that part? You can link to the other question as a background, and ask if sprinkling causes the same effect as putting it in the dough. It's a separate, and interesting question. I'd upvote it.
@rumtscho Thanks. It is in the first paragraph of my question currently "Can you just put some salt on top after they are baked, for example?" Do you feel that isn't prominent enough?
@Lembik the whole question seems to be focused a lot on "why do you put it in". Also, a ton of people don't even read the body but answer the title directly. I'll make an edit and if you are OK with it, I'll reopen. Else we can discuss further how you want to word it.
Tried similar things, eg putting salt that I forgot in the dough into the glaze instead... unless salt would work in the component/spot you are salting instead anyway, results tend to be horrible...
Many brownies don't use salt in the recipe anyway. If following a recipe that does, I would omit it.
Sprinkling salt on top won't have the same effect as mixing it in the batter, you'll get a big salt hit all at once and then nothing in the brownie itself which I wouldn't expect to be very pleasant.
Some recipes withhold some of the salt from the brownie and put it in a sauce for the top like a salted caramel drizzle. This works because it's not pure salt on the top and there's still salt in the batter.
Brownies aren't so bag that putting salt on top only wouldn't mean that you wouldn't end up getting salt with every bite. I would suspect that if the salt had high surface area (ie, not rock salt), it'd bind the tongue's receptors .... but you might still run into the 'over-salted' issue as more of it would make it to the tongue directly.
@Joe "Brownies aren't so bag that putting salt on top only wouldn't mean that you wouldn't end up getting salt with every bite." This is very hard to read!
@Lembik : Sorry -- type ... aren't so big. It's not like a cake, where you might have a bite that didn't include the top. And it's not like an oreo where you might separate it into layers to eat (which would also mean you didn't get some of the top in every bite). It's closer to a steak fry, where you get some of the salt from the outside in every bite. (although, in that case, there'd be salt on the bottom, too)
If you forgot the salt, then you are kinda outa luck. However, a little kosher salt sprinkled on top and baked in can be quite
Pleasant. Sweet and salt is a good combo.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.240756
| 2015-11-20T11:00:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63668",
"authors": [
"Anxiety Depression",
"Chris H",
"Dave Longtin",
"Fleur Gorissen",
"Jean DiDaniele",
"Joe",
"Karen Donoghue",
"Manoj Vaishnav",
"Nthabiseng Lebese",
"Peter Zimmerman",
"Saraq Danut",
"Sheetal VN",
"Shourya Soni",
"Simd",
"Stephen Kuan",
"Stephie",
"Vijayakumar Vijay",
"Zubair Ahmed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61788
|
Why did my ginger garlic paste have a bitter aftertaste?
I cooked a base for indian sauce based on lots of onion, homemade ginger garlic paste, some veggies (I used carrot, a little napa cabbage, bell peppers) and spices. After cooking, the sauce had an unfortunate bitter aftertaste. Nothing burned, I cooked over careful heat.
First I thought it wasn't cooked enough, so I cooked some more over low heat. The bitter taste did not disappear.
After considering this some more, my suspicion turned to my homemade ginger garlic paste. It turned green after grinding the ginger and garlic, but that didn't bother me, it's a fairly common phenomenon. But I fried some paste in two batches, and then tasted the result. One was fried until it browned. The other was just fried for 2-3 minutes, and remained quite green. Here's a picture showing (clockwise from lower right) raw, lightly cooked and browned ginger garlic paste:
The browned batch was sweet, followed by the pungent ginger. The lightly fried batch was quite bitter, and also pungent.
So I think the bitterness in my sauce was caused by my ginger garlic paste. But why? What happened?
Are you adding at the same time. Garlic is the fastest to cook, cook off, and burn. I should be the last of one of the last to add.
The original recipe specifically calls for ginger garlic paste, not garlic and ginger separately. It has been tested by several people I know, with success. (I haven't had a chance to try again yet.) Also, I cooked these very carefully, so I didn't burn the garlic if that was your suspicion. I've never experienced garlic turning bitter when cooked, have you? Unless you burn it, of course.
Exactly - unless you burn it, of course.
I see three possibilities based on what you've said:
the germ of the garlic. The germ, or new sprout of the garlic, should be removed before cooking. If your garlic had started to sprout and especially if you left in the germ, this is a possible cause of the bitterness.
acid. Cooking garlic in an acid environment can cause chemical changes in the garlic, such as turning blue-green or bitter -- as in your picture. Ginger and onions might even be enough to trigger this, or other components of the dish.
over-cooking the garlic. Though you said you were careful with heat, it's easy to burn garlic just enough to make it bitter.
The green color of the paste is telltale for a lot of properly sprouted garlic... as hoc_age already said, the sprouts turn bitter when cooked, so break up your garlic and remove anything green inside before making the paste. Also, blenders tend to oxidize oils, if the result is still not satisfactory, try using a mortar and pestle instead - garlic and ginger are easily broken down in a mortar if coarse salt is added and used as an abrasive... just remember to put less salt in the dish!
Cooking ginger/garlic paste too long at high heat (that didn't burn because it was premixed into a couple cups of yoghurt/spices/meat), seems to have caused the bitter taste in the portions of the meal that were towards the bottom of the pot.
I have an Indian recipe for Hyderabadi Chicken Biryani that calls for 4 Tablespoons of Ginger Garlic Paste mixed into two cups of yogurt, along with the meat and spices and top layer of par-cooked rice. Normally the mixture is cooked on the stove in a lidded pot for 5 minutes on High, 15 minutes on Medium and 10 on low. The juices from the meat mix with the yoghurt mixture and everything works out well.
I've made this dish several times with success, so thought to change it up, and not having goat on hand I used beef sirloin instead of chicken. So I thought I would need to switch to a pressure cooker pot to make sure the beef is tender, instead of the regular pot, and cooked it for 10-15 minutes on High and remainder on Medium.
The bottom layer did not discolor as if it was burned, however I tasted bitter portions throughout the dish, and moreso as I mixed the cooked dish completely. Adding lemon helped, but now I have a pot full of tender beef, occasional bites that are good, and the rest that is sooo bitter!
Next time I will use the regular pot approach, and just cook it longer on low to make sure the beef is tender and the Ginger Garlic paste does not overcook to become bitter.
When you add the garlic paste, don't stir it too much, and don't put garlic paste in oil when there is nothing else in it.
When the raw smell of garlic goes away, that means it's cooked through, it won't have the bitter taste.
I have struggled with this too and after very carefully making and remaking a recipe (4 times in one day), I found the problem was with the ginger. The longer the recipe cooked, the more bitter it would become until it was inedible. I bought new ginger thinking it could just be old but the same thing happened so I take the fresh ginger out completely and just add some powdered ginger later on in the recipe. Haven't had the problem since. I wish I could use fresh but it just won't cooperate. Maybe I am cooking it too hot
Overcooking Ginger is the cause
Ginger if overcooked in sauce masala, tea etc gets bitter and loses its flavour.
Garlic can be burnt a little and it gives a good flavour (umami taste i think)
it's already mentioned several times in other answers, please don't necro-bump old questions with repeated information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.241190
| 2015-09-16T21:44:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61788",
"authors": [
"Evros Kavazis",
"Karen Johnson",
"Kristen H",
"Luciano",
"Michael Waters",
"Tiffany OLeary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"ketil",
"paparazzo",
"user151051"
],
"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
}
|
60262
|
In Belgium or from where to buy this grill over rack, steamer rack?
I have this microoven which has grill functionality. But to grill chicken like following picture:
i do not have that stand (steamer rack) which is holding the chicken on top.
Do you know in Europe/US/UK/Asia where i can buy this online to get delivered in Europe?
i tried in bol.be , http://www.coolblue.be/ but not found any.
Please advise where to get one.
Hello and welcome! What you have here is actually a steamer rack for use in a wok or pot. I bought mine at an Asian food store. They come in a variety of sizes so you want to find one that will fit your microwave plate. I think you will find it very easily with a search or possibly locally if you have an Asian food store nearby.
Have you tried amazon?
In Belgium you cant use Amazon always, most of the vendors do not delivery to Europe. We have Ebay where i searched but could not find anything. Any alternative please?
Are you sure you want to put a metal rack in the microwave? Sounds too risky to me.
The Amazon sites from the UK, France and Germany do sometimes ship to Belgium.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.241663
| 2015-08-26T10:41:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60262",
"authors": [
"Brendan Beaton",
"Cindy",
"Grant Smith",
"Irene HOLT",
"JankaSvK",
"Mien",
"Stephie",
"Washerdryerr2",
"YumYumYum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66526
|
Spreader cookies
Can anyone offer an explanation why I get runny spreaders among my medium-sized cookie batches.
All balls are weighed uniformly before storage in the freezer, before baking. Upon baking, about 1-2 out of 16 would be these horrible runny cookies that spread too early and too wide
While it's easy to assume that these spreaders had less share of choco chips, it's actually the contrary since the spreaded/streched parts actually have choco chips though melted and flattened.
I wonder if anyone can identify the issue.
They look like tasty homemade cookies to me, what's the issue?
Are you using a convection oven or a normal oven? Do you notice a consistent pattern in placement of the spreading cookies?
Spreading is usually fat related. I'd guess either the pan was over greased underneath those cookies (you don't really need to grease the pan at all), or there were chunks of unmixed fat in the ones that spread.
@RossRidge that's interesting because I use parchment paper over several batches. I'm suddenly not sure if I get spreaders on the first batch.
@Jay convection oven but I don't use the fan because it creates a temp gradient. Elements are electric and above the cookies (as opposed to gas jets at the bottom)
@GdD thank you for the visual compliment. It's the spreaders that concern me: see the 2 bigger cookies in the photo. They're lovely with the crusty edge, but often prone to breakage and adhesion to other cookies (bad for my wholesale accounts)
I had the same problem until I learned how to stop it. Here is how. When you drop your dollop of cookie dough onto your cookie sheet, press it down so it's "pre-spread" out. Then you'll more reliably have right sized and shaped cookies because the dollop isn't melting down so much. You don't need to squash it all out full sized, just push it down so it's not ball shaped anymore.
It helped me a lot with choco-chip cookies.
Glad to know someone else had the issue. Let me try your suggestion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.241821
| 2016-02-15T16:32:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66526",
"authors": [
"Clare Ralph",
"Frances Spencer",
"GdD",
"Heather",
"Jay",
"Ross Ridge",
"Valerie Carruthers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47211
|
What is the smoking point of salmon fillet oil?
What is the smoking point of salmon fillet oil cooking in oven (baked in a foil parcel)? (could be a range)
There is one Q&A at What is the best time and temperature for taste when cooking a salmon fillet in the oven?, but it doesn't answer what's the smoking point.
I don't understand your question. What is "salmon filet oil"? Also, why are you asking such a question? Normally, you don't reach any smoking points in the oven.
Every oil has a smoking point and few times cooking salmon fillet at high temperature it produced a lot of smoke in the oven, therefore I'm wondering what's the smoking point of oil which is produced from cooking salmon fillet.
That depends on what oil you added, if any.
I didn't add any, but usually salmon fillet produces enough oil by it-self.
True, it's a fairly oily fish, but I've never seen oil leaking out of the flesh while cooking (the same way that solid fats can render on red meat, for example). The smoke could be coming from elsewhere. Not to be flip, but I think if your salmon is smoking, it's probably at too high a temperature. The accepted answer in your linked question advises a high temp to avoid drying out but that's less problematic when cooking in a properly sealed foil packet.
@kenorb I haven't seen salmon rendering fat in the oven. Nor have I seen an oven bringing a pool of oil to its smoke point, unless it was at the rotisserie setting. Maybe your fat dripped onto the bottom, or even the heating elements if they are exposed. This doesn't matter, because you don't eat this fat.
I wonder if the smoke point might depend on what all is suspended in the oil - for example, "whole" butter smokes at a much lower temperature than clarified butter which is just the oil without other milk components, and have heard similar things for "crude" vs refined forms of oils such as coconut. As to a salmon fillet exuding oil, I do remember seeing this years ago, but not recently. Perhaps the fat content of typical samples has changed, or perhaps it's just that my current convection oven can't get it anywhere near as hot as the ordinary oven I used to have.
According to this anecdotal Reddit post [1], salmon oil holds up to 460F, 232C. However, most fish oils are considered unstable and unsuitable for cooking as their Inherent Oxidation Stability is relatively high [2].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskCulinary/comments/7dx0cp/fish_oil_as_a_cooking_fat
[2] http://www.clovegarden.com/ingred/oilchart.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.242055
| 2014-09-17T15:45:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47211",
"authors": [
"Barbara Carson",
"Bronislava Čermanová",
"Chris Stratton",
"RichMazur",
"Rochelle C",
"Stephanie Pryor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kenorb",
"logophobe",
"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
}
|
86383
|
Which method of killing the lobster would cause the least pain and distress?
The most common way of killing a lobster is to put it into boiling water, however we can read on Wikipedia page that it is one of the methods which cause pain and distress.
The killing methods most likely to cause pain and distress are:
Placing crustaceans directly into boiling water
Placing crustaceans in slowly heated water to the boiling point
Placing marine crustaceans in fresh water
...
Secondly, we can read here about the following study:
Dan Ward, then a grad student at the University of New Hampshire, once hooked an electrode up to a Lobster heart for me and boiled it. The heart beat for 1 minute 53 seconds.
So the question is, what is the most humane way to kill a lobster?
meta question: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3430/is-this-cooking-adjacent-question-on-topic Yes, this is clearly cooking-related, but not everything cooking-related is within the scope of this site, so it is worth considering.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56059/lobster-death-freezer-vs-alcohol
Heart beating doesn't imply to be able to feel pain.
The conclusion from the meta question (possibly with skewed voting) is that this question is on-topic because it's part of the cooking process and answers can be supported with science, not just speculation. Note the post notice, in particular that insufficiently supported answers really may be removed.
Put the lobster in the freezer for about 30 minutes, it will basically be in a sleeping/coma state when you take it out. Then cut into its head lengthwise to destroy its brain before it wakes up.
Some people say that killing the lobster in a less stressful way gives the meat a better texture/flavor. But personally I have not been able to tell any difference.
EDIT: Another solution, though not a clean or popular method for lobster; If you destroy its brain faster than the speed pain travels through nerves, it would be dead before the pain reaches the brain. Could be accomplished by shooting it in the brain with a gun... a common method used to humanely kill many things.
It is generally accepted with the low order brain system in a lobster, it does not feel pain at least in the sense that high vertebrates do, but it does respond to stimuli. @Netduke's method is generally considered the method to allow the quickest and least chance of feeling. Do note though that allowing to chill for too long may result in a tougher product. Even 5 minutes in an ice water bath may be enough to put it into the sluggish "sleep" state though. It may well still move, but movement and nerve reflexes in muscles does not really equate to still feeling or pain.
@dlb Can you please provide a reference to scientific research backing up your claim? Lots of horrible things are "generally accepted" by the humanity.
@undercat Not the same as lobsters, but fish do not feel pain in the way humans do
@jakekimdsΨ Thanks, from the linked article, "at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it."
I used this method before I put the halves on a covered BBQ. I can tell you it is quite unnerving to hear two half lobsters trying to get out of there. Obviously the lobster's body is capable of movement for quite some time after it must, by all reason, be truly dead.
@oerkelens spoooooooky!!!!!!
Decapod crustaceans (like the lobster) is in some settings the defined boundary for which invertebrates feel pain. They are, for instance, legally protected from research in some countries (as in, you have to go through a process of applications in order to do experiments on them), which wouldn't be there if there wasn't at least some genuine worry that they feel pain.
@undercat - Whew! Well, as long as fish are used in a manner that's acceptable to society, no need to worry. ;) And as long as we're careful not to damage fish while turning them into paella.
It seems likely to me that simply ramming a knife through the Lobsters brain is likely to minimise pain, whilst putting it in a freezer seems like a process likely to cause lasting discomfort. The first of the two halves of this process, therefore, seems to me likely to make things worse not better.
In recipe of Lloyd Burgess from Masterchef for Lobster Fricassee, he said: "Live lobsters can be humanely killed by putting them in a plastic bag in the freezer for about two hours. They slowly lose consciousness and die.". Source: BBC.
I'm surprised shooting lobsters in the head is not more common. Shooting fish and gators with a gun seems pretty common these days.
Could I provide links to scientific research supporting generally accepted ideas, sure. But a cooking forum is really not the place to debate dogma and scientific definitions of high/low order brain functions and philosophical definitions of what constitutes pain, or if an animal that cannot produce endorphin can feel pain. They cannot feel pain as we do but we are incapable of knowing what they actually feel. The spectrum is full of extremists that would be satisfied by no answer, but the OP asked a cooking related question that calls for a best accepted answer.
This doesn't take into account the size of the lobsters brain. It's a tiny collection of cells, and you'd really have to remove the head to accurately destroy it. 1mm in the wrong direction with a knife and you would miss it completely. It's not a giant mass like we have. It's more like a few grains of sand.
I've not tried it personally, but I've heard good things about using clove oil to anesthetize the lobster (incidentally, the same link that the second quote in the question is pulled from).
The above link details a series of experiments done by Dave Arnold and Nils Noren on 7 different methods of killing lobsters, including the freezing mentioned by Netduke's answer. The article concludes that (when it comes to flavor at least)
Anesthesia [is] (still the best)
I can't speak to the objective difference in humaneness of killing method between this and something like freezing, but I suspect that isn't a question that's answerable.
Interesting --- Does the clove oil affect the taste of the cooked lobster?
@FedericoPoloni According to the article, if you follow the dosage they suggest, it does not.
Less of a practical suggestion but suffocation with a noble gas would not hurt a human and is being considered as a way to kill livestock. For a lobster this should work the same.
https://vimeo.com/83750163 video shows around the 30mins the effects on a human and 40mins for use in farms.
From what I heard, suffocation is a pretty nasty way to go? And even for noble gasses it's unclear whether they are making the victims unconscious quickly enough to be "painless". - There are general health warnings on He cylinders.
@Stephie it's not a case of how quickly they die, the body cannot detect an absence of oxygen, only the presence of carbon dioxide. If you were to be suffocated with a pillow then the lungs would be turn all the oxygen in the body into carbon dioxide trapped in the lungs, if you were able to breath but not take in oxygen then there would be very little carbon dioxide in your lungs. Watch the video.
@PStag, there is an oxygen drive to human breathing, called the hypoxic drive. It exists, but is very weak compared to the hypercarbic, or CO2 elimination drive. It is part of what makes carbon monoxide poisoning so nasty. CO binds to blood cells a lot like free oxygen, and it kills that drive.
Nitrogen works just as well and is much easier to get hold of
Carbon monoxide from your local car tail pipe may work too...
I was about to recommend this! Either NO2 or CO. You just basically fall asleep. Lots of dentists in the 50's died from nitrous masks. And people die in their sleep from CO from fires all the time. If I started a livestock plant, I would use nitrogen on the cows. This might not be the most practical thing for lobsters or cows, but that's probably why I'm not a farmer or fisherman.
Carbon monoxide works by binding to hemoglobin and converting it to carboxyhemoglobin. Lobsters do not have hemoglobin, they have hemocyanin, which has different dissociation curves and allosteric properties. It has the same or slightly weaker affinity for CO compared to O2. I would not recommend doing this unless you want to cause significant suffering. The same issue applies to the weak human hypoxic drive. This will not be the same for the arthropod superfamily. Please do not say "for a lobster this should work the same" after comparing it to a distant cousin on the phylogenetic tree!
@Chloe With CO you do not "basically fall asleep". You are in incredible pain, extremely nauseous, and confused and disoriented. Sometimes you even get severe amnesia and delusions. It is one of the worst and most painful ways to die.
@forest No you aren't! https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/nyregion/mother-and-son-1-die-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-in-car-during-snowstorm.html Why did they basically fall asleep? Why didn't they scream out in pain? I call BS on your statements!
@Chloe A quick Google can answer this for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning Symptoms are often described as "flu-like" and commonly include headache, dizziness, weakness, vomiting, chest pain, and confusion.[1] Large exposures can result in loss of consciousness, arrhythmias, seizures, or death.[1][2]. CO poisoning is not a peaceful way to go. It's not as bad as CO2 where it literally acidifies your brain, but it's still very unpleasant, nothing like NO2 where you just pass out. Not realizing you're poisoned != not suffering. It causes confusion.
See also http://www.newhealthadvisor.com/Carbon-Monoxide-Suicide.html, which explains the myths behind it being a "painless" way to die. Pure, 100% CO may knock you out before you feel much, but that is true with nearly any poison, even something as horrific as sarin. Perhaps also see https://www.quora.com/Is-death-by-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-inside-a-car-painful for a first hand account ALMOST dying from carbon monoxide poisoning from a broken furnace was extremely painful. The intensity of the piercing headache seemed to increase by the minute and made my migraines seem like holidays.
Martha Stewart once demonstrated a method of placing vodka in the water, and then putting the lobsters in. I guess they got drunk and then were pleasantly anesthetized when they died!
How long were they in the vodka -- quick dunk, soaking for a couple minutes, other?
I know Mom loves lobster and she swears by Steaming lobster. It was also the preferred method when I worked at a very popular Restaurant Chain.
Mom would start with warm water in the bottom of a pot. Then she put the lobster in on a rack to hold it clear of the water. Then she increased the heat, Pot uncovered, and timed it for something like 10 minutes after water came to a boil (putting the lid on the pot). She claimed the slower rise in heat knocked it out. All I know is the the lobster usually stopped moving when the first bubble formed and it never thrashed violently.
I can't be sure when exactly it died and whether it felt pain, but it seemed way better than just dropping it in boiling water.
I'd note only that "[p]lacing crustaceans in slowly heated water to the boiling point" is listed as one of the methods most likely to cause pain and distress in the OP's link and this method seems no different.
like I mentioned, the little beastie did not thrash or move about, soooo. I have no other objective measurements to use other that personal experience.
This seems like a good way too. At first it didn't sound good, but the lobster isn't touching the water. Think how relaxing and tired a steam room makes you? People have died in steam rooms for staying too long.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.242350
| 2017-12-14T14:56:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86383",
"authors": [
"Arthur",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Federico Poloni",
"JPhi1618",
"Jack Aidley",
"Jean-Baptiste Yunès",
"Morgan Thrapp",
"Netduke",
"Obie 2.0",
"PStag",
"Paul TIKI",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"forest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jkd",
"kenorb",
"oerkelens",
"undercat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44210
|
What is this type of hot plate and how do I use it?
We have this type of hot plate in our house. It has a raised centre section that depresses when a pot is placed on it. The temperature control has 10 graduations compared to 6 for the other 3 hot plates, which do not have the centre section.
We just tried use it to boil some oranges to make orange cake. The water started bubbling over so we turned it down to 3 but it still kept supplying a high heat. What is the centre part and how does this hot plate work?
Edit:
The other three plates do not have this centre section.
I have never seen such before. Is it an artefact?
I managed to locate the cooktop instructions. The hotplate is one with a thermostat control and the raised section is the temperature sensor.
From the instructions:
The right rear hotplate control is a thermostat.
The control may be set anywhere between low and high but must be turned anti-clockwise back to off.
This control switches the hotplate on and off to maintain the set temperature.
I used to have an electric oven with similar hotplates and while I can't find a reference because it was such an old model I recall it was a safety cut-off. It would simply stop supplying power to the hotplate once a pot was removed, something you could easily confirm by seeing what happens if you turn on one of the hotplates without anything sitting on top.
As for the question of usage electric hotplates often don't use a thermostat, they use something commonly referred to as a "simmerstat". They simply control the duty cycle of the heating element, so in your example setting of three it would spend approximately 30% of the time on and 70% off.
I've tended to spend most of my life cooking with them and can't really think of shortcuts to learning how to use one effectively other than experimentation and getting used to them. For example I was just cooking some dried chickpeas and while I started things off at around 7/10 to bring them to the boil I later dropped that to around 2/10 and as liquid evaporated it ended up spending most of the time at 1/10 and that was still a reasonably rapid simmer for a small pot.
Thanks for you answer. I just performed the test and without a pot it still becomes hot. Regarding the simmerstat, I also perform a similar thing - max temp till boiling and then turn it down. However I had this particular plate on and it was still giving full power. I wonder if it is broken. Still, why 10 graduations instead of 6 like the others? The others do not have this centre section.
I've had a simmerstat fail that would leave the plate on permanently so that's a possibility and may also explain why the cut-off doesn't work, but not sure on why it would have different graduations. Largely a guess but maybe that plate has a higher wattage so they've just included the cut-off on that one because it could overheat faster and used higher numbers so it's more consistent with the others.
Centre unit is a contact thermostat which measures the heat of the pan and also its contents. The graduations on the control knob are for you to set desired temperature of that thermostat, from hand hot (keeping something warm) to boiling vigorously.
Try putting a pan of water on the hotplate, then turn the knob to number 1. The hot plate will go to maximum briefly and then reduce to a low temperature, and then just turn on/off as required to maintain the temperature you set. Because the element is switching off/on every few seconds it won't look hot, but it will be. The central sensor is measuring the temperature of the pan (and therefore the temperature of the water you put in the pan) and is switching the element on and off to keep the water at the temperature you have selected.
It is ideal if you are heating milk and want it to be hot but not boiling. Set the knob to about number 2, but you will have to experiment to get the right temperature. Might be 1.5 to 2.5 (a very cold kitchen will need a slightly higher setting). Then you won't have the milk boil over on you.
Good for pressure cookers too because you can set the thermostat, by experiment, to about number 3 or 4. Heating element will glow red hot until pan reaches the set temperature and will then maintain that pan temperature for you. For a pressure cooker you want to set the temperature so that the steam pressure in the cooker is just lifting the pressure weight you set on the pressure cooker. Adjust the knob to achieve this. If you set the temperature too high you will have steam blasting out of the pressure cooker, which is an expensive waste of electricity and money.
Simmerstat control enables you to cook using minimum electricity, but you need to get used to it to make it work effectively. Remember that the control knob sets the temperature you want the pan (and its contents) to reach. You don't control the heating element, the thermostat does that for you. Always ensure the pan is centrally placed over the thermostat. If you pull the pan to one side of the ring, off the thermostat, then the thermostat will turn the element up to maximum because, without the heat from the pan, the thermostat will feel cold and turn the heat up. Always turn the knob to off before you remove the pan. That ring, used correctly, can save you a lot of money. Good luck.
The centre piece is a thermostat connected to the control knob of the cooking plate.
It is from quit an old cooking top.
Hello, and welcome to our site. We are not here just to enable discussion between people, we are trying to build up a reusable reference of interesting questions and their solutions. So it is against the rules to 1) ask a new question in an answer, and 2) to request others to send you an answer via a personal communication channel such as e-mail. You can open a new question asking about the availability of this part in your country, but the answers will have to be posted in public. You can select to get a mail notification when a new answer is posted to your question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.243420
| 2014-05-18T05:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44210",
"authors": [
"Alex Busby",
"Commercial CCTV Installation",
"Cynthia",
"Jennifer Lawrence",
"Liu yuanyuan",
"Marilyn Cruz",
"Pamela Bowman",
"PeterJ",
"Philip Bain",
"Spammer",
"The Empty String Photographer",
"William Smith",
"Zohar Lapidot",
"geometrikal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"nunyuh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64298
|
What is the name of this Ukrainian bread?
As part of a welcoming ceremony, Vice President Joe Biden ate a certain type of bread in a salt and bread ceremony put on by the very hospitable Ukrainians in July of 2009.. It was not your every day loaf of bread though- it was very elaborate.
what is the name of this bread?
According to this site it is a bread called "korovai":
Korovai. A traditional braided wedding bread baked from wheat flour embellished with little dough flags and figurines (sun, moon, birds, animals, etc). Its origin is ancient, and it is a relic of the pagan belief in the magical properties of grain. Women prepared it while singing traditional wedding songs at the new home of the couple about to be married. The bride and groom were blessed with it before their marriage ceremony. At the wedding the korovai was kept in a prominent place, and the bride was greeted with it when she arrived at her new home. After the nuptials, the best man served it to all the guests; some scholars consider this ritual a manifestation of collective communion.
It's possible that the name and recipe is regional... as this site says that it's not the wedding bread but a variation of the Easter bread called "Paska", which is similar to Challah.
The Greeting Bread is basically the same recipe as the Easter Paska Bread, except that it has an indentation in the middle, for a small container of salt, accompanied by wine, which is used by the parents to greet the newlyweds, as they enter the reception hall. The parents, and the bride and groom, partake of the Greeting Bread dipped in salt, which symbolizes the bitter moments of life, followed by a sip of wine, which symbolizes the sweet moments in their married life. This also is a time when both families unite as one, and welcome the newlywed and their families into their family circle.
On this site, it seems to agree that korovai is correct, as the paska doesn't resemble the image you've included at all.
Ukrainian braided bread. This main ritual wedding bread has a circular form and is decorated intricately with birds, periwinkles, other ornaments made of dough. Ukrainian wedding bread is made of special dough similar to dough used for babka. Some other types of sweet bread can be used during wedding ceremony in addition to korovai — lezhen, dyven, shyshky.
...do you think somebody in Ukraine was trying to marry Joe Biden?
@logophobe I dunno, but he did say that Ukrainian women are the "most beautiful in the word" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/biden-tells-ukraines-pres_n_242162.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.243944
| 2015-12-11T01:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64298",
"authors": [
"Allison Schiller",
"Cheryl Larson",
"Dan Conrad",
"Dennis Pennington",
"Jeremy H",
"Sun Tae",
"Tammi Jenkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40418",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60254
|
Strange orange gel on surface of zucchini?
There's a strange orange gel-like substance on the surface of a zucchini that's been sitting in my kitchen for a few days. It's a bit like tiny globs of orange marmalade. Any idea what it could be? Is the zucchini going bad?
EDIT I tried wiping the "gel" off with a paper towel; it's firm, like resin.
That looks like a zucchini...? I suspect it's sugars from the fruit that are leaking out of the cut end, then water evaporating. Best to keep such fruits in the fridge. Is it soft, moldy, or otherwise showing signs of rotting?
@hoc_age: Definitely a zucchini.
@hoc_age Augh, you're right, it's a zucchini, of course. It does not seem soft/smelly/etc.
The cut end of your zucchini (courgette) looks like it's exuding some water/sap that was previously in the fruit. The colour is due to the rest of the "stuff" in the sap besides water: e.g., perhaps sugars, starches and other stuff. As the water evaporates, it looks like what you show in the picture, which will also explain the beads of goo being stiff or tacky. That is common to occur with certain fruits, especially squashes, and especially at the stem-end, as you're showing in your picture. You can see the same thing happen when cutting the fruit cross-wise (across the fibers), and especially with freshly-picked specimens. I notice this especially with fresh butternut squash.
Unless it's soft, moldy, or otherwise showing signs of rotting, it's probably fine to eat. Cut the ugly bit(s) off and discard just before using... or otherwise the newly exposed flesh will exude more sap! It's probably got some temporary protective properties against fluid loss.
With fresh (summer) squashes, at room temperature, they'll start to get starchy and soft rather quickly. Putting them in the refrigerator (i.e., humidity/temperature control) can slow this process, but you've really only got a few days until the fruit starts going downhill quickly. So in this sense, it is "going bad" -- this process starts as soon as it's picked! Eat it up. With winter squashes, on the other hand, you've got much more time.
Also, glad we've got the fruit type straight -- zucchini (courgette), not cucumber! :) Though a similar "weeping" of sap can also happen in cucumbers and other similar fruits.
Your zucchini (courgette) was loosing sap at the stem end. Apparently, someone by mistake cut the fruit and not only the stem, which will lead to "weeping".
The photo below shows an extremely fresh zucchini that was harvested midday in full sun (= lots of water rising within the plant) and then cut into the flesh, mimicking the cut on your specimen: Note the clear drops appearing within seconds.
This liquid is nature's way of "bleeding" and closing the wound, forming a scab-like layer on the fruit, preventing mold and bacteria from entering, at least up to a certain level. See below how these drops appear on a "wound" created by a vegetable peeler.
When the sap dries, it darkens and solidifies, turning orangeish. Unless you notice any soft spot or mold, your zucchini is absulutely fine. In fact, it "preserved itself". Cut off a slice at the former wound because the scab is dry and rubbery and use as usual.
It's a bit hard to see on the picture, but could they be cucumber-seeds? Some seeds create a gel-like covering before sprouting, and cucumber may be among them (You can observe when when sprouting cress on paper-towels or similar substrates, as well).
I am not sure about how it affects the edibility, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.244202
| 2015-08-26T04:23:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60254",
"authors": [
"Jimmie Galloup",
"Judith Quick",
"Kenneth Harvey",
"Kyle Strand",
"Lorna Walker",
"Nikki Brown",
"Reginald Ray",
"Satish Puri",
"Scar",
"Susan Sanders",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"coolest _guy345",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"stella kelly"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55259
|
Can seasoning be eaten without being cooked?
I use the steak seasoning for cooking steak (season on steak before being cook)
I love the seasoning so much that, even after fully cooked, I still add a lot to the steak, is it okay? Are there any side effect?
The stuff is shelf stable in a grinder. It should be fine without cooking.
There is no need to cook it, it's fine to eat straight out of the grinder. It's just green, black and pink peppercorns with dried garlic, salt and dried onion (ingredient list from Amazon).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.244546
| 2015-03-01T14:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55259",
"authors": [
"John Leslie",
"Kara Hackett",
"Louiza Skafida",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"edith argueta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45379
|
Deconstructed food; simple, complex or both?
This question was asked on English Language & Usage and deconstructed food is a term I'd never heard before.
One answer is that it is simply the constituent parts of a dish laid out separately on a plate allowing the consumer to reconstruct the dish manually as they eat it.
A second answer was put forward suggesting that deconstruction is taking an existing dish (or sauce), examining it's constituent parts and recombining them (or some of them) in a different way to get a similar (or better) complete dish.
Searching on the internet shows a lot of the former (simple deconstruct), even for complex dishes that are normally prepared as a unit, like beef Wellington and lasagne.
It's harder to find references for the latter (deconstruct, examine, improve, reconstruct) but this is one for deconstructed onion soup, which is most definitely a single bowl of soup.
Edit : After reading TFDs comment I think I might have misunderstood the 'deconstruction' of the onion soup above, I think it means step-by-step instructions rather than deconstructed soup so after another search I did find this wonton soup that uses the term deconstructed in the sense I meant.
So my question is...
Does the term deconstructed food really mean separated constituents or does it mean improved or simplified by inspecting the constituents and recombining them differently?
...or does it mean both ?
A de-constructed onion soup should be a platter with a bowl of broth, a pile of slow roasted onions, some pieces of bread, and some melted sliced cheese :-)
@TFD I did find a deconstructed onion soup, just as you described. Please see my edit that has a link to a deconstructed wonton soup that better describes the second possible meaning.
@Frank The wonton link would be a pretty classic example of "separated constituents", it's kind of novel, but it's not some kind of brilliant improvement. 20 years ago the author of the recipe might have called it "Lazy Day Wonton Soup".
De-constructed wonton's with soup, awesome
This deconstructed guacamole is another example of recombining.
Does the term deconstructed food really mean separated constituents or does it mean improved or simplified by inspecting the constituents and recombining them differently?
Yes. (As in either can be correct)
It's about taking the various components of a dish and perhaps just separating them, or it may mean putting them back together in an unusual or novel way.
More than anything, "deconstructed" is a current, hip and trendy buzzword.
I've accepted this one as it does seem from all the information that both meanings are in relatively common use.
Deconstruction is often seen being done by chefs, where lavish attention has been paid on each element, so when deconstructed food is seen it is often "improved" as you say. That doesn't mean it has to be though, deconstructed simply means that ingredients are cooked separately and then assembled when they would usually be cooked as a whole.
You could make a deconstructed dish with cheap ingredients and poor technique and have it come out just as awful as if you made it all together, deconstruction does not imply quality.
I suspect "ingredients are cooked separately" is a big part of the de-construction benefits and presentation imporvements
In literature, "deconstruction" can mean "taking apart the pieces of a story and examining them in detail", or it can mean something more like "taking the usual building blocks of a story and twisting them in some way to draw attention to the assumptions we normally bring to a story". By analogy, deconstructing food can mean serving the pieces separately so you can savor the flavors independently or mixed to your pleasure, or it can mean taking the usual classic recipe and altering it to bring attention to some minor flavor note or make us re-examine how we view the dish.
This is the actual origin of culinary term. Back in the 80s, "deconstructionism" was all the rage in the liberal arts. It was part of that whole post-modernism, textualism fad. IMHO, a rather creepy movement in which a vast array of intellectuals asserted they infer the real thinking of authors, artist and even scientist based on disassembling a work into its constituent symbolic components. The culinary manifestation arose when some Nouveau Cuisine dishes were represented as being a symbolically disassembled traditional dish. Much more successful concept in cooking than elsewhere, I think.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.244653
| 2014-07-07T05:58:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45379",
"authors": [
"A. Wills",
"Ava Meh",
"David",
"Frank",
"Jolenealaska",
"MuYan556",
"Nikita Alcott",
"Peter Taylor",
"Scarlet",
"Sla Va",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"TechZen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"Надежда Григорьева"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62606
|
What kind of seaweed do I need for Japanese-style seaweed salad?
I've fallen in love with the seaweed salad from a local Japanese seafood buffet. What would be the most cost-effective way to obtain this kind of food in large quantities for regular eating? I would assume that making it fresh would be the best way.
As far as obtaining ingredients, I'm located on the east coast of the United States; so this isn't a native dish.
I'm also confused on the type of seaweed to look for. Google says that I'm looking for wakame seaweed but search results show many different varieties.
The specific type of seaweed salad I want appears to be "sesame seaweed salad".
Here is a photo of what I would like to make:
Do you specifically need to make it yourself? Most of the grocery stores in my area (particularly those that sell in-house sushi like Whole Foods) sell premade seaweed salad in the refrigerated foods section along with the sushi.
I bought a small container from Whole Foods today and the label read that it was priced at $23.95/lb. As it's probably not sold that often as a specialty item in western groceries, it's definitely cheaper to get takeout from a buffet.
Because we don't do recipe requests around these parts, I'm going to treat this as an ingredient question.
Japanese markets (and some online merchants, including Amazon) often sell dried versions of the seaweed mix that many restaurants use. It'll be sold as kaiso salad or seaweed salad. Some versions are better than others; some contain a ton of dyes that make the salad look unnaturally neon to my eyes, although the taste and texture is similar. Such blends typically contain wakame and other seaweeds, including agar agar noodles, for example.
If not included in the package, you can make a simple dressing based on toasted sesame oil and Japanese vinegar, in roughly a 1:3 ratio, or use sesame oil and lemon juice (maybe 1:1-1:2 ratio since it's more acidic). You may want to include soy sauce or salt. This is loosely in the category of sunomono, so it doesn't typically contain emulsifiers like mustard, but if you find it hard to blend you can use a touch of mustard or something like lecithin or a stabilizer like xanthan gum.
I'm Japanese, and that actually looks more like the seaweed salad used more commonly by Koreans. It is eaten with a sesame-scented dressing. Where I live, Korean foods sold at the Asian store, such as seaweed, are cheaper than their Japanese counterpart. I think I saw this type of seaweed is sold in 500g packs in the fridge or freezer.
More common to Japanese are kaiso-salad packs, which tend to be mixes of different types of seaweed (of different colours and textures-green, purple etc) and sold in much smaller packs that are either ready to eat, or dehydrated - and more expensive.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.245138
| 2015-10-18T01:13:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62606",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Crystal Eugster",
"Gayl Cato",
"Kaleena Hill",
"Melissa Brown",
"Su Walker",
"Tammy Jackson",
"Yusriya Manaal Khuram",
"Zhro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40099"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57267
|
Effects of elevated storage temperature on bread quality
It's pretty well-known and scientifically established that rather cool temperatures are bad for bread: putting your bread in the refrigerator will tend to dry it out and accelerate chemical reactions in the starches that cause staling (as discussed, for example, in some answers to this question). Freezing, on the other hand, stops some of those reactions and is a common method for maintaining bread quality for longer storage. Regardless of quality issues, both types of cooling will help to prevent molding, so there are trade-offs.
My question is: what happens when we store bread at warmer temperatures, say in the 90-130F range (about 35-55C)? How will quality be affected? Will the shelf-life be altered? Are the effects only good, only bad, or mixed? I'm particularly interested in short-term holding (less than a day) at elevated temperatures.
Also, are there any food safety issues raised by a practice like this (i.e., worse than bread storage at room temperature)? Bread is not a particularly good growth medium for bacteria, but I imagine that Bacillus cereus or something might be at least a potential concern.
[Background, for those who are curious: The reason I ask this question is because I sometimes need to store bread temporarily in a hot car. The only bakery near me that I trust to make decent bread sometimes has "day-old" bread on sale for half price. Their normal prices are, to my mind, excessively high; so if I can't buy their loaves for half-price, I usually just make bread myself. Occasionally, I'll pick up some loaves on the way to work, but it's inconvenient to take them back home immediately. And while I have sometimes carried them into work with me, it would be easier to just leave them in my car. I also can't pick up the bread on the way home, because the half-price bread (when they have it) generally sells out by mid-morning. Although I can sometimes park under a tree or something, the reality is that the summer sun will often raise the temperature of my car interior to above 100F. Thus, the bread will be subjected to quite a few hours of elevated temperatures. I've done this once or twice without a major change in quality, but I'm wondering if there are benefits to justify the inconvenience of keeping it near room temperature.]
if it's not an SUV or hatchback, you might consider the car trunk -- it tends to not get as hot quickly as it's not a greenhouse.
@Joe - thanks, that's good advice. I have thought about that and did put it in the trunk the last time I did it. But, as measured for example here, it's still likely the trunk will get above 100F on hot days. But I'm also wondering whether the moderately elevated temperatures will actually cause harm and how much, or whether it's possible if they might actually slow some staling processes or something.
Summary:
If the loaf is kept at an elevated temperature in a plastic bag for a period of 6-12 hours I believe you will see little to no difference compared to storing at room temperature.
Stored at an elevated temperature in a paper bag the loaf will start to dry out to a noticeable extent.
Note that the answer below does not address possible food safety issues.
Long-winded details:
My previous answer provided some information up to 36°C (97°F). Since the question asks about the temperature range 35-55°C I did some amateurish experimentation of my own.
Using my fan assisted oven at the lowest setting, I halved a store bought sourdough loaf and placed one half in the oven overnight and kept the other half at room temperature (25°C).
I should note that my oven temperature fluctuates between ~37°C and ~47°C (99-117°F) measured using using a Thermapen at various intervals. I'll also note that I wrapped the loaf-half that went into the oven in a tea towel to protect it from the oven fan.
In the morning I taste tested the two loaf-halves. The room temperature loaf had started to stale slightly but the half from the oven had also started to dry out. It was noticeably more difficult to cut through the loaf-half from the oven and I saw about 8mm of visibly dried bread extending inwards from the outer surfaces.
This test was quite obviously flawed in that you would neither use a tea towel to wrap your bread whilst in the car, nor would you first cut the loaf in half.
The next experiment I did used 5 smaller loaves of the same variety, from the same store. I placed two in a plastic bag and two more in the paper bag in which the loaves were purchased. The fifth loaf I kept at room temperature in order to compare later.
Using the same oven setting I kept the bagged loaves in the oven for 6 hours. After six hours I removed two loaves, one from each bag, and taste tested.
Comparing a small slice of the loaf from the plastic bag to a slice from the room temperature loaf I sensed no obvious difference. The loaf from the paper bag was noticeably drier. I marked the loaves from the oven and saved them for comparison again later.
Keeping the remaining two loaves in the oven for a further 6 hours, I did another taste test this morning.
The loaf that had been kept at room temperature had now slightly but noticeably started to stale. Comparing this to the 12 hour loaf from the plastic bag I noticed hardly any difference. I really couldn't say whether one was less stale than the other. Comparing the 12 hour loaf from the paper bag, once again drying was pronounced.
I also made a second comparison using the loaves that had been taken out at 6 hours. Again I sensed no obvious difference between the loaf from the plastic bag and the room temperature loaf. The 6 hour loaf from the paper bag was no less dry than it had been 6 hours before.
Update:
I followed up on @Athanasius question from the comments and did another test with the oven fan switched off. This time I had to fight with the oven thermostat to stay within the temperature range but managed to stay just under 130°F. I tested three small loaves of the same variety and from the same store as the previous tests. Again, I kept two in the oven in paper and plastic bags, and one at room temperature (also in a paper bag). As well as taste testing I also weighed the loaves before and after the test. Here are the figures for weight loss after 6 hours:
Elevated temp, plastic bag: no measurable weight loss
Elevated temp, paper bag: ~7% weight loss
Room temp, paper bag: ~4% weight loss
While I don't have any objective means for comparing dryness from the previous experiment (I didn't weight the loaves in the previous test) it does seem like the oven fan led to increased drying. As a subjective measure I offer the fact that following yesterdays testing I discarded both the 6 hour and 12 hour loaves from the paper bag, but this morning I found the loaf from the paper bag good enough for breakfast despite the drying.
The words in the summary are, however, still correct: stored at an elevated temperature in a paper bag a loaf will start to dry out to a noticeable extent.
This is very interesting work! Thanks for going to this trouble. My only question about this is the effect of the oven fan and how much it may have contributed to the drying out. Even when a loaf is covered by a towel or a paper bag, the fan will likely still increase moisture loss compared to a still environment. Nevertheless, this is still good data to have.
This article indicates that the elevated temperature would retard staling,
It has been shown that changes in the starch contributes about 93, 50
and 20 percent of the total crumb firmness at 20°C, 30°C and 36°C,
respectively, during five days of storage. The results imply that
changes in the starch in the crumb are about one-half and one-fourth
as fast at 30°C and 36°C., respectively, than at 20°C. The results
suggest that at elevated temperatures, some factor (changes in protein
or moisture redistribution or both) in addition to the starch plays an
important role in the firming process undergone by bread.
If anyone can offer some insight into how "crumb firmness" is measured that might help with understanding the statements above.
I've asked the author for sources and I'll update this answer if he is forthcoming with that information.
Update:
The author of the article, Noël Haegens, was good enough to get back to me. Here is his reply in its entirety:
The information is based on my personal experience. It is a known fact
that the speed of staling depends on the temperature (Avrami constant
- retrogradation kinetics). The maximum speed is around 0ºC and becomes less and less as the temperatures rises (or drops below -7ºC).
When I was working for a large industrial bakery we made tests keeping
the bread at 35ºC (we even put air-conditioning in a truck) and
measured the softness of the bread after 1, 4 and 7 days. The results
were compared with bread stored at 0ºC. And indeed the bread stored at
a higher temperature was softer.
The only thing which we “forgot” to take into account is that the
bread stored at higher temperature got moulded quicker than the bread
stored at 0ºC
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.245398
| 2015-05-07T13:52:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57267",
"authors": [
"Andrew Aristides",
"Andrew OBrien",
"Athanasius",
"Frank Hammond",
"Gregory Martzke",
"Joe",
"Laila Hillmann",
"Mary Lee",
"Murali Marath",
"Rita Gitendorfa",
"Sebastian Nuxoll",
"Tanya Vickers",
"Yvonne Bekvalac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"trevor proctor"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62518
|
Can alcohol extraction be used to draw more of the spice flavors out in chai tea concentrate?
I make chai concentrate by:
Quickly boiling ginger puree twice (each time for about 20-30 minutes).
Boiling the spices (bruised/coarse-ground) for about an hour, removing the liquid, then repeating with fresh water several times.
Concentrating the result of the spice steeping by simmering it uncovered for several hours.
Brewing the tea seperately (two steepings of no more than 5 minutes, allowing the leaves to rest in between infusions).
To clarify exactly what I'm asking:
Could I add grain alcohol (Everclear, etc) to the spices during the last steeping to pull more flavor out of the spices after they have already been infused with water several times; or would it make more sense to just do a separate alcohol extraction, then add it back to the finished product?
I've read that much of the flavor in spices cannot be extracted with water, and must be extracted using a stronger solvent. I don't want to just drop alcohol extractions into my water and call it chai though, so I thought it might work as a final step to squeeze the last of the flavor from the spices.
It seems that I never get as much flavor as traditional brewers who use milk at the beginning (likely due to enzymes in the milk was my assumption) so I thought I could science a way to do the same without adding the milk to the equation since milk is obviously not stable enough to store for long periods of time
The milk fats are probably what are sopping up the spices; alcohol also does this, though has an evaporation problem, so I'm not sure how effective it would be. ("On Food and Cooking" I do not recall saying anything about long-term spice use with alcohol.)
Your flavors can be grouped in water soluble and oil soluble. Alcohol now is a mixture - some oil soluble flavors are also soluble in alcohol. These are phenylpropanoids, like Coumarin or all flavors that are themselves based on alcohol, like Hexanol. Alcohol is not a better extractor for flavors, just one with shared properties of water and oil, without covering the whole range!
Now we get to the core of your question:
Those flavors, that are dissolved in alcohol/oil, are much more stable in alcohol/oil than in water. What you smell during brewing are actually oil soluble flavors that went: "I'd rather dissolve in air than water." When you use boiling water, you are losing flavor that could have been extracted with alcohol.
In order to pull most flavors out of the ingredients, you should therefore first extract most flavors with alcohol and then use boiling water. Also, there is no reason to not use fat/oil, too. While milk is unstable, fat itself is very, very stable. If you ever get one of those Asian cup noodles, you will notice that there is a small packet with fat inside together with dried spices. The fat is not there to increase the nutritional value, but contains the oil soluble flavors.
Capitol response (again). How then could I manage to extract these flavors into the concentrate? (The fat soluble flavors.) I've done a bit of reading on the topic & it seems that (traditionally) beverage makers used emulsifiers to accomplish it, but the most widely used one (glycerol ester of wood rosin) is under fire from people who believe it to have health risks. This problem has become something of an obsession with me recently, but I have no experience with beverages, only with foods really (so I haven't had to solve these sorts of conundrums).
@AVLien I think there is a level of perfection that you can only reach by a lot of experimentation or professional education. You might want to check out literature about cocktails, too, for example the bacon-infused bourbon.
You are right to point out the bourbon. I have stumbled across that in several forums. I have also found some useful information in the beer brewing forums. It seems that I am getting a more complete flavor by (as you suggested) boiling the spices, then extracting the remaining flavor using alcohol.
Another point I came to realize after my initial failures was that the flavors would remain dissolved in the water up to a specific temperature, then they boiled off. Going to try some "cold brew" experiments soon. Will keep you posted (if you are interested).
@AVLien When you have figured out the best method for you, you should add it as new answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.246416
| 2015-10-14T05:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62518",
"authors": [
"AVLien",
"Cindy Sanders",
"John Hammond",
"Merry Carmichael",
"Rachel Condie Thoerig",
"Robert Cotton",
"Wayne Puhr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40009",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63433
|
What are the white tendrils at the bottom of these garlic cloves?
What are the white tendrils at the bottom of these garlic cloves? Are they the beginning of new roots? I'm afraid they are indications of fungus or mold.
I'll leave answering to more informed people, but from the pictures, nothing screams out "fungus" or "mold", while everything seems to say "roots". Does it smell fungal or moldy? Any discoloration? Is it more pettable than you'd like your average garlic to be?
It smells fine (wonderful even, it is really strong garlic), and is extremely juicy and tastes very fresh. Still, I was just curious - especially because i was preparing a concoction using this garlic raw to treat a sinus infection. Didn't want to be addressing one problem while causing another....
Smart, better safe than sorry. If people here don't know, people over at gardening might know more, although I'm not sure they accept questions in this form, so you might need to rephrase it a bit.
Those are garlic roots, no reason to worry.
If you plan to use these cloves, note that they are about to leave the dormant stage and start to sprout, so make sure you remove the green sprout in the middle of the clove. It is rather likely to have turned bitter now.
I found this video on youtube, which shows the roots forming on a garlic clove; in a rather early stage you can clearly see the little stubs your garlic has.
Sprout is easiest to remove by cutting the ends off and smashing the clove ... it detaches relatively cleanly after that.
@rackandboneman ... if you are planning to smash or finely chop the clove. Not a good idea if you want slices or whole cloves.
Lightly smashing a sprouted clove will usually break it into two to four relatively even pieces.
These are roots, just cut them off. Sometimes you might get a sprout coming out of the top, that's fine too.
Garlic sprouts after being exposed to cold, if you store garlic in your fridge it is likely to sprout, so store it at room temperature or a cool but not cold place.
I grow a field of garlic, your picture shows nascent roots. I eat the sprouts and have never noticed a bitter flavour.
If you want to keep your garlic from going off, wrap it in some kitchen roll at room temperature. The paper helps so much in prolonging the life of your clove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.246807
| 2015-11-13T19:08:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63433",
"authors": [
"Alison Govan",
"GWBridgeUK",
"Gillian Haim",
"Jodi Tallman",
"Ken Soon",
"Kevin Myers",
"Meltiah Nye",
"Silas Mahagwa",
"Stephie",
"Upsfedex Dhl",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40753",
"rackandboneman",
"traggatmot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57380
|
My Yakisoba came out bitter! How can I reduce the bitterness?
We made this Yakisoba recipe last week, but the noodles came out tasting more bitter than we'd like. I added soy sauce to mine, but that mostly just drowned out the bitterness.
What can we do with this recipe to make it less bitter? I like Yakisoba, so I want to try to make it work rather than having something different. But I'm afraid that if I add something (like sugar) it would change the recipe's flavor too much.
Did you make any ingredient substitutions?
@GdD Nope. Decided to go with the ingredients as written. Added a little more cabbage as suggested, but that doesn't seem to have impacted the flavor too much.
Did you taste the cabbage on its own? Sometimes it has a bit of a mustard-y/bitter quality to it. (I've been told that 'mountain cabbage' in West Virginia is particularly prized for not having this issue, but I don't know if that's a climate issue, cultivar or regional soil thing like Vidalia onions)
@Joe Yes actually I did (I'm strange in that I like raw cabbage) and it tasted fine. The noodles themselves tasted more bitter than I feel they should have.
I'm at a bit of a loss providing advice on this issue because I've never heard of it (short of burning the ingredients in the dish). There's a very, very slight bitterness in proper ramen-style noodles because of the alkali content of kansui (potassium carbonate and sodium carbonate or bicarbonate in water solution), but in typical noodles of reasonable quality I would expect the bitterness to be lower than, say, the outer skin of a pretzel.
To me it sounds like you've stumbled on poor quality noodles, or you're hypersensitive to the very mild alkali content. You might consider looking for Chinese egg noodles instead, which have a similar color but may have less or no kansui, or you might try a completely different noodle, such as udon, and make yaki-udon instead. Alternatively, consider trying a different brand of noodles, or a different form (dry instead of refrigerated, frozen instead of dry, etc.) One local brand of refrigerated noodles meant for yakisoba available where I live (Seattle) has been so inconsistent in quality for me that I skip it and go straight to the (probably imported) frozen ones in our market. (Dry ones will require brief boiling), but in my case our complaint was about texture, not bitterness. Switching out for a different supplier may resolve your issue.
ETA: It occurs to me that if you were starting from dry noodles, you may encounter rancidity with unusually old ones. That's a bit more aggressive than just bitterness, but I've seen it on occasion with long-forgotten packaged noodles; it was obvious before cooking, though, so I've just tossed them.
Actually, considering we were using an instant pack of microwaveable noodles, bad noodles is entirely possible. So our solution may be as simple as no longer using those low-quality noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.247045
| 2015-05-11T14:11:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57380",
"authors": [
"Catherine Wilkin",
"Dana A",
"David Cearnal",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Maegan Pereira",
"Mark schuhmann",
"Paula Laney",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71648
|
Challah braids melding together
I am trying to make Challah using this recipe, and the bread tastes good, but the braids are melding together like this:
What is going on here? I am kneading using the slap-and-fold technique without adding any extra flour, and I am testing the gluten formation using the window pane test. I am a novice baker, so I cannot rule anything out though. I am withholding some flour to use while shaping, but I usually have about 1/4-1/2 cup left over. Is the dough too moist?
I have posted this gallery showing some of the process, so hopefully that is helpful. Thanks!
nbren, welcome! Could we see a picture of the inside, please? Just kow the cut side looks? Thanks!
Making sure you properly get a tight skin around the dough ball is important to get it to rise rather than spread ... I don't know if there might be a similar problem here. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64996/67
I am not sure if the skin is tight enough. Here is a picture of the cut loaf. http://i.imgur.com/yd0JyNgh.jpg
There's nothing wrong with your dough, it looks like you are getting a good rise out of it, which is what you want. I can't see you wanting to mess with success.
What you need to do is adjust your rolling and braiding technique to take into account how much rise you are going to get. Try rolling out your braids a bit thinner and braiding them much looser, this will give the bread more space to expand. If you need a shorter and wider end result try a 5 strand braid instead of a 3. It may take a few tries to get it right but practice in this case is perfect.
It looks like you've got a heat problem from your picture, one of your loaves is torched! If you are using a fan oven turn the fan off and use a non-fan mode, or if that's not possible try creating a wind-break with a piece of tin foil to keep your loaves out of the direct path.
The old-fashioned "rotate halfway through baking" (ie, open the door and swap loaf positions) may also help with evenness. As might the "question artisinal dogma" approach of lowering the temperature a tad if your bread is scorching. I find a fan (convection) more likely to help evenness rather than hurt it, but time may need to be reduced.
It depends on the fan I suppose. My oven has a fan burst mode, it comes on a few seconds a minute to keep the temps evened out. I also use a pizza stone which keeps things even, so I don't rotate and I get good results. If I use my oven's fan it will burn things crispy.
Yah. The loaf on the right did get torched. I'm cooking at my parents house, so I don't know if I'll have this problem in my own oven. Would tenting the load with aluminum foil help? I will try changing up my braiding technique for my next loaf.
Changing my rolling technique helped a lot. For each braid, I formed the dough into a mini-loaf by folding/sealing the dough a couple of times. Then, I let it rest until the dough was more pliable (~5 minutes) and rolled it by hand to the desired length. I think the rest was key.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.247310
| 2016-07-25T05:38:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71648",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nbren12"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55262
|
How do I clean deep burns in my oven?
So our apartment has an oven that, without fail, creates considerable smoke when we use it. And we've been trying to clean it as best we can with baking soda and vinegar, along with Bon Amie powder cleanser, but we can't get it to come out.
Here's what the inside looks like:
Other than hours upon hours of scrubbing, is there anything we haven't tried yet that we could do to get these burn stains out?
3M "Paint & Varnish Remover" disc (9413NA) in a portable drill and a paste of scouring powder and water. Remove the door for easier access, oven doors usually close to a slight open position, and then lift out of the hinge. Be careful of the hinge, it has a powerful spring (keep fingers away).
I trust you've already tried leaving a hot, wet (just water) cloth on it for a while, which may work if its sugar, as opposed to grease.
As long as your oven manual allows (it typically will, unless its a self-cleaning or continuous-cleaning oven), oven cleaner, which is basically caustics such as lye and solvents. Easy-off is a common brand in the US. Note, BTW, oven cleaner is one of the products where you actually want to read and beware the cautions on the side of the can.
Also, unless you actually see the black stuff on the bottom smoking, I'd guess its more likely to be the brown stuff everywhere else.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.247666
| 2015-03-01T16:23:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55262",
"authors": [
"Callie Clough",
"Janet Roy",
"Kristina Todek",
"Maxine Click",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131320"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59049
|
Should beef be cooked before adding to the pot for Stroganoff?
I'm following a recipe for Beef Stroganoff in a slow cooker. The recipe does not say whether I should cook the stewing beef at all before adding it to the slow cooker.
I tend to thoroughly brown meat for things like chili or adding it to stir-fry, but should I be doing this for stroganoff*? Or should I add it to the slow cooker raw?
*The question of 'how much browning' is mostly answered here, though if Stroganoff is different enough from stew to make a difference, please answer as such.
Not at all for tenderness but flavorwise you will get a much better experience.
Brown it nicely (butter is your friend) and you will have a very meaty/nutty tasting stroganoff.
This is just repeating SAJ14SAJ's answer in your question.
SAJ14SAJ's answer from where?? If you're going to quote something, you should link to it.
@Catija Sorry it was linked in the question.
@Catija I'm not enough rep to mark for duplicates.
You can flag for duplicates though
The recipe does not indicate that the beef should be browned before cooking and there is no need to. Per the instructions, all ingredients except the cream cheese go into the slow cooker together at the start. If it was intended for you to brown the beef first, that instruction would have been included.
The long, slow cooking should ensure that the meat will be tender and flavorful. Additionally, as in the picture of the dish, the beef cubes for stroganoff are on the small side. That should be additional insurance that your beef will be tender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.247811
| 2015-07-13T16:31:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59049",
"authors": [
"Anthony Pham",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Catija",
"Nate Carson",
"Spammer",
"Terry Steel",
"TriWest Veterans PTSD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33808",
"nicoleen fouche"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45977
|
How do you coat perfectly round truffles with melted chocolate?
How do you coat perfectly round truffles with melted chocolate. Preferably with the least amount of mess. Normally, I just dip the truffle into a bowl of melted chocolate and remove the truffle with a spoon. I then will place them on a sheet of wax paper.
However, this leaves my truffles looking ...well not so round. The chocolate drips down causing the truffle to have a flat surface. And the ball is not smooth.
The recipe I am following can be found here and an example is shown below:
Have you ever had a truffle with perfectly round liquid-glaze coating? It's next to impossible. Dipped truffles are not supposed to be round. Spherical truffles are typically rolled in things like coconut flakes or cocoa powder, not dipped.
You can probably get a little closer by using slightly cooler or thicker chocolate, but I'm with @rumtscho. Perfectly round chocolate-covered truffles are pretty much a fantasy. Besides which, they'd just roll away :(
@logophobe there are a few commercial round chocolates like Mozartkugeln, that's why I said "next to impossible" in a comment instead of writing a "certainly impossible" answer. But I doubt that the industrial processes are easily repeated in a home kitchen. Still, I'd love to see an answer which proves me wrong.
@rumtscho I was discounting commercial candies as well, but I actually have an idea now...
@rumtscho Y'all are being a bit too obsessive here - you can do better without being perfect!
Coat the truffles in a zero-G environment, eg aboard ISS or by dropping them down an elevator shaft while the chocolate is cooling. (For the latter approach, evacuate the elevator shaft to avoid air resistance spoiling the chocolate's surface.) Or float them in an inert gas of the same density as the truffles.
@Jefromi I reacted to the question title, which does ask for perfection after all :) Personally, I don't discriminate truffles by looks and just devour them.
How to say this gently... in the posted picture, lack of perfect roundness is the least of your problems. Work on your chocolate melting technique first, then you can address the finer points.
@rumtscho If it makes it more clear and less subjective, the question can be changed to not include the word "perfectly."
@Marti It was my first attempt at making truffles, I will work on my melting technique for sure.
I don't know about perfectly round, but you can do better.
Stick toothpicks in the truffles before dipping. Dip them using the toothpick, let it drip enough to make sure there's not a ton of excess, probably while spinning it a bit to let it cool slightly and make sure it doesn't all accumulate in one place. Then stab the other end of the toothpick into something to hold it with the truffle at the top. (A block of foam works, as does cardboard, though you might need to pre-poke holes.)
This avoids having a lot of excess coating chocolate, which it looks like you're getting a lot of when scooping out with a spoon. There can still be a little excess, but it'll drip down the toothpick, not get smeared all over. It also avoids having to mess up any of the surface by touching it with the spoon.
Beyond that, they'll be as perfectly round as you managed to roll the centers, which is mostly just a matter of a bit of practice and obsessiveness. So they won't be perfectly round, but they'll be a lot smoother and rounder, definitely enough to impress people. You do get a small hole on one side of the truffle, possibly with a tiny bit of excess chocolate around it where it collected against the toothpick, but I don't think that's terribly ugly. Plus as long as a decent fraction are pretty, you can just eat your mistakes.
Here's what a friend and I managed on our first try:
As you can see, they're definitely not perfect. But we got better at it as we went along. A lot of the irregularities are from initial inexperience, variation in chocolate temperature (we didn't have a great water bath or hot plate setup), and simply not having terribly round centers.
Finally, you might want to practice tempering the chocolate a bit better. Having nice glossy smooth surface makes them look a lot cleaner even if they aren't perfect.
There are a lot of good answers here for simple methods to do a bit better, but I thought I'd add a couple ideas for getting closer to professional quality results.
Tempering
Anytime you buy chocolate-coated truffles, they'll be coated in tempered chocolate. Tempering is a process of encouraging the formation of the "right" structure in chocolate that will give the final product a glossy shine and a crisp snap.
When you buy chocolate, it comes in tempered form. When you melt the chocolate, you usually lose the structure. The recipe you referenced tries to shortcut the process by encouraging you to barely melt the chocolate. This works, but it's difficult to do reliably. In order to keep your chocolate "in temper," it must stay below ~90 deg F. The alternative (and much more reliable) method is to completely melt the chocolate and then "seed" it to encourage the growth of the right kind of crystals. A good introduction can be found here:
http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2005/08/tempering-choco/
Hand-dipping - The best you can do without (much) equipment
Picking the right chocolate
Commercially, truffles are either molded or enrobed. The easiest process to replicate at home in enrobing. In a chocolate shop, they use a big machine that pours a waterfall of tempered chocolate over pieces as they move along a conveyor belt. It's a really cool process, but not something you can do at home. Luckily, you can get pretty close with hand dipping.
You need to pick a chocolate with a lot of cocoa butter. When you buy chocolate commercially, you can choose among couvertures (the fancy name for chocolate) with different percents of cocoa butter. (And, if you're curious, retail outlets like Chocosphere make these available to regular people.)
In the store, your best bet is to look for blocks of chocolate aimed at baking. For example, Callebaut is a very well-known couverture maker and you can often find blocks of their chocolate in grocery stores:
The higher percentage of cocoa butter will have the effect of making the chocolate thinner when melted. This means it'll roll off the truffle and form a thin coating, rather than a thick one that will drip down as it dries.
Dipping
The second trick, as others have mentioned is how you hold the piece as you dip it. You want to fully submerge the the piece of make sure every side has been exposed to chocolate, then you want to get as much of the chocolate as possible to fall back into the bowl before you place the chocolate on wax paper or Silpat to dry.
A fork is usually a better choice than a spoon because it will let more chocolate escape. A still better choice is a specialized dipping fork. They come in a lot of varieties:
Yes, people really use all of these for different shaped things they dip. My personal favorite for round truffles is the shape labelled 8 in this picture, but everyone has their own preferences.
The Result
With this technique, you can get results that look like this:
Note the small "foot" at the bottom. They look great, but, if a perfect sphere is your goal, they're not quite there yet.
Magnetic Molds and the Perfect Sphere
So how about the truffles you buy that are totally spherical with no foot at all? Those are made with magnetic polycarbonate chocolate molds. This is probably more work than you want to do. Don't bother with whatever molds you find in the local craft shop, the pros only use polycarbonate molds for a reason - they work. Silicone and other types of cheap plastics will frustrate you and not produce a glossy result.
Round molds are actually two part magnetic molds with a top and a bottom. They look like this:
With these molds, the shell (the outer coating of chocolate) is formed first and then the filling is piped inside. This requires a filling that's still liquid when it's piped. This is why you'll notice that chocolates like this almost always have a softer filling than those that look like the hand-dipped style.
Really great answer! I guess toothpick (or longer skewers) are a decent approximation of the dipping forks that you'd already have in your kitchen.
Another technique is to truly hand-dip the centers in the coating, i.e. using no tool, just your (clean) bare hands. It takes a lot of practice, though.
The problem with toothpicks is that you'll always have a hole in the shell, which will reduce the shelf life slightly and have obvious aesthetic effects. (Unless of course you leave the toothpicks in...) Of course, most people find that shelf life is not particularly important as getting people to eat chocolate in less than a week has never been much of a struggle.
@JudeChristopherD'souza Here they are on Amazon.
@Computerish - might be possible, once the shell is cool and sturdy, to remove the toothpick and dab a little melted chocolate on it to seal the hole. If one is careful to use very little and rub it smooth, it might not be casually noticeable.
Don't use a spoon for dipping the truffles -- use a fork.
This allows you to give them a shake, and get the majority of the chocolate off the truffle, leaving a consistent thickness of chocolate coating (assuming your chocolate is at a temp where it's flowing well)
Then use a toothpick or a skewer to knock the coated truffle onto your waxed paper, or do what Jefromi did and use toothpicks to make a little forest of them.
They won't be perfect, but they'll be better than what you have in that picture without too much additional effort.
The commercial method would involve rolling - if you keep the confection moving as it cools it will end up more-or-less spherical even if you start with a cube. Coat core -> chill with air -> move to rollers. Obviously temperature control is critical, as is the size, shape, velocity etc of both the product and the equipment.
As mentioned, this is rather impractical for a home kitchen.
What IS practical is half-round moulds. Cut your core in half, cast each piece separately and then fuse the hemispheres with some flash-heat from a gas torch (you want to melt about a millimeter of it). The seam can be polished out without too much difficulty, biggest problem will be weight gain from 'disposing' of the ones that don't work.
The ones that do work need to be 'disposed of', too!
LOL! My mother once worked at a chocolate factory, but had to quit due to health reasons: she gained too much weight. People kept telling her that she would get sick and tired of chocolate if she was exposed to enough of the stuff, but she never did.
A simple solution would be to let them partially cool on the wax paper. Aim for them to be mostly hardened but still pliable. Then, carefully pick them up and roll them between your palms (latex gloves would be a very good idea). This should smooth the outer layer and allow you to get them much closer to spherical.
I believe this is the same method recommended by Alton Brown, if I remember correctly. I'll update once I can dig up the transcript.
This will make them rounder, but will destroy the shine which is a large part of dipped truffle aesthetics. It is unclear that a chocolatier striving for perfection will give up the shine for more roundness. Still, nice to know there are trade offs.
If you use a toothpick when dipping the truffels you can remove the excess by spinning them, after you have the desierd shape you can dip them in cold water which will set the chocolate. Allow them to cool proberly then remove them from the toothpicks. You can then, with a heated implement, seal the holes made by the picks and smooth over any imperfections. Worked for me :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.248009
| 2014-07-29T21:17:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45977",
"authors": [
"Adrian Carolli",
"Bilal Qadri",
"Cascabel",
"Computerish",
"David Richerby",
"James Waldby - jwpat7",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Megha",
"Michael Brooks",
"Minion3665",
"ProValue Flooring spam",
"Sherba",
"Spammer",
"Vicki B",
"ben svenssohn",
"cloud",
"forbidden spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"legendaryramen",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46199
|
How to make this shawarma hot sauce?
I'm not sure how to ask this question so bear with me. This shawarma place nearby has this amazing hot sauce but I have no clue whats in it! I want to re-create it if possible. I talked to the clerk and he said that it may be BBQ sauce and hot sauce. I originally thought it tasted like ketchup and hot sauce.
Having said that any ideas of the recipe for this sauce?
Have you ever had harissa? That is very likely to be the heat element of the sauce you're trying to duplicate (certainly the color seems right). Recipe requests are not allowed here, so I recommend that you try to make it and then if it doesn't seem right, tell us what you've tried and how the results differ from what you had at the restaurant. That way it could possibly be allowed as a "restaurant-mimicry" question.
As a first attempt I tried making this using ketchup and siracha sauce because that was all I had. I am going to try making this with a BBQ sauce and a hot sauce maybe I can find a similar taste.
Harissa Sauce is likely what you want, the sauce has found different names, it's origin includes Lebanon.
I found one of many recipes at:
https://toriavey.com/toris-kitchen/harissa/
It's possible that the sauce is 'schaschlik sauce'. It's a tomato-based sauce, with an interesting mix of spices. You can find it in the US labeled as 'curry ketchup'. There are a few companies that bottle it, and lots of variety -- there are some that are quite spicy (eg, the Hela Extra Hot.
If you search online, you can find recipes for it. You can search for 'curry ketchup', but if you do, ignore the ones that call for curry powder + ketchup ... it's much more complex than that.
If you have any places near you that specialize in Dutch or German groceries, you might be able to find a place that imports the stuff at a more reasonable price than that Amazon link I had above.
(The last place I got the extra hot one was Moore's Sauerkraut & Pickles in Maine. I've seen way more places with the 'scharf' (hot) or 'pikant' varieties ... skip the 'delikat' (mild) one)
There are different ways of making hot sauce. First you need to be clear, was it salty or sweet?
1) Salty hot sauce: hot sauce, ketchup, cumin power, coriander powder, ginger/garlic paste,salt, pepper. (But your sauce doesn't look so spicy or thick)
2) Sweet hot sauce: hot sauce, bbq sauce, very little ranch, mustard sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.248926
| 2014-08-08T07:03:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46199",
"authors": [
"Adrian Carolli",
"AskManyAi",
"CA Electrical Spammer",
"CarolynCamden",
"Ellie Mila",
"Jolenealaska",
"Pam Oneill",
"Rahul",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26076"
],
"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
}
|
46043
|
Can anyone tell me what kind of squash this is?
Last year we planted some hybrid yellow round zuchini. We had one going bad and my husband pulled it and just threw it in the garden. This year we had some volunteer plants from the seeds. I understand that for heirloom seeds you can expect the same variety. The same is not true from hybrid seeds as you can not know what you will get.
What these plants are producing is unrecognizable. The squash are 6 to 8 inches long. The shape is identical to a yellow crookneck. However, the skin is green with lighter green or white stripes.
I decided to cut in and see what I found. The seeds and skin leave no doubt that it is some type of winter squash. I did bake some as I would winter squash but the flavor wasn't recognizable and was quite mediocre.
I have searched high and low on the Internet for different types of squash and haven't found anything close. Does anyone know what this may be or what it could be used for?
Although I wouldn't think this would be off-topic here, you might also try asking on the gardening site : http://gardening.stackexchange.com/
Looks like a marrow to me - essentially giant zuchini. They tend to not have as much flavour as a normal sized zuchini. I find stuffing them works quite well - e.g. a garlic lamb mince ball in the centre of the bulb end, roasted can be delicious
@NBenatar That sounds like an answer to me...
These look like plain old green zucchini to me. Somewhat overgrown specimens thereof, but still.
The striping is very reminiscent of a marrow, but they don't tend to grow asymmetrically if I remember correctly
@GdD I didn't know what a marrow was and looked it up. It appears your statement is correct.
@Joe Thanks for the suggestion. I'm new to SA and haven't been to any of the other sites yet.
To me, it looks a bit like a birdhouse gourd, albeit a different variegation. Or perhaps a kabocha squash, which to me has a rather mild and mediocre taste and texture.
I guess you've ended up with some wacky gourd hybrid, resulting from open pollination of your desirable (F1?) hybrid. As is the nature of hybrids, the result could be caused by pollination either with itself, or something else in the area. Either possibility could be responsible for the Frankenstein's monster you produced. If you started with a zucchini, you've probably got some Cucurbita (e.g., vegetable marrow as @NBenatar suggests).
Have a look at other links from Wikipedia's list of gourds and squashes, or one of a number of gourd identification charts such as this one that will help you narrow it down based on the nature of the inside of the fruit, leaves, etc.
On the bright side, you may have a squash on your hands that has never existed before! On the other hand, it may not be worth much at the market. :)
"It's alive!!!"
Very enlightening! You are correct that it is an F1 hybrid. I think you are totally on target. Thanks!
It sounds like what you have is a Yellow Round Zucchini F2, potentially crossed with something your neighbors grew.
If they came from Yellow Round Zucchini F1 seeds, as you said, they're not another variety you'll find anywhere else. It's your own unique unstabilized breed.
Contrary to what sometimes seems to be a popular belief, hybrids never revert entirely to either of the F1's parent varieties exactly as the parent variety was. They may, however, have any number of traits from that ancestor variety, and look /taste practically the same, but they are still different genetically, and not the same variety.
Although it's probably not the case, you could alternatively have a mutant. Either way, what the variety is called is up to you. You can name it (but don't expect it to breed true or ever see it exactly as it was this year again, even if you grow more of those F2 seeds, since each F2 seed is different). However, that doesn't mean they're that different. You could probably find similar ones (but you shouldn't name them the same thing if the old name is still in use for the other F2 anywhere).
You could work to stabilize the breed, which would take a number of generations. The finished product could be pretty similar (but it would be different, of course, since it would breed true), although chances are there'll be some noticeable differences, however similar it is.
As for how to use it, I'd experiment. Onions, peppers, hot peppers, salt, cheese, mushrooms, vinegar, oregano, and butter are some ingredients I find go well with squash generally (for savory dishes). I don't recommend garlic with squash, personally, as to me it gives it a weird taste, but some people like it (although if you must use garlic, I recommend cooking it separately and mingling it into the squash after you cook the squash rather than while you're cooking it; this seems to get rid of that unpleasant chemical taste, for the most part). I do like garlic with other stuff besides squash.
Squash have some properties in common with potatoes (e.g. starch). So, experimenting in similar ways might help. I do like garlic with potatoes, though.
A lot of people like to stuff their squash or turn it into zucchini bread. I'm sure you could do that here.
Some people make soups or stir fry (summer squash is popular in stir fry).
It's probably not a pie squash, but pies are popular with squash.
I sometimes like to make a squash salsa with squash as the base instead of tomatoes (although I prefer a non-bitter, sweet, pie squash for that like the Long Island Cheese Pumpkin). I add some very un-salsa-like ingredients to it (like mushrooms, cheese, and oregano), but it still tastes like a salsa. It's cooked (not a raw salsa).
Pickling is something you could do. You could lacto-ferment it or do it the vinegar way (or both). I would probably add vinegar to it (for extra flavor and preservation time) and lacto-ferment it.
Prior to the pic, I was thinking green tiger/Italian striped zucchini (example: http://www.burpee.com/vegetables/squash/summer/zucchini/squash-summer-green-tiger-zucchini-hybrid-prod000907.html) which I recently picked up at my local farmers market.
After seeing the pic, I'm leaning towards a Cushaw squash (example: http://www.slowfoodusa.org/ark-item/green-striped-cushaw).
Your answer falls in line with the other answer. I looked up the Cushaw squash and it is a Cucurbita as mentioned. As I thought this was a summer variety I made sure to pick it very young so it would be tender. I'm going to let the remaining squash mature fully and see what we have. Thanks.
Michael: Good find on the Cushaw -- certainly closer! Now I want to grow some Cushaw and try it... thanks! @Cindy: In addition to letting them mature more, consider saving some seeds and (purposely!) growing them next season; perhaps you've got a passable heirloom. And send a few to me ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.249161
| 2014-08-01T14:32:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46043",
"authors": [
"ChikenNugget",
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Maya Mahajan",
"NBenatar",
"Paul",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"macbookscreenrepair",
"richmooremi",
"user109820"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68192
|
What are Chicken Paws?
Although I haven't purchased them, I've recently noticed more than one supermarket chain selling packages of "Chicken Paws".
To me, they look exactly like chicken feet, though I've never purchased those either. The definition of "paw" generally refers to the foot of an animal with four feet, but I've never known a chicken to have more than two.
I thought perhaps it's just a marketing ploy to make chicken feet sound more cute and cuddly by calling them paws, but that could also be counterproductive towards encouraging people to eat them.
What is the difference between chicken paws and chicken feet? If there is no difference, why are chicken feet now being sold as chicken paws?
Well, live and learn! — As Sue's answer correctly points out, the United States Department of Agriculture does indeed make a distinction between chicken feet and chicken paws:
The chicken paw on the left does not have as much of the lower leg as the chicken foot on the right.
While the difference may seem subtle to many people, it's apparently very important to consumers in China:
Most premium jumbo paws are sold in wholesale markets and eventually make their way into high-end restaurants. Smaller paws, chicken wings, and wing tips, in addition to being sold at wholesale markets, end up at wet markets and processing plants, which use them in finished food products.
The market for chicken feet is more varied than that of premium chicken paws; larger chicken feet are sold to both wholesale and retail markets and are more commonly used for family consumption (and in barbecue stores), small feet are typically further cooked in processing plants. Chinese consumers in the Northwest and Northeast tend to favor chicken feet over chicken paws.
Thank you for the laugh. I never heard of "chicken paws" before your post appeared. I went looking at several dictionaries, and they all identify a paw as a foot that is typically found on a quadruped.
It might be a translation error.
@Sharlyn perhaps these are from a four-footed chicken -- extra drumsticks! ;)
There actually seems to be a difference between a chicken paw and a chicken foot. According to a 23-page publication from the University of Pennsylvania:
Chicken Feet = feet and shank
Chicken Paws = feet cut off at the ankle
Though most of that publication is a study of the health conditions for breeding chickens, it does list a few of the types of dishes the parts are used in, including soups and satays.
Food and Beverage Online is a frozen food supplying site. Chicken paws and feet are listed as separate entities there also. This page describes the characteristics of each product.
The USDA International Egg and Poultry report from 2013 lists export statistics separately for paws and feet.
In America, where I live, I couldn't find any recipes specifically calling for chicken paws rather than chicken feet. Since the export sites list them as being distributed largely to China and other Asian countries, maybe some of you who come from there, or have expertise in that kind of cooking, might be able to find something more specific!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.249772
| 2016-04-11T14:59:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68192",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77223
|
Can I use a cheeseboard as a cutting board?
Nowadays I see that most cutting boards sold are made up of several pieces of wood that are stuck together with wood glue. I'm not so sure of the safety of the wood glue that is used as most of the ones sold in my country are manufactured in China and not subject to FDA approval: Safety of glues in wooden chopping boards
I noticed that most cheeseboards sold are however made from one piece of solid wood.
Would I be able to purchase a cheeseboard and convert it to a cutting board instead?
This blog post shows people how to create cutting boards from pieces of wood that can be purchased from a hardware store and glue it together to create the final product. The cutting board is then rubbed several layers of mineral oil, walnut oil or beeswax to protect it and allowed to dry overnight.
Would it not be the same to purchase a cheeseboard that is already cut to an appropriate size and then just rub it with several layers of mineral oil, walnut oil or beeswax to protect it? Are there any disadvantages to doing taking a protected cheeseboard and using it as a cutting board?
You might consider getting a plastic cutting board. They have the advantage of being able to clean them by throwing them in the dishwasher.
Plastic boards come with their own set of advantages (dishwasher safe) and disadvantages (can be just as chemically unsafe as glue if off brand. can be too light/thin. can be bad on your knives).
Not to mention that a study done over 20 years ago now showed that when researchers spread bacteria on wood and plastic cutting boards, the bacteria multiplied on the latter and vanished on the former. Wood is better and safer, not to mention possible toxins in various kinds of plastic.
You certainly can use a "cheese board" or other single-slab piece of suitable wood as a chopping board.
What you might want to consider is that there is a reason why even expensive, good-quality chopping boards are made from multiple pieces instead of one big slab:
Wood can warp and / or develop cracks if exposed to changes in humidity or when drying out. Using multiple pieces glued together in alternating directions counters that effect to some degree. This does not mean that your one-piece idea won't work, but that you should take good care of the board and avoid long exposure to water (don't soak it) or dry heat. Keep it well-oiled, clean and towel dry it immediately after use and leave it in a well-ventilated area between uses.
I don't see any downsides to this, other than the cost and time spent might be higher than if you just bought a quality wood cutting board to begin with. An alternative would be to find a quality woodworker online and buy directly from them, Amazon, etc. You can verify with the seller they use food safe wood glue before purchasing.
Hi Caleb, from my research, I just need to rub coconut oil on the board and let it sit overnight. Are there any other cost or time that I need to be aware of before I do the conversion?
@Simon - Coconut oil can go rancid with time and impart unpleasant flavors. Pure mineral oil is food safe and will not spoil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.250046
| 2017-01-07T18:11:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77223",
"authors": [
"Lowell Montgomery",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Ross Ridge",
"Simon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65246
|
Is it safe to eat the skin of a potato?
Is it safe to eat the skin of a baked or boiled potato, or are there any health or sanitary reasons not to eat it?
Contrarily, are there any reasons to eat it, e.g. does the skin contain vitamins or minerals which you would cut off by peeling?
EDIT: There is a related question Do I have to peel red potatoes before baking them? that asks specifically for red potatoes. This question covers yellow potatoes as well.
I'm still closing, because none of the answers to the other question is in any way specific to potato color.
It's usually safe to eat the skins of potatoes.
If there is a greenish tint under the skin, you'll want to peel down to below the greenish bit. If you don't, it could lead to solanine poisoning.
See Is it safe to eat potatoes that have sprouted? and Are Green Potatoes OK?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.250300
| 2016-01-10T16:18:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65246",
"authors": [
"Andrea Cg",
"Diane Dominiuk",
"Robin Burgess",
"Sherry Lee",
"Stacey Brown",
"Wardept wardept",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64525
|
How should I incorporate separated eggs in a cookie recipe without instructions?
I found a partial (ingredients only) recipe of my Mother's that called for 3 eggs separated for an "Italian Cookies" recipe. I would love to try it but without any instruction\directions how would I manage this ingredient?
Other ingredients include:
10 Tbsp. butter
1 1/4 c. sugar
beat 2 minutes
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp lemon zest
3 c. flour
bake 350 15-20 minutes.
That's all I have.
I'm going to suspect you beat the whites (all clean, no fat, no grease, no bits of yolk) to at least soft peaks, possibly stiff peaks, and fold in to the rest - cream the butter & sugar (that's the beat 2 minutes step), add the yolks, add the remaining ingredients, fold in the whites. This is a fairly standard method of using beaten egg whites for a sort of "leavening" by expoiting their trapped air bubbles.
I'd be prone to putting some of the sugar and the vanilla and possibly the zest right at the end (it's got some oil so that's a little risky) in with the whites, but the way you have presented it does not seem to suggest that.
I would suggest:
Mix egg whites, sugar, vanilla - granularity of sugar will incorporate air into egg white
Add butter (room temp or browned) - everything will thicken
Lemon zest can go into any of the above steps
Add flour - you may want to hand-mix and leave little dry flour
Of course, refrigerate and bake the next day.
Wouldn't adding solid butter after beating whites make it really hard to actually mix the butter in evenly without lumps?
Where do the yolks go (or are they not used)?
I actually do brown butter + ice +cooling. @Erica There are some very high-cal dessert recipes you can use with yolks. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.250426
| 2015-12-17T21:17:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64525",
"authors": [
"Ann Gorbitz",
"Antonio Snyder",
"Beverly Johnson Browning",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah O'Hare",
"Ellanore Vannin",
"Erica",
"Family Axford",
"John Ryan",
"Kevin Leahy",
"Nina Winograd",
"Ron Ferris",
"Rory Lambe",
"S D'Agruma",
"Zivile V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29926
|
What temperature does the Maillard reaction occur?
There seems to be a lot of disagreement about the temperatures and conditions under which the Maillard reaction can occur. Cooking professionals reference all sorts of "minimum temperatures" -- I've seen sources say 350°F (175°C), 310°F (155°C), 300°F (150°C), 250°F (120°C), 230°F (110°C), and boiling (212°F/100°C) all given as a minimum. Many sources say it cannot occur in the presence of water.
Previous questions on this forum that have discussed the Maillard reaction have also included statements about temperatures, often in disagreement with each other. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) Many answers and comments on answers also have conflicting information.
It's clear that the Maillard reaction requires proteins and a reducing sugar. It is also clear that it will happen at neutral pH or higher, but acidic conditions will significantly inhibit it.
But what temperatures can it actually occur at? Are there examples of the Maillard reaction occurring at lower temperatures?
(I will offer my own answer, but I would certainly be interested in hearing of other examples and information.)
The Maillard reaction can occur at a wide range of temperatures, but the lower limit is not well-defined. It can even occur at room temperature, providing some flavoring components (for example) to ripening cheeses and Seranno ham. At high temperatures (over 300°F/150°C), it will noticeably occur on many foods in a matter of minutes, so you can actually watch things "brown." At lower temperatures, it may take hours, days, or even years for the effects to be noticeable. Water inhibits the faster reactions, but at lower temperatures it actually can help the reaction by allowing proteins and sugars more freedom to circulate.
In Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking (revised ed.), he states (p. 779):
There are exceptions to the rule that browning reactions require temperatures above the boil. Alkaline conditions, concentrated solutions of carbohydrates and amino acids, and prolonged cooking times can all generate Maillard colors and aromas in moist foods. For example, alkaline egg whites, rich in protein, with a trace of glucose, but 90% water, will become tan-colored when simmered for 12 hours. The base liquid for brewing beer, a water extract of barley malt that contains reactive sugars and amino acids from the germinated grains, deepens in color and flavor with several hours of boiling. Watery meat or chicken stock will do the same as it's boiled down to make a concentrated demiglace. Persimmon pudding turns nearly black thanks to its combination of reactive glucose, alkaline baking soda, and hours of cooking; balsamic vinegar turns nearly black over the course of years!
Note that while alkaline conditions help, they are clearly not necessary (e.g., balsamic vinegar). Another standard example for non-alkaline conditions is traditional pumpernickel bread, which is steam baked for 12-24 hours usually at oven temperatures ranging around 225-250°F (110-120°C). The interior of the bread does not get much above normal boiling temperature, but a significant color change can clearly be seen in such a humid, relatively low-temperature environment.
Interestingly, despite the information in many cooking sources, many of the earliest studies of Maillard reactions were in systems varying from room temperature to slightly above body temperature, from the browning reactions that create the color of soil to internal reactions in the human body that are now thought to contribute significantly to the aging process and some diseases. Maillard reactions also play a role in the natural changes in moist food observed to happen at room temperature when stored over years, like when you discover a jar or can of food in the back of the pantry and find that the food has turned brownish.
At very high or very low temperatures, Maillard reactions are often secondary to other processes such as caramelization and enzymatic browning.
To summarize, here's a helpful poster that shows effects at various temperatures. Briefly:
Above 400°F (200°C) - mostly caramelization, with the possibility of burning with prolonged heating
~330°-400°F (165-200°C) - increasing caramelization with higher temps, which uses up sugars and thus inhibits Maillard at the high end of this range
~300-330°F (150-165°C) - Maillard progresses at a fast pace, causing browning noticeably within minutes
~212-300°F (100-150°C) - Maillard gets slower as temperature goes lower, generally requiring many hours near the boiling point of water
~130-212°F (55-100°C) - Maillard requires water, high protein, sugar, and alkaline conditions to advance noticeably in a matter of hours; generally can take days
Below 130°F (55°C) - Enzymatic browning is often more significant in many foods than Maillard, but Maillard will still occur over periods from days or months to years, with progressively longer times at lower temperatures
(In some cases, certain reactions can be activated by a short time at a high temperature, which then can lead to faster browning below boiling or even near room temperature.)
One final, but very important, note: the Maillard reaction is a very general process that occurs between all sorts of amino acids and sugars. It thus also can produce a lot of different flavor components and products, in addition to the browning. Different reactions between particular amino acids and sugars will also occur at different rates depending on temperature.
This, I think, may be part of the reason for the confusion among various professional cooking sources about the "minimum" temperatures. Many of the reactions that produce the classic "Maillard taste" and "Maillard smell" components don't really begin to happen appreciably until about 250°F (120°C), and they won't happen fast until 300°F (150°C) or so. Maillard reactions at lower temperatures produce different taste and smell components, which often could be characterized as more "earthy." While browning still happens at a slower pace, the results will actually taste different. But because reaction products will always depend on the exact amino acids and sugars involved, as well as other conditions (moisture, pH), it's difficult to divide temperature ranges into clear flavor zones.
I think you pretty much summed it up. I think the biggest point is that we equate the standard "brown crust" with maillard instead of thinking about it as being on a continuum where the "brown crust" is something we aim to achieve.
A comprehensive answer. Black Garlic is certainly covered by your second to last bullet. You raise a good point in the confusion of fast-high-temp Maillard, versus slow-low-temp Maillard.
Since I'm working in the field of biochemistry with amino sugars like occuring in mushrooms or seafood, I know that the maillard reaction occurs at room temperature, in water and even in absence of amino acids, since these sugars are able to react with itself.
Greetz
To a culinary significant degree? Or, plainly put: Can you taste it?
Caramelization is the oxidation of sugar, a process used extensively in cooking for the resulting nutty flavor and brown color. Caramelization is a type of non-enzymatic browning reaction. As the process occurs, volatile chemicals are released producing the characteristic caramel flavor. The reaction involves the removal of water (as steam) and the break down of the sugar. The caramelization reaction depends on the type of sugar. Sucrose and glucose caramelize around 160C (320F) and fructose caramelizes at 110C (230F).
Caramelization temperatures Sugar Temperature
Fructose 110° C, 230° F
Galactose 160° C, 320° F
Glucose 160° C, 320° F
Maltose 180° C, 356° F
Sucrose 160° C, 320° F
The highest rate of the color development is caused by fructose as caramelization of fructose starts at 110C. Baked goods made from honey or fructose syrup will therefore give a darker color. Source:
http://www.scienceofcooking.com/caramelization.htm
Since muscle tissue naturally contains glucose (galactose and fructose consumed buy the body are converted to glucose by the liver), muscle tissue (steak) caramelizes at a minimum of 160° C, 320° F. if you would like to test this, take an induction cooktop and set it to 300° F, when the pan has come to temp, place your meat in. it will cook without getting any of the nice crust you like (also it will take forever to cook, about 40 minutes for a 1" boneless steak to mid rare 130°F).
The question is about the Maillard reaction which is not the same as caramelization.
Goodness, What a detailed explanation of simple, settled, and well understood science. Forget food. There is a huge natural world out there which has been explored scientifically. The Millard reaction, although notable as an interesting observation in cuisine, has it roots in chemistry as what is known as oxidation. This is the natural, but sometimes slow decomposition of energetic compounds such as sugars, proteins, etc. oxidation occurs at all temperatures, just as evaporation of water occurs at all ambient temperatures. Just as water cannot be liquid over 100C, some molecules are extremely unstable over other temps. What we think of as Cooking temperatures are not good measures of accurate, scientific representations of temperature because they typically measure the temperature of a specific section of work product what we are interested in (such as the center of a steak). Millard reaction is, as unscientificly defined, as a mild burning, isn't really quantifiable in the sense you are looking for. Proteins, cabrohydrates, and fats oxidize at all temperaturs, but faster at rates above boiling. See: smoking points of fats. Sorry.
Maillard reaction is not mild burning. And while it certainly is a stochastic process that does not mean that there are not temperature thresholds that must be met to get a significant rate of reaction.
While this may be true if you "forget food", this is a cooking site, and all answers here are expected to apply to food. If a question here has applications outside of cooking too, the assumption is still that the answer should be made within the context of cooking. So, even if there are temperatures at which the reaction can occur outside of cooking, the point of the question is to find out which is the minimal temperature I need in a pan in order to get a good crust through Maillard reaction without having to wait several years for my steak to cook through.
The existing detailed answer is a great demonstration of how oversimplified and useless an answer like yours is. And since this is the internet... come on, you didn't even manage to spell Maillard right!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.250644
| 2013-01-09T17:44:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29926",
"authors": [
"Alaw Ciornei",
"Anna Quinn Harrelson",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Chelsea Meissner",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Chris Trager",
"Clare",
"Dorothy MacClaren",
"Fauzi Silbaq",
"Lily",
"Madeleine",
"NARAYANDAS MOTWANI",
"Paulb",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Syafiq Malik",
"compneurophile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69730",
"laura",
"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
}
|
49944
|
Science of fast (high heat) vs. slow (low heat) scrambled eggs and omelets
There seems to be a lot of disagreement about cooking "light" (as in texture) scrambled eggs, which would seem to be one of the simplest of foods. (To be clear, I'm specifically asking about the "standard" light and puffy variety of scrambled eggs here, rather than the creamy, very small-curd, slow-cooked scrambled eggs which are often served wetter and heavier.)
There seem to be two main camps: (1) cook your eggs in a blazing hot pan as quickly as possible, or (2) cook over low or medium-low heat and stir frequently until the eggs come up to temperature over anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes. Adherents of the first method claim that the fast cooking time will keep the eggs tender and the hot pan and burst of initial steam created will puff them up. Adherents of the second method claim that gentle cooking will keep the eggs tender and the long cooking time will give more opportunity for steam to gradually increase lightness and texture.
The goals of both camps appear to be similar, but they suggest radically different techniques to achieve them. (For some examples of this disagreement in answers on this site, see here for a question whose top-rated answer argues for cooking in "seconds not minutes," and here for a similar question whose top-rated answer says the solution is "at least ten minutes of slow cooking.")
Note that this question also applies to omelet technique, where some chefs insist that the only way to produce a light tender omelet is cooking slowly over low heat, while others seem to follow the Julia Child method of cooking a thin layer of egg in a very hot pan for only a matter of seconds.
In any case, my question: Is there any scientific rationale to resolve this dispute? Is one method actually proven better than the other through experiment? (Or do both methods have proven advantages? Or maybe other aspects of technique can influence results and allow both methods to be successful, but under different conditions?)
EDIT: Based on discussion in comments, let me try to make this more specific. We can look at, for example, the editors of Cooks Illustrated, who present in their experiments to produce "Fluffy Scrambled Eggs":
We've tried cooking scrambled eggs over medium heat but the eggs got
tough, dried out, and overcoagulated, like a badly made meringue that
"weeps." A hot pan will begin to cook eggs instantaneously, for the
quickest coagulation.... Two eggs should cook into big curds in about
30 seconds. The larger the curds, the more steam is pocketed inside,
and the more the eggs will continue to cook once off the heat. We
like scrambled eggs soft and juicy, so they look positively underdone
when we make that final fold and push them out of the pan.
On the other hand, Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking states:
The Key to Scrambled Eggs: Slow Cooking Scrambled eggs made in the usual quick, offhand way are usually hard and forgettable. The key to
moist scrambled eggs is low heat and patience; they will take several
minutes to cook.... Texture is determined by how and when the eggs are
disturbed. Large irregular curds result if the cook lets the bottom layer set for some time before scraping to distribute the heat.
McGee doesn't explicitly mention fluffiness or lightness, but I've seen other proponents of the slow method mention it. What these two sources do agree on is that the opposing method makes eggs "tough," "hard," and "dried out," but their chosen method keeps eggs "moist" and "juicy" as well as "soft" and "tender." (Notably, after discounting the fast method for scrambled eggs, McGee goes on immediately to point out how a hot, fast cooking method is a requirement for good omelets.)
These are two sources which explicitly tend to base their claims on detailed experiment and food science. Other than McGee's mentioning of the ability to alter final curd size for slower eggs, there seems to be little distinction in the rhetoric for these opposing methods.
So, are there actual advantages for one method over the other (aside from time for fast eggs and better ability to vary curd size for slow eggs)? If no, why do even food science experts make such strongly worded conflicting claims? Do both methods -- as Tom Raymond seems to argue in his answer -- produce effectively equivalent results, with time being the main difference? Or is there some truth to the any claims for superiority in at least some aspects for one side or the other?
I know this is a broad question, but some possible information that might begin to answer it: Anyone know of experimental studies (or summaries of them) that actually measure moisture content or volume or tenderness in different egg cooking methods to corroborate the various descriptions of "moist/juicy" and "soft/tender/fluffy" vs. "tough/hard" and "dried out"? Are there theoretical reasons why either method should work better in some aspects (e.g., how egg proteins coagulate at different speeds, etc.)?
Perhaps the consensus is that one can cook good eggs either way once one understands the subtleties of cooking eggs that way. But even if that's true, why are many authoritative sources so quick to dismiss the other method? (Perhaps there's even an important history to this dispute that explains some of it; otherwise, I'm not sure how to explain such a strong conflict.)
That is some research! +1 for the content! :)
As a chef, I find that both methods with the same care and attention (don't burn the bottom) result in exactly the same results. If in a hot pan you'd stir 50 times in 30 seconds then at a low heat you should be doing the same amount of turns but slower :-). Dry or tough eggs are just overcooked eggs regardless of cooking method.
Note - The aim of the Cook's Illustrated method is "Fluffy" scrambled eggs which they encourage with lots of milk for steam and a cooking method that applies sufficient heat to set the eggs along the bottom of the pan which encases (for lack of a better word) the heft of the curd. McGee's scrambled eggs technique is designed specifically to avoid this encasement. McGee's doesn't add milk and his lower temperature and constant stirring control the temperature and protein coagulation of the eggs under heat. CI's higher temperature is deigned to achieve a distinctly different dish.
My own argument, probably unsatisfying, is that "scrambled eggs" no longer means one thing. Most restaurants have to include time management in their considerations for how they choose to prepare dishes. I would suggest the the hot-pan-fluffy-scramble method with milk to steam and soften is a way to deliver eggs quickly. I would also guess that most people are so accustomed to this way of eating eggs that they would be confused by the texture of slowly cooked scrambled eggs (I have never been served eggs that way in a restaurant). So...two lengthy comments for my 2¢. Not really an answer.
@StephenEure - thanks for your comments. I agree McGee may be after something different. That said, (1) many, many sources also claim that slow cooking will produce the "fluffiest" eggs (or similar adjective), and (2) I don't think McGee's method is meant to avoid large curds at all, since he doesn't require constant stirring at the end. In the sentence after my quote: "Large irregular curds result if the cook lets the bottom layer set for some time before scraping to distribute the heat." I read this as options for curd size/texture, rather than a preference for only constant stirring.
@StephenEure - Also, to your second point, I specifically mentioned the creamy, constantly stirred version of "slow-scrambled" in my first paragraph as a different dish that this question is NOT about. I know what those eggs are, I have made them at home, I've had them once at a brunch place. Until a few years ago, I assumed that's why you'd cook scrambled eggs slowly. But then I saw a friend cook scrambled eggs for over 10 minutes, but stirred less and ended up with a texture not that different from "fast" scrambled eggs. Apparently other people do that too. That's what I'm interested in.
I don't see the point in attempting an answer. One quotes says, "My experience is..." and the other says, "The other method often fails" but neither quote says unequivocally that you cannot achieve the goal using the opposite method. If anything they are merely saying, "Here's the way I achieve the goal." The reality is that there are numerous methods to get to the same goal, and arguing about which path is better is the ultimate in subjectivity - it will completely depend on the reader's proficiency and preferences. I don't think this could possibly be answered objectively.
@AdamDavis - You overlook the possibility that the final product is actually demonstrably different in the two cases, yet those two products both share a few desirable features. (Cooking technique is known to affect the physical structure of coagulated eggs.) I have made eggs both ways, and I agree that both are delicious, but I think the results may be actually different in subtle ways.
I don't have a scientific backing to what I am going to say, but still I will try to make my point clear!
Cooking eggs is more of an intuitive thing. The fast vs. slow thing comes more from your own rendezvous with it.
Like in my house, when we say omelet, only my husband is allowed to put hands on it because he gets that perfect round thing without breaking any of the edges every single time he does it. I will share his method:
Take a flat pan and heat it good enough.
Drizzle a little oil on it and rotate the pan once so that oil gets to the sides.
Now all you need to do is pour your beaten eggs on the pan and slowly cook it on a low flame until the edges start separating from the pan automatically(atleast it will come out easily when you raise it with spatula)
And bang on, our omlete gets cooked pretty fine everytime with a very soft and fluffy texture.
But when you say scrambled eggs, I would follow a different methodology in which I would:
Take a pan with deep base and heat it good enough.
Pour very little oil, just so that eggs don't stick to the pan.
Pour the egg mix and keep the pan on very high flame and stir the thing vigorously until the eggs are cooked and it looks ready.
Basically what I think is, when you cook anything on a high flame, you need to stir it along so that the food does not stick to the bottom and gets burnt(even when you are using a non stick pan, eggs might get stuck in a minute or so), which you can do while making scrambled eggs but can't do while making an omelet obviously.
I hope next time you put your hands on it, you will listen to your heart!! Happy Eggs!! :)
The matter of time efficiency could be seen as that which determines the answer:
The first thing that caught my attention about your description of the two camps is the language that you use (or quote?) for their outcomes. Both camps "keep the eggs tender". And then, of the eggs, the one camp manages to "puff them up" while the other suffices to "increase lightness and texture", the two of which descriptions are clearly interchangeable. This made me realize that strictly in terms of outcome the two methods are not at variance, but only in terms of how those outcomes are achieved.
Since scientific method involves, in the following order,
generating a hypothesis
conducting replicable experiments
setting forth fixed conclusions based on measurable results
and since both camps as you define them fulfill each of these requirements, we would technically have to say that the science on the matter is already in.
Either "quick and hot" or "slow and temperate" are hypotheses. And each method offers up of a replicable step-by-step process by which to achieve measurable results against which fixed conclusions can be drawn. (The emphasis here is necessarily on process since all else is equal ...same eggs, same oil, same pan, etc., or, perhaps more to the point, are treated as non-impactful even if they are at variance.) And since in either event the outcomes prove to be equally agreeable to all relevant senses, it appears as though the only substantial difference is that of time itself.
If one were to include time efficiency therefore as a criterion for what it is that defines "better", (which is plainly optional and thus likely at the root of the conflict), it very much appears as though the "quick and hot" camp has in fact provided proof which classes as scientific and which thus elevates it above its slower alternative. Beyond the scope of human emotions and all the subtleties of human interaction, I for one can't really think of any scenario where getting the same "goal outcome" in less time through use of an alternate means would not find itself classed as superior by default, perhaps even by obviation. All that aside, I use the slower method but for uniquely different reasons: I don't like my scrambled eggs to be quite all the way done.
[ADDENDUM]
As reflected in the chart below, nearly three quarters of the edible portion of the egg is water. Combined over again with small amounts of water or milk, as is widely preferred, this ratio rises all the more significantly (say 3 tbsp of added liquid per 4 eggs). Since the remaining classes of ingredients are known, not only by percentages but by how per their unique properties they respond to the addition of heat, (proteins, fats, and carbohydrates), it may be really that all one has to do is state the problem in terms of enthalpy. This would connote of not only their response, by percentages, to the heat of the oil/pan but also to the rate of change (increase in temperature) expected of the water (it too in its percentage), and so the rate at which it aids the oil/pan in imparting heat unto the non-aqueous components. In short, one would have to do one's own science. Here's an online calculator for the thermodynamic properties of water and steam.
Well, it's true that I specifically worded my question to emphasize both sides claim to achieve similar goals. But I believe it is an open question whether they actually achieve them to the same degree. Science has debunked many culinary myths where people have claimed X happens to taste/texture etc. when it actually doesn't. There are people here (and many chefs on record) who say, "if scrambled eggs are bad, you're cooking too fast/hot" or "too slow." Are all of those people delusional? I don't think so. Perhaps there are measurable benefits/drawbacks to one method or the other.
Think through the following question then. Wouldn't the untold many people who have used either method discovered that, no, it doesn't produce very good results and, accordingly, switched over to the other method? Otherwise they're choosing to eat an undesirable product. The mere fact that one of the two methods has not gained greatly in popularity over the other is its own form of data, and informs us that either method is deemed equally desirable in terms of outcome. This also explains why it is that all of them aren't delusional, yes?
Actually, no, your premise is false, and I can cite a dozen culinary myths off the top of my head where people have continued to do things for many generations believing they were true when they weren't. For one prominent example, the myth that salt makes beans tough, when it actually helps them soften faster. Also, I'm open to the possibility that the two methods achieve goals that are somewhat similar, but actually through different chemical means or emphasizing different aspects in the final product (e.g., method X and Y both achieve A, but X also gets B while ignoring C, but Y gets C).
That's a false equivalency, Athanasius, (it's not a myth that people like good food and dislike bad food), but I do hope someone is able to point you in the direction of that which satisfies what you have in mind.
So, if I understand you correctly, your entire argument comes down to, "If you like it, it's good (to you)?" I appreciate that you took the time to provide your thoughts, but I'm not really sure I understand how this relates to the "science" you discuss in your answer. Yes, people generally don't eat food that tastes "bad" to them, but they often show great unreliability in double-blind tests for ability to consistently judge one "good" thing "better" in taste to another. Often, the "correct" outcome of culinary methods is judged more by tradition of technique than measurable results.
I added some information that perhaps clarifies my question. Part of my problem is that very few people seem to agree with the statement in your answer that "the outcomes prove to be equally agreeable to all relevant senses." Rather, most people on one side or the other claim that their method makes things "good" and the other side makes things "bad." This is problematic because, as you note, the adjectives used to describe "good" and "bad" food are quite similar on both sides.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.251393
| 2014-11-20T19:41:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49944",
"authors": [
"Adam Davis",
"Athanasius",
"Danica Treyes",
"David Bean",
"Doug",
"Martina Reilly",
"Matii Hair Salon",
"Neels",
"Stephen Eure",
"Stephen Lisa",
"Theodora Mcadams",
"Thomas Raywood",
"douglas ostle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"stephanie mock"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57957
|
Does keeping a fridge/freezer full significantly help energy efficiency?
This is one of those statements I frequently encounter, but I've never really seen evidence to support it. The advice often goes even further to say that if your fridge/freezer is relatively empty, you should add something (e.g., bottles of water).
Such statements have appeared here too, as in answers to this question, this question, this question, and most recently this question.
I'm assuming that there may be some minor energy savings in some circumstances, but is it significant enough to actually care about? Moreover, is it enough to offset the energy lost in, for example, cooling or freezing water (or other things) just to fill up the fridge?
Note: I've been doing some of my own research and was going to post it in the question, but I think it will be more appropriate to provide what I've found in an answer below. However, if anyone has reliable sources that give a different answer (and preferably actual measurements or studies to back it up), I'm very interested.
EDIT: After writing my answer, I just found this, where Cecil Adams argues strongly in favor of the full-fridge hypothesis. I rarely disagree with Cecil, and he makes reference to a number of studies, though no citations. So I'm interested if someone can point to some of these studies.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/10527
Also, here's another similar question on Physics Stack Exchange: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/61445/47120
SUMMARY: Unless I'm missing something here or you're doing very odd things with your refrigerator, you'd at most save a couple dollars per year by keeping your fridge/freezer full. Moreover, stocking up on water (or other things) to fill up fridge/freezer space won't save you much at all unless you're keeping it stored there for a VERY long time, since it costs so much energy to cool the water in the first place.
There are valid reasons to do this:
if you need to survive intermittent power outages (as TFD notes), having a lot of ice or food in the fridge will keep it cool longer
a larger amount of food in the fridge/freezer will make it easier to chill or freeze new food more rapidly, which may sometimes aid in food safety/preservation
similarly, having more food may help to minimize small temperature fluctuations when opening the door frequently, again perhaps aiding in food safety/quality in some cases
if you have a very inefficient fridge that cools unevenly or is not well-insulated, having more food will prevent as much cycling on and off (though packing a fridge too full can also prevent it from cycling correctly)
All of these are perhaps good reasons to have a mild preference for keeping the fridge a little more full. But, from an energy perspective, there isn't a rationale for deliberately filling your fridge with excess food/water, since the energy required to cool any solids or liquids is usually many, many times the amount needed to cool air.
Also, if your main concern is cold air "falling out" of the fridge when the door is open, I'd suggest filling it with empty containers that have only air in them. They'll give you the benefit of not losing that excess cold air, but without the energy expenditure to cool a liquid you don't need to. (But again, the likely benefit is probably a couple dollars per year at most.)
Details below.
I tried searching for some reliable stats, and though I find many, many sources which make this claim, I don't generally see actual numbers regarding energy savings or even a theoretical calculation to support the logic of the practice.
In fact, it sometimes seems to appear on "myths" lists of energy groups, such as here:
MYTH: You can save energy by keeping your fridge full, closing it quickly, and regularly cleaning the coils.
Actually, all three of these actions are not worth your trouble. In
the study done by Balsnik it was found:
Total use from ALL fridge door openings adds up to <50 kWh/yr, or about $5.
Putting water bottles in your fridge to keep it full adds up to <0.1 kWh/yr.
Cleaning coils – no actual savings found.
Or from this document (on ultralow temperature freezers' efficiency):
URBAN LEGEND?
A full freezer takes less energy to operate: An
ostensible reason for this idea is that the thermal mass takes longer
to warm up, so the compressor doesn’t have to work as hard. Think
about it: while the contents take longer to warm up, it also takes
longer to cool down so the compressor works just as long every day.
The fundamental insulating factors of wall thickness and gasket
integrity do not change with a full or empty freezer, so why should it
make a difference to heat transfer? While cycle frequency will go
down, cycle duration will go up. The heat entering the cabinet will
not change. There is a nominal power spike at the beginning of each
compressor cycle, so more cycles could plausibly increase energy use a
little bit. Data has not been widely shared, so it remains in urban
legend status for now.
The logic of this last reference seems to address the question of whether an unopened freezer/refrigerator will be more efficient when it is full (as is sometimes claimed -- that the fridge will have to "work less hard" somehow). Obviously that doesn't make much sense, as this quote notes.
However, to judge this accurately, we'd need to take into account what happens when you open the fridge/freezer. Here's a report from an energy-savings group that tried a number of tests (including opening the door for various amounts of time). They concluded that top freezer models of fridges did use less energy when full, though they note in their analysis that it doesn't include the additional energy required to cool the extra food in the first place. But once that food is cool and the fridge is full, there is some energy benefit for top freezers. (How much is unknown, since their graphs don't have numbers.) For other types of freezer models, the results of the tests were mixed, so there was no clear benefit of an empty vs. full fridge. Their conclusion: "So our advice is to not worry about keeping the fridge full, and focus more on keeping the door closed."
For a theoretical perspective on fridge opening, let's try some reasonable assumptions:
The average fridge size in the U.S. is around 20 ft3. If we assume that the fridge isn't packed full and half of the air present is replaced by room temperature air when the door is opened, that would be roughly 10 ft3, or about 0.28 m3.
Using stats from here, we can calculate that cooling that 10 ft3 of air down by 20°C (e.g., from "room temperature" of about 25°C to 5°C) would require about 6.8 kJ of energy, or 0.0019 kWh. For a freezer of similar size, the temperature of the air would likely have to be lowered about 40°C, rather than 20°C, so these numbers would be doubled.
If we open the fridge door 20 times per day, over a year that would add up to about 13.8 kWh for a fridge with 10 ft3 of empty space, or 27.5 kWh for a freezer with a similar amount of empty space. The stats in the first quotation above estimate 50 kWh/yr for all fridge door openings, so the numbers seem to be in the right ballpark. Basically, it costs a couple dollars every year in energy loss for opening the fridge.
Now, suppose we instead loaded up that 10 ft3 with water instead of air. (This is a ridiculously large amount of water, but I'm using it to keep the occupied volume the same for a comparison.)
The amount of energy required to cool water from room temperature can be calculated similarly from these numbers. Cooling 10 ft3 of water by 20°C would require approximately 23,000 kJ. Freezing it to -15°C from 25°C would require about 120,000 kJ. (This number is significantly higher, due to the excess energy required to turn liquid water into solid ice.) The effect of adding large amounts of water was shown clearly in the study mentioned above, where the addition of 150 lbs. of room temperature water caused the fridge to spike to about 65°F and take almost a day and a half to return to normal temperature.
To put these numbers in a more useful form:
You'd have to cool down air in the fridge about 3500 times to "pay for" the amount of energy expended cooling the same volume of water.
You'd have to cool down air in the freezer about 9000 times to "pay for" the amount of energy expended in freezing the same volume of water.
UPDATE: As Joe rightly points out in comments, I assumed dry air here to simplify the calculations. But real kitchen air will be moist, and its effect is not insignificant. (I assumed the error would be less than 50% or so, but under reasonable assumptions, it's probably off by a factor of 1.5-3, depending on your kitchen humidity and how humid your fridge is.)
Anyhow, assuming we start with a relative humidity of 50% in the kitchen at 25°C, and we assume the refrigerator cools to 5°C in the fridge and -15°C in the freezer while maintaining 50% relative humidity at those temperatures (which would obviously require water vapor removal), here are some updated stats:
- You'd have to cool down air in the fridge about 1800 times to "pay for" the amount of energy expended cooling the same volume of water.
- You'd have to cool down air in the freezer about 5500 times to "pay for" the amount of energy expended in freezing the same volume of water.
[See calculations below for details.]
Basically, depending on how often you open your fridge and the room temperature, you will probably need to refrigerate water for at least several months before seeing any energy savings (at all). You'd likely need to keep (the same) water frozen for at least a year to get any energy savings. Even then, for reasonable quantities of water (e.g., a few gallons), it's unlikely that you'd save more than a few dollars per year in energy costs (and likely less).
A final note about full fridges: even supposing you manage to save a few cents per year with a full fridge, my practical experience tells me that I hold the door open much longer when the fridge is full than when it's nearly empty, since I often need to move stuff around or take things out temporarily to get things in the back. So would this theoretical savings ever actually materialize? I don't know.
For those who are interested, here is the "work" for the calculations above. I assume a volume of 10 ft3 = ~0.28 m3. Note that various approximations were used here to get a "ballpark" figure -- in particular, densities and specific heats were assumed to be constant over the temperature range, which might introduce a 5-10% error for the air calculations, and much less for the water calculations.
(1) Cooling (dry) air by 20°C
0.28 m3 of air × density of 1.205 kg/m3 at 20°C from table = 0.337 kg
0.337 kg × 20°C [same as 20 K] × specific heat of 1.005 kJ/(kg K) = 6.8 kJ
6.8 kJ ÷ 3600 = 0.0019 kWh
(2) Cooling (dry) air by 40°C
Same weight of initial air
0.337 kg × 40°C × 1.005 kJ/(kg K) = 13.6 kJ
(3) Cooling water from 25°C to 5°C
Same volume of 0.28 m3
0.28 m3 × density of about 1000 kg/m3 = 280 kg
280 kg × 20°C × specific heat of 4.18 kJ/(kg K) from table = 23400 kJ
NOTE: Obviously one cannot and should not fill a home fridge with ~600 lbs. of water, but I used the same volume here to make the energy required for comparable volumes, since it's asserted that replacing air by an equivalent volume of water will make a difference.
(4) Cooling water from 25°C to -15°C
Ice is less dense than water, so to achieve a final volume of 10 m^3, we must start with less water.
0.28 m3 × density of ice of 916.8 kg/m3 = 256 kg
Cool to 0C: 256 kg × 25°C × specific heat 4.18 kJ/(kg K) = 26800 kJ
Freeze: 256 kg × heat of freezing 334 kJ/kg = 85700 kJ
Cool ice to -15°C: 256 kg × 15°C × specific heat of ice 2.108 kJ/(kg K) = 8100 kJ
Total cooling energy: 120,700 kJ
(5) Cooling similar amount of water to air in fridge = 23400 kJ ÷ 6.78 kJ = about 3450 times greater
(6) Cooling similar amount of water to air in freezer = 120700 kJ ÷ 13.6 kJ = about 8900 times greater
(7) Cooling air at 50% relative humidity by 20°C:
We get weight fractions of water vapor in air at 50% humidity from a Mollier diagram. Here x at humidity of 0.5 is about 0.0098 kg/kg at 25°C and about 0.0026 kg/kg at 5°C.
We then follow the calculation of enthalpy (H) of moist air as found at Joe's link here.
At 25°C: H = (1.005 kJ/kg°C)(25°C) + (0.0098 kg/kg)[(1.84 kJ/kg°C)(25°C)+(2501 kJ/kg)] = 50.1 kJ/kg
At 5°C: H = (1.005 kJ/kg°C)(5°C) + (0.0026 kg/kg)[(1.84 kJ/kg°C)(5°C)+(2501 kJ/kg)] = 11.6 kJ/kg
Delta H (change in enthalpy) = 50.1 - 11.6 = 38.5 kJ/kg
Moist air is slightly less dense than dry air: using figures from here, moist air is about 1.199 kg/m3 at 20°C.
Mass of air using above volume assumption of 0.28 m3 is 0.336 kg
Energy required to cool = change in enthalpy × mass = 38.5 kJ/kg × 0.336 kg = 12.9 kJ
Note that various numbers here may vary slightly over the temperature change, but as in Joe's link, we can assume they're constant enough that it won't affect the final answer by more than a few percent.
(8) Cooling air from 25°C to -15°C in freezer
Using the Mollier diagram linked above, we get a weight fraction of approximately 0.00055 kg/kg for 50% humidity at -15°C
Use similar calculations to above
H at -15°C = -13.7 kJ/kg
delta H from 25°C to -15°C = 63.8 kJ/kg
using mass and density as above, the total energy required to cool is = 21.4 kJ
(9) We calculate the ratios as above, ending up with 1800 times more energy to cool an equivalent volume of water in fridge, and 5600 times more energy to freeze it.
(10) Relative humidity can vary in both the kitchen and fridge, so these calculations should only be taken as a ballpark figure, perhaps varying by a factor of 2-3 in either direction in extreme cases. Regardless, the amount of energy needed to cool even moist air is insignificant compared to that required to cool any liquid or solid food.
You assumed dry air. Saturated air (aka 100% humidity) is 76.9 (kJ/kg) at 25°C, which makes your break-even ratios at about 45 and 116. If you have small children, this might be worthwhile after a couple of days in high-humidity areas. And you keep the water in the back of the fridge, so that you can see the stuff you actually want to get to -- if it's slowing you down finding stuff in the fridge, you're doing something wrong.
@Joe - Yes, you're right that I used dry air, because I wanted the calculations to be a little easier. I just wanted to get something in the right ballpark, but you're right that I should have been more careful. On the other hand, you've cited a specific enthalpy number, but you tried to use it as a heat capacity. I'll update with more calculations, but basically my numbers are likely off by a factor of 2 or so, not 100. Also, you're right that water in the back isn't a problem, but I'm also considering advice to keep your fridge more full in general, which can slow you down.
The idea about containers filled with cold air sounds quite remarkable. especially since air (in pockets or layers, not running free) is an excellent insulator. With a bit of spatial planning, it may help to insulate some areas, ie, block off a bit of area for something that temperature swings would cause more problems with, or let something warm freeze without effecting quality of surrounding containers' contents.
One edge case is if you are on a controlled power plan for your fridge, or have a smart power meter and fridge (both very rare)
With these plans you may save money, but not power directly, you are just saving your country from inefficient peak power generation
There can be many hours going by without power for your fridge, so a well stocked fridge or freezer will have less temperature swing, and this may improve food preservation
It also helps when the power goes out ... a full freezer will defrost less quickly than a half-full freezer. (and it's getting to be hurricane season)
@Joe I suggest moving to a country without a "hurricane season" :-). Check http://www.blitzortung.org/Webpages/index.php?lang=en for a safe place
or monsoons, blizzards, tornados, tsunamis, questionable electrical infrastructure, etc ... are there any countries that actually have reliable power infrastructure these days? And the US is big enough that not all of it has a hurricane season ... the southwest has monsoons and/or tornados. The north has blizzards. The mountain areas have avalanches. (I'm in a blizzard + hurricane + derachio area ... and earthquakes now, too)
There are many factors. The one factor people seldom take into consideration is mass. Below I am considering only that factor. Other factors, such as open doors, may have greater effects, especially when considered cumulatively. I do not know.
If I put a room-temperature bottle of water into a freezer with ten bottles of frozen water, the temperature of the new bottle will descend much faster than in an empty freezer, because there is already more cold mass. However this has a cost; the temperature of the frozen bottles will rise in a direct relationship to the transfer of heat. The refrigeration unit will have to use energy to return the temperature of the ten bottles to their correct temperature. So yes, we have faster freezing. But no, based only on this factor, we do not have less energy expended to do that freezing.
The essential function of a refrigeration unit is to maintain a heat differential between inside and outside. The greater the mass of what must be kept at a lower temperature, the greater the amount of energy needed to do that. Air has very little mass, very little energy is needed to change its temperature. In contrast, a water bottle has much greater mass and much more energy will be necessary to maintain a heat differential.
One reason energy is needed to maintain a constant temperature is because of the transfer of heat from the ambient temperature outside the refrigeration unit and the desired temperature inside (we may also think of this as the cold seeping out in the opposite direction). Otherwise a closed freezer would never need any electricity, once it reached the temperature setting.
The contents of an empty freezer kept at -20° centigrade has a very low mass, whereas that of a freezer filled with water bottles has a much higher mass. The full freezer in fact has "more cold" inside, even when the temperature is the same. It loses more cold to the outside and more energy is needed to keep it cold.
So based only on the factor of cold loss, a full freezer needs more electricity.
How important this single factor is depends on many things, including the efficiency of the heat shielding of the freezer, the ambient temperature (less heat transfer if room temperature is 16°C than 30°C), ventilation of the heat coils, etc.
How this interplays with other factors creates a quite complicated multi-factor equation, and I suspect the answer will not be the same for every refrigeration unit and every usage.
All these calculations instead of a straight bit of common sense. Air has a thermal capacity one quarter of water. That means for every degree to cool it down water requires 4 time as much fridge energy as air. If water is in a warm room, (or subject to an open fridge door) it will take four times as long to warm up than air. So stop talking about energy efficiency, and other such esoteric terms.Just think : If my fridge is full, every time I open the door, and/or put something in, the variation in temperature will be less if it is full than if it is empty. So forget the word "efficient" and replace it by "best". Basically for a fridge to perform well, in other words for the temperature to vary as little as possible, keep it full. End of story.
This answer says we shouldn't do calculations but then does a calculation ("4 time as much"). As I calculated explicitly in my answer, the actual factors are more like 1800 times as much for a refrigerator and 5500 times as much for the freezer for water compared to air. If you have found an issue with my calculations (I have actually taught physics and have taken engineering courses in heat transfer), I'd be happy to have errors pointed out.
Why this issue is still being debated baffles me. Whatever the contents or fill ratio, heat loss is determined by insulation and external surface area. And this equates to energy consumption when the door is kept closed.
The issue seems to be air disturbance when the door is opened and closed. In a partially filled freezer, there is more cold air that is likely to be displaced every time the door is opened. And the warm air that enters needs to be cooled down. So that must be where energy is wasted compared to a full freezer. And it also causes more frozen condensation.
The question isn't whether there is some inefficiency caused by opening and closing fridge doors -- obviously there is. The question is whether: (1) that energy loss is substantial enough to worry a lot about, or whether it's something that might only cost you maybe $5-10 per year (as I explicitly calculated in my answer as to show ~50 kWh as a good estimate and quoted sources saying so). And (2) if deliberately filling your fridge with things you may not use actually would even result in meaningful energy savings (probably not).
There is also one other factor that wasn't considered. Water/ice in a fridge will cool the inside air more quickly when the door closes which reduces the work required by the compressor after each occurrence. So, if the fridge was filled with ice collected after a snow storm, it would decrease the power consumption caused by door being opened and the expense of cooling 150lbs of room temperature water would never occur. Although it's anyone's guess as to how much energy is required to maintain a full fridge vs an empty fridge, it seems to me that these values should be obtained while door remains closed to establish a power consumption baseline, then go from there.
"Water/ice in a fridge will cool the inside air more quickly.." Effectively, you raise the thermal mass of the fridge by putting more stuff in it. If that stuff helps cool the air after the door was open, that stuff is getting warmer. The compressor now has to work to cool the stuff back down. To take an extreme case, if you had X amount of stuff, and its temp went up by 5 degrees on door opening, replacing it with 10*X amount of stuff might mean that the stuff only goes up by 0.5 degrees, and air cools faster. But the compressor has to work similar amounts to cool the extra stuff back down.
Filling the empty space in a refrigerator to make it run more 'efficient' or to save money is just not correct. Think of it this way, your driving a semi truck, is it cheaper to run full or empty. Empty space or full space will be cooled by the refrigerator just the same, it is much cheaper to cool empty space (air). It is as simple as that.
Your analogy doesn't really work -- a full truck is heavier, so more expensive to move more things. In contrast, the theory behind a full fridge is that there is less empty space around that needs to be cool.
Also, cold air in the amount a fridge produces is useless outside the fridge, cold beer is not :)
And a truck has to come to stop from time to time to avoid hitting things. After that it costs energy to accelerate a heavy load up to speed. A fridge doesn't ever need to come to room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.253032
| 2015-06-02T17:48:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57957",
"authors": [
"Amber Vogel",
"Athanasius",
"Carol Clerkin",
"Craig Woodhams",
"Desiree Hagan",
"Diane carter",
"Erica",
"Ericka Liverman",
"Jenny Lockhart",
"Joe",
"Lisa Marquette",
"Louise Byrne",
"Megan Owen",
"Megha",
"Ray shannon",
"Rebecca Mosley",
"Sean Jones",
"Stephen Tomkin",
"TFD",
"Tia Gilbert",
"Willowes Jean",
"Yannis Papadopoulos",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nancy sutor",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
64907
|
How does removing the germ of garlic help with breath/digestion?
I have recently heard from a friend who is a chef, that removing the germ in a garlic clove helps with reducing the garlic breath and also avoids digestive problems some people have when eating garlic. This was also mentioned here (e.g. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/30853)
He could not remember where he read it, but he said it has something to do with an enzyme that is only contained in the germ, hence you should remove it.
Is this true and does anybody have some evidence or further reading on this matter?
As a note, it's called the "Germ"... and that answer is unsourced, so I don't know that you can actually say that it's true... which I'm pretty sure it's not.
Sounds like an old wives tale to me... The last clove smelled pretty garlicky even w/o the germ.
According to this blog it makes a difference when the garlic isn't cooked (but less so if it is cooked)
http://www.davidlebovitz.com/should-you-remove-the-green-germ-from-garlic/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.254763
| 2015-12-29T22:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64907",
"authors": [
"Bradley Telford",
"Catija",
"Leigh",
"Leona Hilton",
"Sophia Jordan",
"Stephie",
"Vlady Mir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65011
|
What is the difference between acetate sheets and baking paper when making chocolate deco?
I would like to make chocolate decorations with melted chocolate. After searching on the web, however, I am not quite sure I could find acetate sheets. But I can find baking paper.
Would there be any substitute, like baking paper, parchment paper? What is the difference between them?
I want to make melted-chocolate decorations like those around this cake:
"What is the difference between them?" ... "Acetate sheet" sounds like cellophane to me...
I am not quite sure what it is called, maybe acetate plastic, or whatever kinda sheet of plastic that can hold the chocolate... and be safe and not sticky... :P
Acetate sheets posses a firm and rigid shape, with a glossy coating that assists the removal of decorations such as chocolate decoration. It also can be shaped without being indented at any point which baking parchment most frequently fails to do.
Baking parchment is very agile, this fails to support decorations as a mould, and would consequently lead to breakage of the decoration should the parchment not retain a flat edge. It could also bend in frequent points, misshaping the chocolate. This is what makes it suited towards cakes, as as it can be ripped off.
I would therefore conclude that it would be most suitable for you to use acetate sheets.
I think generally acetate sheets are used for this kind of thing because they're a bit stiffer than baking paper. They're also shinier, and as a general rule, the shinier the surface that you put the chocolate on, the shinier the chocolate will be. You could use baking paper but the result is not going to be as good.
Like other people said, acetate is clear plastic. You can often get it from arts and crafts stores if there isn't a fancy confectioner place you go for supplies. It's probably easiest to buy it online though, if you don't mind waiting. Make sure you search for food grade acetate. E.g.: http://www.countrykitchensa.com/shop/essentials/acetate-sheets-12-x-18/40/582/617/629475/
There are good reasons to use acetate sheets, the flexibility and releaseability among them. Although, I question the idea that the shinier the surface, the shinier the chocolate.
I wonder if the disposable cutting sheets they sell at dollar tree and other stores are the same thing or wood work. They are ment to cut up fruits and vegetables on without cutting the counter. I'm assuming they are safe for food.it might be worth looking into. I think the are sold at most grocery stores too just more money.
They are not the same thing (an acetate sheet is thinner and wouldn't protect the counter very much from chopping), although they are safe for food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.254904
| 2016-01-02T17:04:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65011",
"authors": [
"Cole",
"Erica",
"Frank Fessler",
"Hazel Warnock",
"Helen Smith",
"J Holley",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laurence Laurie Kavanagh",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42140",
"rackandboneman",
"shirley hall"
],
"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
}
|
72918
|
Using a paper towel as a splatter shield: Great idea or terrible accident waiting to happen?
I recently watched a friend cooking, and he used a paper towel as a splatter shield:
This seems like a very convenient solution, since you can just throw away the paper towel afterwards, as opposed to conventional splatter shields, which are a nuisance to clean.
Is it safe to do that, or will the paper catch fire (or are there any other hazards that I did not think of)? I tried to research the burning point of paper towels, but I failed to find a reliable source...
Whether it's generally safe or not, I have actually done that and managed to catch the paper towel on fire. In my case, it drooped and a corner touched the heating element on the electric stove we had in that house.
Ray Bradbury teaches us that paper will spontanously combust at (around) 451F (230C). However, this isn't just paper: it's oily paper and I'd expect that to combust at a rather lower temperature. Many cooking oils have a smoke point lower than 230C.
Looks like a great way to sear the meat, provided you don't mind ash and know how to extinguish a pan fire.
@DavidRicherby that's the auto-ignition flash point. Paper burns at significantly lower temperatures when exposed to an open flame. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/06/ray_bradbury_death_does_paper_really_burn_at_451_degrees_fahrenheit_.html
@RubberDuck I assumed that exposing paper towels to naked flames was so obviously a bad idea that I didn't need to mention it... Everything written on this whole page has the implicit assumption that it's game over if your paper towel spatter shield meets an open flame.
Fair enough @DavidRicherby. It's just a common misconception people have due to there being a famous book. I felt compelled to call it out.
@RubberDuck OK. Maybe I'm crediting people with too much common sense!
This definitely falls into the category of an accident waiting to happen. No flammable materials should ever be used in this manner. Not only is there the danger of the paper catching fire from a heating element or flame, there is also the risk of it catching fire from a pan fire (and consequently making that situation worse).
However, if you want something disposable, a foil sheet works and won't catch fire. Additionally, if you want it vented so steam can escape, you can poke small holes in the foil.
Also, even when it "works" perfectly - wouldn't that mean it would soak-up fat and grease? That's pretty much re-inventing the oil-lamp... (just a lot less safe!)
Remember that a foil sheet will become really hot too.
I can't see what kind of heater this is.
If it is induction, there is no problem. You can even keep the paper between heater and pan. It can char a bit there, but unless you are keeping your pan very hot, it works well and won't catch fire. On top of the pan, it is even safer.
If this is a resistive stove, then it is a bad idea. The grease soaked paper might touch the burner like Chris Bergin said, and catch fire. Had it been gas, it would have been even worse.
Hmm, but isn't the auto ignition point of paper low enough to make it dangerous on induction still? Wiki says 218–246 °C (424–475 °F) which seems quite possible inside a pan. So you could overheat your pan a bit, and instead of just maybe making the oil smoke, you might ignite the paper and in turn ignite the oil?
Flashpoint of paper varies, but Farenheit 451 is a memorable enough reference to it to be a useful rule of thumb. Most stovetop cooking operations on an induction range will not reach that temperature. Apply common sense, but this is a well-accepted practice for that technology.
Right, you shouldn't get it that hot, but accidents happen. People accidentally heat oil to smoking, which is in the same rough temperature range. Upgrading that to a grease fire seems like a bit of a risk to be aware of?
What's the flash-point for paper soaked with grease and fat?
@BaardKopperud And that is the sixty-four million dollar question.
Paper towels make great spatter shields when microwaving.
Induction can get some cookware to amazingly hot temperatures, not safe.
@rackandboneman see the answer, "unless you are keeping your pan very hot, won't catch fire". It is inherently possible to get it hot enough to catch fire, but this is rather atypical use and cooks generally control the temperature to stay much lower. I would expect them to know when they are cooking at unusually high heat.
I recommend you use the lid instead. I think is way better and safer to use it instead of some paper.
The only way to use a paper towel safely could be on an induction oven, but i still consider better to use a lid, maybe shifting it a little if you want to avoid completely closing the pan.
Lids are problematic because they don't allow air in evenly, even when you leave it ajar... It's also worth noting that many non-stick frying pans like the one pictured above do not come with lids, so this may not be an option at all.
You can buy a "universal lid" in a kitchenware, department or even a discount variety store. Mine has about 25 cm diameter glass lid with a silicone outer ring with grooves set at various common saucepan diameters.
@Catija : there are flat "lids" composed of fine wire mesh intended specifically for this purpose ( example ).
@mikołak the question specifically mentions those and excludes them as options.
I believe it is difficult for anyone to accurately quantify what is safe for you. Please allow me to explain my view:
I use razor sharp Japanese knives. Most people that I cook for, or that watch me cook, comment on how those can't be safe. I made the switch over 10 years ago, and so far, I still have all my digits. I have shaved some skin off my knuckles (yum!), but I haven't made it through enough flesh to seriously bleed or hit bone (yet). And for larger dinners with friends I will drink - a lot - when I cook. Yay me!
Still, I think this practice is perfectly safe for me. Just as I find frying with oil in large, open cast iron skillets to be perfectly safe for me.
So with that said, I recently (in the past year or so) have started using this method of covering a skillet with paper towel while I fry bacon. I don't get the pan hot enough for the paper to combust, and I typically use a high-wall 10" or 12" skillet, which keeps the paper well away from the burner's flame.
I prefer this to the other forms of splatter reduction, including:
Using a Standard Lid. Way, way too much steam buildup, which brings water into the pan of grease for a very unhappy tim (even if the lid is left "cracked" on the pan to allow most the steam to escape).
Using a Mesh Splatter Guard. These work ok, but have two main drawbacks: 1) if you don't own several sizes to match your pan sizes, they can be cumbersome; and 2) they are more of a pain to clean (especially when compared to just throwing away a paper towel).
Microwaving Bacon. It comes out ok, but it's just not the same. I get such a better crunch and variance in consistency when frying bacon (especially in cast iron).
Not Eating Bacon. This is just not an option.
I love combining paper with fire when making a campfire or lighting a fireplace but highly do not recommend using paper as a 'lid' or Splatter Guard when cooking. Besides possibly catching fire, the paper towel could also become 'steam-soaked' and sink into the food being fried. Removing a hot oil-soaked paper towel would not be 'finger friendly' and could also drip onto a heating element or into a gas flame.
Because I have several frying pans that don't have lids, I simply tear off a sheet of Aluminum Foil that's large enough to lay fully over the pan...but leaving one or two side edges lifted a little higher so steam can escape without burning you or adding water to the oil. This has worked well for me when frying up bacon and eggs, chicken, seafood, French fries, onion rings, etc.
Clean up is a breeze, too, since you just throw the 'lid' out when done. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.255182
| 2016-08-06T14:22:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72918",
"authors": [
"Baard Kopperud",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"Coxy",
"David Richerby",
"Ismael Miguel",
"RubberDuck",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49587",
"keshlam",
"mikołak",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"speciesUnknown"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.