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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50065
|
Baking two strata at once
I want to offer a veggie and a meat strata at a brunch for a large group. They both require the same oven temperature. Can I bake them at the same time, and if so, what adjustments do I need to make? Thanks!
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Do the two recipes call for different temperatures? Will they fit in the oven at the same time? As a rule, strata is fairly forgiving. If the two recipes call for different temperatures, you can probably just split the difference.
They require the same temp. I just wasn't sure if they would bake differently if together in the oven. So, use the same temp and the same time?
Same temp, they may need a bit more time just because you've got more mass to heat. Give yourself a few extra minutes and rotate your pans halfway through.
When you put one item in the oven, the size affects the cooking time, because the thicker it is, the longer it takes for the heat to reach the middle. But if you put two things in, that's not a concern, unless they're so close together that they're basically "acting like" one big thing.
According to this site, "The oven has a thermostat that keeps its temperature fairly constant, no matter what is placed in it (within reason). As long as the objects in the oven don't absorb so much heat that the oven can't keep up (or are so big as to prevent even circulation), it is unlikely that the number of things placed in the oven will affect the cooking time. It will take more heat to cook more mass that is placed in the oven, so the flame (or electric heating element) will be on more."
Don't forget that cooking times in recipes are always estimates, as some ovens hold temperature more tightly than than others; most aren't that accurate, and run hotter or colder than set; different sized ovens have different airflow; and food cooks differently at different altitudes. Always check the food when it's "supposed" to be done (or slightly before) and adjust accordingly!
It's really pretty easy for them to be big enough to affect circulation, though. For example if you bake a sheet of cookies on top and bottom, the ones on top will tend to brown less on the bottom, since they're shielded by the sheet below. The overall temperature of the oven might be the same, but the distribution through the oven isn't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.547724
| 2014-11-25T16:14:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50065",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kandi Branderhorst",
"Kimber Blackburn",
"Liz",
"Stephen Rusinko",
"emiliana hamad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29523",
"terry sawall"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50100
|
How much brown sugar should I substitute for white sugar?
I'm making a cranberry sauce from fresh cranberries and want to substitute brown sugar for the 1 cup of white sugar without making the sauce sweeter. What quantity of brown sugar do you suggest?
Brown sugar will give a noticeable caramel flavour to the sauce. I'd advise adding a little at a time until you get the result you want.
Agreed. There is no sweetness differential between the two, but the flavor of brown sugar is VERY conspicuous and, at least to my way of thinking, not the best companion flavor to cranberries.
I agree with the other comments, you certainly can substitute one to one, but I don't think it wold be a good choice. It makes me wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that brown sugar is less refined than white. Regular brown sugar starts out as normal refined white sugar, to which molasses is added.
I think all of the three comments could have been made an answer. Just because something is simple, it doesn't mean it's a bad answer, as long as it solves the OP's problem.
For now I'm going to mark this as a duplicate. If you're really interested in something specifically to do with cranberry sauce, feel free to edit to clarify, and we can reopen your question!
Thanks for the helpful information. I was under the impression that brown sugar adds a "richer" flavor, and has more simple sugars due to molasses component, therefore yielding increased sweetness. Stephen's comment that brown sugar may not be the best companion flavor to cranberries, got me thinking that I've never seen a jam or preserve recipe with brown sugar! Also thanks for link to America's Test Kitchen. Happy Thanksgiving
Dupe, but a good question. See Satanicpuppies answer here: Brown sugar instead of white sugar
I know you asked re: cranberry sauce specifically, but this is a great article regarding the differences in sugars, generically, which might help in the future:
"Sugar can be a single molecule made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen—like glucose and fructose. Other sugars, like sucrose, or white table sugar, are made up of multiple molecules (in this case, one glucose and one fructose), tied together with chemical bonds. Now, when sucrose is heated with an acid, it breaks back down into the two smaller sugars, glucose and fructose, resulting in something we call invert sugar. This small chemical change makes a big difference: While sucrose is hygroscopic, invert sugar is even more water-loving.
And this can make a tremendous difference when, say, you want to bake a chewy, rather than crunchy, cookie."
http://www.americastestkitchenfeed.com/cooking-science/2012/10/we-prove-it-sugar-changes-texture-and-sweetness/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.547957
| 2014-11-26T21:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50100",
"authors": [
"Bob Wirsing",
"Cara Powers",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judy Hagner",
"Kelley Miller",
"Lindy",
"Michi",
"Stephen Eure",
"Yuzhuo Cao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
}
|
51644
|
Can I substitute powdered walnuts for all-purpose flour in a cake?
I saw a recipe where ground-up walnuts were a substitute for flour but this was for a cake that you do not cook (it was a recipe for chocolate cake made out of zucchini.
Can powdered walnuts (grounded by a food processor) ever be used as a substitute for flour in more normal cakes, particularly ones that contain flour and are baked?
Here is the recipe http://cookingalamel.com/2013/03/raw-chocolate-cheesecake.html
After the edit: Now cheesecake is a totally different thing. Cheesecakes don't even usually call for flour, whether they're baked or not. Ground nuts are often in the crust or garnish, but not the cake itself.
To clarify Jolene's point: the nuts in that cake aren't a replacement for flour. They're a partial replacement for the cream cheese that'd normally be the bulk of the cake. That recipe is so far from actual cheesecake that regarding any of it as substitution will probably lead you astray. Is something along those lines a sufficient answer for you, or is there a further question you're trying to ask?
Finely blended (in a blender, not a food processor) nuts (usually cashews) are commonly used in indian dishes as a substitute or augmentation for cream and other heavy dairy products, Same principle has been applied to cheesecake here...
Sort of. Nut flours are the base of many "flourless" cakes and torts. This one from Joy of Baking is typical, and uses almond flour, which is more common than walnut. Here's one that specifically uses walnut. Note that these are not examples of using nut flours as a substitution for flour, they are recipes developed for nut flours. Both of those recipes start with whole nuts that are ground in a food processor or spice grinder.
Wheat flour behaves very differently, if you want to bake a cake using nut flour in combination with or instead of wheat flour, search for recipes that call for nut flour. Trying to work out an actual substitution would be fraught with peril. Nuts are full of fat and non-gluten protein, wheat flour has starch and gluten forming protein (although a high gluten level is not usually desirable in cakes, that's why cake flour is lower in protein than AP, so that it creates less gluten).
Now I see from the edit to the question that the zucchini/chocolate cake that led to the qustion is actually a kind of cheesecake. Cheesecakes generally don't contain flour, in the case of your recipe the nuts are actually replacing a portion of the cream cheese. In other cheesecakes you might see nuts in the crust or garnish, but I've never seen flour in the filling.
A direct substitution would not work. The cake needs gluten to rise properly. You could replace up to 1/4 the weight of the wheat flour with proper nut flour, though without much fuss.
You can't make nut flour by grinding nuts in a blender/food processor. Nut flour is made from the solid material left over after the oil has been pressed from the nuts. You'll wind up with ground nuts or nut butter, neither of which will work well in a cake.
The result of finely grinding nuts into a powder using a spice grinder or food processor (before the butter stage) is commonly referred to as "nut flour", even if the powder is not as fine as actual flour.
I agree that this isn't a good direct substitution, but I don't think the issue is gluten - it's starch. Cakes typically have very minimal gluten formation - in fact, gluten development tends to be associated with undesirably tough cakes. In this case, since the OP mentions zucchini, it's probably the quick bread variety of cake, and given that you can make things with textures like that out of cornmeal, I really doubt gluten is required. They still depend on starch for structure, though, and flour is very different from nuts in the starch department.
@Jefromi, a good food science book will tell you that pastries(not quick breads) rely on gluten to trap the leavening gas. Please read this and this.
@jbarker2160 The OP asked about a cake, specifically one using zucchini, which as I said means it's almost certainly in the quick bread category, not a pastry. The sources you point to do have some good information (including the fact that cakes and pastries tend to try to minimize gluten formation and weaken the structure, as I said), but they're not generally talking about the same kind of baked good this question is.
@Jefromi, I doubt anyone returning to this question in the future will be looking for advice about a quick bread recipe since the title clearly says, "cake."
@jbarker2160 Yet, what he's saying applies to cakes. Flourless cakes using nut flours are common. The Sachertort from ATK is another example of a nearly flourless cake that uses nut flour ground in a food processor. I didn't include it in the answer because it is paywalled.
@Jolenealaska To be fair, that does have a fairly different structure from a lot of cakes, though it's still largely because of lack of starch, not just gluten.
Ah, the OP has provided a recipe and it's not a traditional zucchini cake; it's even farther away - it's a fake cheesecake, with basically no crumb structure. Depending on what other kinds of cakes they want to apply the substitution to, possibly none of our comments or answers apply.
Yup, the question has been significantly revised - it is asking more broadly about cakes. So we're back to the beginning with the comments here: most cakes minimize gluten and depend heavily on starch, and a broad category of cakes (aka quick breads) get their primary structure from starch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.548204
| 2014-12-16T18:21:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51644",
"authors": [
"Angel Hale-Lane",
"Cascabel",
"Colleen Riley",
"Dwayne Avery",
"Eric Libis",
"Jessica Kelly",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy Nolan",
"LISA JORDAN",
"Marcia Runnels",
"Michele Lein",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Reggie Schlieper",
"Regina Wright",
"Russell Dewalt",
"Steve Mckellar",
"Steven Paul",
"Tammy Schiefelbein",
"Thomas Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49241
|
What order should I add ingredients when making soup?
I am a student with no cooking experience and a very low budget. The former forces me to cook as cheap as possible and I think soups in general are the most cost efficient meals out there, since they can be cooked in large amounts and stored for a long time. But the problem is, I have very little idea of how to make a soup.
So far I know how to make a basic meat and vegetable soup/stew:
1) Stew some kind of meat
2) Chop some veggies, saute some of them in a pan with oil or butter.
3) Add the bouillon from the 1st step and some other veggies. Add the meat from the 1st step too.
4) Add some spices and cook for 1-2 hours.
As you've probably noticed this is a very very rough recipe and I'd like to clear a lot of steps. My main question is, what's the best order to do all this in? Specifically:
1) In what order should I saute the first veggies (for example, garlic onion and carrots) ? How long do I need to cook them for?
2) When I add the bouillon and the rest of the vegetables, should I add the longer cooking ones first, or cut them into smaller pieces? Suppose I'm using potatoes, beans, celery, and parsley. Obviously the potatoes require more time then parsley. So how should I do this? (Should I cook harder vegetables longer, or cut them into finer pieces?)
3) When should I add the meat?
4) If I want to thicken it with starch, when should I add it?
Hello! While you have some good questions in there, this is insanely broad. Our site does focused, small questions, and looks for one good solution for one problem. My suggestion would be to make several separate question "threads" out of it. And some of them will be duplicates, search for them first. The "give me general advice about soups" part will never be allowed on the site, it is something which would be good on a discussion forum.
We have a help center explaining how the site works. See for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask for an explanation of the question formats we don't accept.
I knew this was coming so I tried to make my question as specific as possible. Please don't let the heading mislead you. I have very specific questions there and I don't see the reason to separate them in different threads. If the last part is bothering you, it can be edited out, but it shouldn't be a reason to put the whole thread on hold, since as you said, there are some good questions in there. The reason question is long is that I wanted to clearly right down what I already know, just to prevent inefficient answers.
You should definitely split things up here. The bulk of the question is fine as one question (it's basically "what order should things go in"), but "how do I make soup creamy?" is entirely separate, as is "what will make it last longer". If you want I can help by editing it down to the first part, and trying to clarify, but I'd rather you post the other questions yourself so you can own them and get the rep!
I have checked for possible duplicates for the sub-questions and I didn't find any. Since the whole question goes under the theme making a soup, it should be regarded as a whole. The link http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask is very vague about the scope of a question. "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." Since there isn't clear specification about the scope, it shouldn't be the reason to put the thread on hold. Also, I have specified that the last questions are additional.
If you break the last questions off into separate (new) questions, you'll get more attention about them and are more likely to get this one reopened. The suggestions already made here are intended to be helpful and guide you towards getting this reopened (and I'd like to see that happen, as I'd love to read about basic soup ideas and possibly even contribute some if I can find an article I read a few months ago about soups!)
I have edited the question. I would like to see it reopened.
It's still too broad. You really should take the suggestion of splitting it into smaller questions. You've already identified four questions on this page, it seems like it would be easy to make more focused "question threads" using those.
I actually think it's probably okay now; it's all about the order of the ingredients for a basic stew (with a couple extra details). I'm going to edit a little more to try to help avoid rambling tangential answers, but I don't think it's obviously too broad anymore. I do think you would get better answers by asking more specific questions (e.g. is it better to chop longer-cooking things more finely, or just let them cook longer), but we're not going to force you to ask it in the best way possible.
To be clear, I think the best way to ask this would be to split it out exactly as Kareen said - your four numbered questions can each be asked on their own. I don't think it's bad enough in this form to be worth us mods unilaterally closing it, but I would not blame others for voting to close, and it's really in your own interests to split it up and try to get better answers to each of your questions. (They'll still all get answered!)
Try it. Experiment. Find out what you like.
Goldilocks provided some very good general advice. Just to address a few more points in the specific questions posed:
1) In what order should I saute the first veggies (for example, garlic onion and carrots) ? How long do I need to cook them for?
Garlic takes the shortest time to cook, particularly if it is minced or pressed, so it should be added last, probably only a minute or two before adding the liquid. (You can also add some spices at this point, to bring out certain fat-soluble aromatics.) Timing of other veggies don't matter so much. If you want your onions to partially caramelize, start them by themselves first.
Sauteing is about getting flavors from the fat to interact with the food and somewhat about browning reactions. So, it doesn't matter if the veggies don't all get very cooked here. (It's hard to say exactly how long; it depends on temperature and whether you're interested in getting anything browned or just exposing it briefly to the fat, which will still bring out flavors that the stock/broth won't.)
2) When I add the bouillon and the rest of the vegetables, should I add the longer cooking ones first, or cut them into smaller pieces? Suppose I'm using potatoes, beans, celery, and parsley. Obviously the potatoes require more time then parsley. So how should I do this? (Should I cook harder vegetables longer, or cut them into finer pieces?)
It depends on how finicky you are about the final texture of the various ingredients. If you want them all done to perfect doneness, you can add them at staggered intervals depending on how long it takes for them to cook. Personally, with many soups I'm okay if some things are mushy, so I often dump most ingredients in along with the stock/broth. (Actually, to save time, I'm often chopping up things as I go, so I dump them in as I finish cutting.) But if there's something that you feel is overdone one time, remember that and add it a little later the next time.
Herbs are a special case. If you want their flavor integrated into the ingredients, add them early (though generally not more than 30-60 minutes before the end of cooking). If you want a more "fresh herb" taste that stands out, add them in the last few minutes or sprinkle raw over the soup when serving.
3) When should I add the meat?
As Goldilocks said, for maximum flavor you probably want to brown the meat first, before starting anything else. You then remove the meat and saute the vegetables in the fat leftover from the meat, while scraping the bottom of the pan to get all the nice browned bits mixed in. Then you add the meat back in along with the liquid and the rest of the ingredients. If you're short for time, you can also leave the meat in the pan while sauteing the veggies, though it will be less effective. If the meat is pre-cooked (e.g., reusing roasted chicken in chicken soup/stew), you can probably just add it with the liquid.
4) If I want to thicken it with starch, when should I add it?
It depends on the starch. Flour usually needs to cook a while so that it doesn't taste "raw" or grainy. Other starches (like cornstarch) do not require extensive cooking, though you will need to bring to a low simmer for a few minutes to allow the starches to fully expand. If I'm not following a specific recipe, I often make a roux-like thickener by adding some flour to the vegetables at the end of the saute phase and cook along with the remaining fat there for a few minutes. Then add the liquid, starting with a little at first to dissolve the flour (and avoid lumps).
I usually do not thicken it completely at the beginning to avoid sticking or burning during simmering. But this gets the thickening started, which can then be finished by adding a little more starch at the end (the last 5-10 minutes, perhaps longer if using flour or coarser meal as thickener), as needed. Do keep in mind when adding starch to hot liquid at the end that you should begin by adding some of the liquid (or cold water/other liquid) directly to the starch to dissolve it a bit. Then add this mixture slowly to the soup; this will help to avoid lumps.
I'd refine this with regard to the handling of meat and broth/stock.
If you want to make a stock, you'd start with meat scraps (including bones, skin, etc.) and some veggies like celery and onion. Although the meat could be already cooked (e.g., a chicken carcass) you won't be reusing it again1. You'll be boiling beyond what would be considered edible and then straining all the solids out with a fine mesh strainer. Remember to mash down on the material in the strainer to squeeze as much fluid as you can out. Then throw the wrung out pulp into the compost. You may also want to skim some fat off the top of the broth.
It's this, the broth, and not necessarily the soup, that you cook for hours. As in the more the better...3, 4, 5, 6, as long as you are willing to wait. Keep a lid on it and the heat low. A pressure cooker is also a very handy device here and can produce an equivalent broth in 1/3 or 1/4 of the time.
Then you want to saute your veggies as appropriate and sear the meat. Not the meat you made the broth with -- you already threw that away (it does not even have to be the same kind). By "searing" I mean putting it in a very hot pan with a bit of oil briefly, to get some serious browning on the outside. You will also end up with some brown bits in the pan. Once the meat is done (remember, you aren't trying to cook it all the way through, just sear the outside -- although you can cook it all the way if you want, in which case it does not have to stew much), you will have some brown bits in the pan. Deglaze that with some of the stock, or some other liquid you'd like in the soup/stew, by pouring it in the hot pan and scraping a bit (it will come up easily and muddy the liquid). That is some tasty stuff and can be combined with the rest of the stock, veggies, and meat.
You then do not need to cook the soup/stew for very long; 20-60 minutes should be plenty. If you want a thicker, stewier texture, you can thicken it with something starchy.
1 Which is why "scraps" are ideal -- you were going to throw those out to start with. You can also buy such scraps (e.g. stewing bones) very cheaply. You'd be amazed what a few hours of boiling just bones with marrow and perhaps some bits on produces. If the scraps are not already cooked, you might want to roast them under a broiler for a bit to add some flavour.
Alternately, if you do not want to bother with the fuss of creating the stock, browning the meat, and sautéing veggies separately, start by browning the fresh meat as described above (and deglazing) in a stockpot, then throw in veggies and water/beer/broth and cook for as long as you like. Although I've never tried, with stews it is possible, once everything's combined (and presuming your stockpot is ovenproof), to throw it in the oven (covered, but with the lid slightly open) at ~ 150 ºC / 300 ºF for a few hours instead. I imagine this saves the trouble of stirring and fretting, but conversely, might take a bit of trial and error to work out WRT consistency. You don't want to it to dry out and burn, but you still want it thick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.548671
| 2014-10-25T17:10:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49241",
"authors": [
"Alison Smyth",
"Amy Dills",
"Ashli Aslin",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Ridder",
"DaveL",
"Emma Lory",
"Erica",
"Jammie Geiger",
"Jennifer Pooley",
"Kareen",
"Kristy Ahrens",
"Miguel Basto",
"Mike Newburger",
"Pete Becker",
"Rodney Epps",
"Roland McGowan",
"Spammer",
"Trainer QHWTN6DFQEHM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"rumtscho",
"steakexchange",
"user117586"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66789
|
Does canned tuna contain preservatives?
I want to know how the tuna can be kept for so long in a can. Do they use preservatives? Or is it just tuna and water (or oil or brine)?
If you can't define what you do and don't want, it's usually best to just not ask about it. Ask what's in canned tuna besides tuna and water (or oil or brine) and then you can figure out if you like it or not. (removed discussion of natural/artificial stuff - it's a recurring topic here and we don't need it rehashed every time)
The preserving effect of canning is based on
removing all bacteria and fungi (normally present at least to some extent even in perfectly safe food) by a combination of heat and pressure over a certain time
preventing new bacteria or fungi from reaching the food by sealing the containers
avoiding oxidation by sealing the cans
sometimes supporting this by ingredients that are very inhospital for bacteria and fungi like acids (pickles, anyone?) or sugar (less available water).
For your tuna, this means the heat/pressure of the canning process is sufficient to prevent spoilage for a long time.
Special preservatives are typically not necessary. Checking the label should confirm this. If one brand should have choosen to add them nonetheless, you can pick another manufacturer.
Perfect answer, though I would start with "No chemical preservatives, but tuna is preserved in the following way..." Or something like that.
@Escoce, NaCl counts as "chemical" for you?
That's like asking "How about H2O?" Everything is and is made of chemicals. The omega-3 acids are chemicals too. Besides salt is not required for preservation in this case, it's a flavor enhancer so that canned tuna isn't as bland as it normally would be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.549730
| 2016-02-24T10:23:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66789",
"authors": [
"Anna SIDELNIK",
"Antoinette Edwards",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Shaw",
"Derek Carney",
"Escoce",
"Gayatri Arbatti",
"Kelly Starr",
"Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla",
"Nancy Lahtinen",
"Patricia Old",
"Risa Wedworth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"roork hitchner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53486
|
How do I get more flavor in the interior of a brisket?
My brisket doesn't have a lot of flavor on the inside. The outside is full of flavor but when getting to the inside it doesn't have much flavor to wow my guests. How do I get more flavor to the interior?
I'm cooking it in the oven, by the way. BBQ is not my thing.
Hello and welcome - we'll be much better able to help if you can add more details on your recipe/method. Simply knowing that it's cooked in the oven isn't enough to indicate where things might be going wrong.
Hello & welcome, too. One hint for new users: asking for "the best way" is going to raise a few eyebrows here as the question might be considered too broad. It's always a good idea to a) say what you did & didn't like then b) ask for specific ideas how to improve your method. I suggested an edit (also for better readability), but you can change it back if you don't like it.
Part of the issue could be quality of the meat you are buying. Interior should taste like beef.
Also, when you eat it, make sure you get some of the outside in every bite!
I don't typically cook brisket, but when I cook other large slabs of meat for london broil, I'll tenderize it by stabbing it repeatedly with a fork (evenly over the whole surface, flip, then do it again on the other side), drop it into a zip-top bag, then coat it liberally with worcestershire sauce. I'll then add a good bit of soy sauce to the bag, compress out the air, and let it sit for somewhere between an hour and a day (depending on how far in advance I have to prep it).
Something similar should work for you, although you're likely going for a low and slow cook, while I stick mine under the broiler for a few minutes.
Your other option is just to serve it with a good sauce ... or catch the drippings so that you can slice the meat and let it soak in the juices before you serve your guests.
The simplest way would be to make the interior smaller, which could be accomplished in several ways, such as slicing the brisket ahead of time or cutting it in half vertically. This would give you a larger surface area to season, decreasing the amount of unflavored meat and shortening cooking time.
You can also try making it the day ahead.
My usual brisket recipe braises in a beer, onion, and chili sauce; but I make it the day before, and slice it thin; and keep the sauce and sliced brisket separately in the fridge.
Then, the next day, I layer the slices in a baking dish, skim the fat off the sauce, pour it over and reheat.
Because the slices reheat in the sauce, it has plenty of flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.549932
| 2015-01-10T18:08:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53486",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Asap Garage ASAP Garage Door R",
"Cape Cod Pro Garage Doors",
"Cascabel",
"D Mendoza",
"Daniel Rosen",
"Derek",
"Elaine Meuli",
"Gym Flooring Experts Ltd",
"Hollie Trist",
"JOE RILEY",
"Stephie",
"david mohrman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53550
|
Preparing Meats using Dry Rubs
I have recently begun testing different types of dry rubs in preparing meat dishes. What base ingredients (outside of spice blends) should I be looking for in a good quality dry rub? If it is allowed, I'd appreciate if you could share products that contain the ingredients you are recommending.
I'm a little confused by "ingredients (outside of spice blends)". Are you expecting there to be a lot of unique non-spice ingredients in rubs?
@Jefromi - I believe what he is referring to is outside of "packaged spice blends", i.e. "Lawry's Seasoned Salt", "McCormick Grill Mates Montreal Steak Seasoning", "Old Bay", etc. He wants to know what base ingredients to make his own blend.
@dpollitt Maybe? The last sentence really makes it sound like he wants to buy something prepackaged. Shall have to wait for the OP to clarify, I think.
I'm asking both. Any prepacked that fly under the radar (I've tried mainstream) and base ingredients for my own custom blend.
@Chrismas007 Recipe requests are off-topic here, so the latter question probably isn't a great one to ask. Asking how to look for decent premade ones seems fine, though looking for specific product recommendations isn't so good; there are tons and tons of them and we try to avoid poll questions.
I've edited my answer to try to answer the questions you seem to be asking, but it'd still be awesome if you could edit your question too. We don't want this to end up as a poll of everyone's favorite spices - we'd have to put it on hold. (I'd edit it myself but I don't want to put words in your mouth!)
Premade blends
If you're trying to buy something premade, look for blends without filler ingredients. For example, if you see sugar or salt as the first ingredient, that's a bad sign. Sometimes you'll also see large amounts of garlic or onion powder. Yes, you may often want salt and even sugar in your rubs, but you'll probably be happier adding them yourselves than paying a dollar an ounce for them.
It's also a great sign if they list all the ingredients, not just "spices".
And of course, you want it to not be old, since ground spices lose potency over time, but that's hard to tell without opening it. You may be able to get a sense for decent brands, or know that your store replenishes stock frequently so it hasn't sat on the shelf forever.
Beyond that, it's mostly up to your preferences. You'll just have to learn what spices you tend to like. It can be the highest quality in the world but if you don't like the spices, you won't like the rub. Keep in mind that different things do taste better with different meats; if you want a starting place, look for recipes with that meat, and then look for premade rubs with similar ingredients.
If you can't find anything you like in your own grocery stores, but still want to look for premade, don't give up. Just start looking toward smaller producers. Sure, they may not be in your grocery store, but there may be some great local places, and a lot of them have online presence now so you can use other people's local places too!
Just to give you the spirit of the idea... Your profile says you're in Chicago - I've heard of The Spice House there (since they also sell online), and they do seem to have some rubs. I don't know if enough good barbecue has made it up there, but if you can find any barbecue restaurants that sell rubs, that could be a good bet too. (I ate at this place last time I was back home in Texas and they even sell some seasonings online. Haven't tried them, but the barbecue was certainly good!)
Making your own
This is really an incredibly broad question, as you can see from the breadth of recipes you'll find if you search for recipes for rubs. There are really no "base ingredients" that make a rub good. As with premade things, your spice preferences will be personal, and depend on what you're using it on too.
But all that is really good news. You can find tons and tons of recipes online; trying a few and seeing what kinds of things you like will get you pretty far. In particular, if you grind your own spices, basically everything will be awesome, and your favorites will be down to personal preference. So we can't really tell you which ones you'll like best, but you can start to find out, and if you're grinding up single batches, you won't be wasting much along the way.
Also pre-packaged rubs with sugar tend to get hard if there is too much moisture in the container. If you are making your own, buy a small electric coffee grinder and whole spices so that you can make the rub fresher by grinding the herbs/chilies yourself (do not put sugar or still hot roasted spices into the grinder).
Like the wikipedia (*) says, spice rubs melange are highly personal.
I don't think there is a proper answer to your question.
IMO, everything goes... (or nearly everthing)
It depends on the type (and/or ethnicity) of the spice rub and the type of meat or fish.
If wanting a more of a sweet flavour, then add some more sugar (dark sugar) and spices related to sweets like cinnamon, cardamom, ginger all-spice, .. ; if wanting a more savoury flavour, then use more salt and savoury spices and herb (thyme, mustard, celery salt, .. )
Hot pepper (powder or flakes) can be added to both savoury or sweeter rubs (to taste)
...
Experiment, Experiment...
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_rub
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.550224
| 2015-01-12T19:12:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53550",
"authors": [
"Bernice Bernice",
"Cascabel",
"Chrismas007",
"Connie Donnie Pueblo",
"Crystal KaznakoffCarter",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Efi Kaltirimidou",
"Janet Lee",
"Joseph Chitty",
"Kimberly Jackson",
"Maralyn West",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"sandeep kaur"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87345
|
How much gluten should I add to maida flour for bread, and how?
Flour you get in India needs additional gluten. My question is whether I need to add 1 teaspoon or 1 tablespoon of gluten to 1 cup of flour in a bread machine.
Also, how do I add it? Do I place the gluten along with the yeast in a hollow in the centre of the flour?
You can, but you'll likely get better results if you mix it together with the flour before you put it into the machine. As soon as gluten is exposed to moisture it will start to uncoil, mixing ahead of time will make sure it's evenly distributed when that happens.
As for how much to add I am not sure, it depends on the product and how much protein is in the flour already. I'd start with a teaspoon and add more if it is needed in future recipes.
Finally someone immune to the gluten paranoia (indyced).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.550674
| 2018-01-28T02:02:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87345",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79065
|
Which varieties of milk cheese are raw food?
Which varieties of milk cheese are raw food? I mean the well-known varieties of cheese, not the many varieties small vendors can have that are only known in small areas.
I think that a good definition of raw food cheese is that it's made of unpasteurized milk and it's not heated above or 40°C
I've always assumed that feta, queso latino/queso fresco, kashkaval (link2) and Telemea are raw, but maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe these fresh cheese varieties are in general raw?
I think almost all common varieties of cheese (generally) are not raw - usually the milk is heated or boiled in the process of making curd since it is safer, especially since cheese was historically used for longer storage. And pasteurized milk is often used for the same reasons - safety, cheeses less likely to make one sick have a better chance of becoming well known. Some people make raw versions of some cheeses (usually I see cheddar, because it's popular), but as a specialty, not as an inherent part of the process.
I'm guessing you're asking about storebought cheese, not what's possible to make yourself without boiling (possibly incurring some food safety risk)?
Aside: in the US, sale of raw cheese is illegal. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?r=SECTION&n=se21.8.1240_161
I found a list of raw milk cheeses in German, including what Germans call "Weichkäse" (which is not the same as what I understand under "fresh cheese", but there is substantial overlap). Note that this does not mean that each cheese on the list is always made from raw milk, or that the raw milk has not been heated over 40 C during the production (for example, for camembert you can either start with cold milk and heat it to 35, or start with cold milk, heat it to 50+, then let it cool down to 35). It means that some producers of these kinds of cheese use a method which fits your criteria.
Camembert de Normandie
Cappregio
Munster cheese (that's the French cheese from the Vosgues, especially the Munster-Géromé AOC, not the American Muenster cheese)
Pico
Queijo de Pico
Roquefort
Taleggio
White brine cheese, Balkan style (what is usually called "Feta" - Feta is an AOC, so all analogues have to be called something else in formal contexts)
Fresh cheeses are never made of unpasteurized milk (with the exception of illegal cheeses). They can make you seriously ill, for instance Malta fevers (Brucellosis).
Some cured cheeses can be legally made from unpasteurized milk as the curing process eliminates harmful bacteria/fungus. These specialty cheeses are said to be richer in taste that similar cheeses made from pasteurized milk.
And how can they eliminate harmful bacteria/fungus without heating?
@JoeJobs - probably vaguely similar to how a sourdough sets up conditions that let preferred cultures outproduce the harmful ones. For cheeses, the specific culture can be introduced, which gives a better chance, and probably a lot more care in discarding those that have anything suspicious going on, and a lot more loss of product when the culture isn't enough.
@JoeJobs Yes, I think the lactobacillus thrives in milk. Maybe the food for brucellosis runs out after some time. Finally, the moisture evaporates which also changes the conditions.
I would venture that the opposite is usually true. Most fresh cheeses require heating to separate the curd. In the US, commercial fresh cheeses are never raw since they must use pasteurized milk.
Emmental (Swiss) seems to fit the criteria. It's held at a heat in the 30s but no higher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.550776
| 2017-03-12T05:02:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79065",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Joe Jobs",
"Megha",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87696
|
Multiple layer toasting in Microwave
I want to toast some peanuts in a microwave (just a microwave - it does not have a grill (broiler) or convection mode). Can I put multiple layers of peanut in a container and toast it? I am not sure as many places I read, they say to toast single layer. But why should that matter?
Microwaves don't toast.
The pass high energy microwaves through food. These waves struggle to penetrate high density materials, causing them to heat. It's (mostly) the water within the microwaved food that is heated up, and that cooks (or defrosts) your stuff.
Toasting is an external application of usually radiated (but conducted will do) dry heat.
You might be able to heat the oil within the peanuts to the point where they fry... It'd probably work on multiple levels before turning into a smokey mess or combusting. But even then, frying really isn't the same thing as toasting them.
You want a dry frying pan on a hob, or a grill.
@theonlygusti Yup. Toasters (here) are vented vertical slots. Warm air will freely escape, it's not forced over the bread. Some warm air will definitely contact… but given how close the bread is to the elements, most of the heat is radiant. The elements also have a backer board which actively impedes heating the most air possible.
In a more abstract sense, the easiest to find definitions of "toasting" all talk about radiant heat. Microwaves do radiate, but it's the wrong wavelength to toast. You need something that will energise the surface rather than something that only energises dense material (eg water).
Honestly, I had never heard of the method as toasting is not really a function of a microwave, but looking it up it is actually a listed method which can easily be found via searching. It would not be my personal choice, but should actually work as butter/oil is used and the microwave will heat the oil/butter and effectively create a frying environment. Personal opinion is that the results will be different, and to me inferior, to pan or oven results, but if you are happy with the microwave results, that is all that matters to you, not other people's preference.
Microwave prejudice aside, I think you will find pretty much all instructions, microwave, stove top or oven for home toasting will tend to call for single layer for best results. When you start layering you will start having less consistent heating in a pan or on a tray and increase the chances of under toasting, burning, etc. On a stove top you at least have the ability to continually stir to reduce this, but not so much in an oven or a microwave. A microwave is also very limited in its ability to evenly heat thick or layered objects. It heats by vibrating water and some similar shapes, and layering can cause it to not be able to do this in all regions evenly while a single layer is much more likely to give acceptable results.
One more aspect, this is a application which, especially while experimenting is likely to be error prone. When experimenting, until you know the results and if they are what you are looking for, to you want to risk ruining a large batch, or a small one? I would suggest starting small, and if you like the results then consider increasing batch sizes. With all such experiments though, expect more than a few failures, especially when attempting to violate stated recipes. Sometimes recipe statements are just tradition, but often they are also from people who have gone through the failure process and are trying to save you from the same fate. In this instance, I think they are trying to save you the failures.
Ultimately, what is the effect you are looking for?
Toasting is generally used to alter the color and texture of nuts, making them crunchier and imparting a , well 'toasty' flavor. Browning = maillard reaction.
Warming nuts loosens the texture by heating the high oil content of nuts. This will make it easier to puree, etc..
Microwaving will not brown, or 'toast' the nuts until extreme heat is reached from the inside.
Toasting occurs on the surface, and that is why it is desirable to do in a single layer, because only the surface exposed to the hot air or pan will get the surface heating that is desirable.
If you must use a microwave to heat these peanuts, you must heat for a bit, then stir to ensure even heating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.551165
| 2018-02-11T23:25:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87696",
"authors": [
"Oli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22441"
],
"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
}
|
79088
|
Why would you flour your bread loaf pans?
I found a recipe for white bread that says to grease the pan and then flour it. I know you do that with some cakes, but I have never seen a bread recipe that calls for flour in the pans. I thought I was reading it wrong, I had my husband read it he said I was not seeing thing. sIt really called for flour in the pans. Are there any benefits to doing this?
The same benefit as there is for cakes-- namely that it should prevent sticking. Usually is less necessary for bread since there's usually less sugar in bread and that makes it less likely to stick. Greasing and flouring does produce a thicker crust where the pan is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.551524
| 2017-03-12T22:41:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79088",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79257
|
What is the purpose of wrapping fish with aluminum foil?
I was wondering what would be the difference if we wrap or don't wrap the fish with aluminum foil when baking. And also covering it with salt - how much of a difference would it make?
@Robert was being sarcastic. There are countless ways to cook fish. Most of them do not use aluminum foil or a pile of salt. So, you are going to have to be more specific. Is there a particular recipe you are curious about? If so, it is helpful here to include it. That way folks can weigh in on the purpose of the foil and/or the salt.
No not a particular receipt, but generally speaking, just wanted to know, when would we wrap and when it is not necessary
Are you baking, grilling, broiling, poaching, or something else?
Does putting in an electric oven have so many different names?
I've assumed you mean baking (given the "oven" tag - it never actually said in the question), and tried to clarify your question. Please edit further if it's not what you meant!
Cooking fish or other items in paper, "en papillote" is a technique used to lock in moisture and basically steam the fish in its own moisture and any aromatics you add. Using foil is often done in the same way and to remove the fish or other items from more direct drying and scorching effects of heat while cooking, much as you might use foil on poultry breast to try to prevent burning while getting the slower cooking thigh up to temp.
If by covering with salt, you mean directly to the fish or other item and either using a bed of salt or burying them in it, one point is to flavor of course, but also to draw out some moisture. Both in this case, and if the item has been wrapped so the salt does not actually contact the food, the idea I have always learned is to even out the temperature and turn it into more of an indirect heating. The goal in this case is to try to get to temperature again without scorching or open drying of the item and get a more even heating in theory.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.551611
| 2017-03-19T21:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79257",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"FabioSpaghetti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55406",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112929
|
Grilling on an iron fire pit
While walking home yesterday, I found a discarded fire pit (I initially thought it was a portable grill, but then then realized that it had only a mesh cover).
Some details:
it's essentially an iron bowl with no bottom vents
the lip is ~23", including the outer rim. ~22" excluding it
the grate inside is ~11"
I would like to use this while spending as little money as possible. I assume the biggest downside versus an actual grill is that without a solid cover, I hit lower temperatures, and I'll lose some smoky flavor.
Some questions:
Should I get a wider grate that rests on the lip instead? Or can I get by with having a few coals that the small grate can rest on?
Should I try to find a solid grill cover instead of the mesh?
What would I miss out on if I don't have a cover?
Any other equipment I should have to avoid surprises?
Is it ok that I don't have any bottom vents? Unfortunately I sold my drill a while ago and don't have access to one right now.
Note that while I cook a lot, I grill very rarely and this will be the first time I grill without someone experienced with me - so I'm not looking to get into anything complicated right away; I'm hoping that this will help me practice some basics.
What a great find.
That actually looks a bit like a Korean Barbecue, though larger & more domed than any I've seen - you cook on the 'lid', thin strips of meat & veg etc go on the (hopefully less rusty;) mesh top.
A great find, but don't use it whilst it is sitting on that flammable table!
If you can find a mesh cover large enough to go over the top that's certainly an option, you need to work out a way to keep it in place, you don't want it sliding around on you. Meat will stick, lifting the meat off when it's stuck will cause shifting if there's nothing holding it in space.
Perhaps an easier option would be to get long metal kebab skewers instead of a mesh or slatted grill. If these are long enough they could go the long way across, or they could be placed at an angle from the rim on one side to the body inside. This would give you a lot of flexibility to control the amount of heat each piece of food gets.
One solution I've often used for campfire cooking is to place a cast iron frying pan straight on the coals, that would work just fine on your fire pit as well.
Thank you! That's a great idea to make things simpler. Going to give this a try this weekend. I'll probably try out some kebabs this weekend and see if I can get a cheap cover later on.
This can easily work as a grill. A cover is not necessary. You simply need a grate that fits over the surface. I would go for a grate that fits over the rim, you don't want to worry about shifting and balance while cooking. Holes in the bottom for air flow would be nice, but again, not necessary.
Start a fire, burn down to coals. You can use the "hand test" to check the temperature. Grill your product.
In a grilling situation, the flavor is initiated from drippings hitting the coals, it is not necessarily a smoking situation, though you will pick up some smoke depending on your fuel.
Thanks for the assurance! I'll have to see what I can do for the grate - maybe I'll use an oven rack and jury rig it so that it doesn't move.
Nice find!
Consider smashing down that dome so it is flat. Then you could cook on top of it. It would be nice if you could flatten it gently so those strips stay attached. Then it will not sag down the fire when you pile it high with sausages.
Also: coals, schmoals. You sold your drill and you are going to spend money on coals? Get a nice pile of sticks that have fallen off trees (hardwood sticks now!) and heap them up high and light them. You can get them going with a big wad of paper. When they burn down a bit you have wood coals to cook on and the price is right. And the flavor is right too!
This is a great find, especially as we enter the colder months in the northern hemisphere. I think your greatest challenge is going to be airflow: without holes in the bottom or a lid on top, the air going into your fire will all be coming from above - which will limit both the heat coming up to food you would want to grill, and also the air going into the bottom of the wood / coals.
If you want to cook food with direct heat from the fire, I think your best bet would be to put the fire on top of the bottom grate in the photo, to give it at least a bit of room to breathe underneath. This means you would definitely want a larger grate to sit above the fire.
A lid would be nice for controlling the heat, and I almost always use one for a few reasons: first, it evens out the heat and speeds things up when I'm making burgers, steaks, veg, or pretty much anything other than really delicate seafood or kebabs that call for a slower, one-side-at-a-time heat. Also, a lid helps retain heat, and ultimately saves fuel. That said, ultimately it's optional - and especially so if you're planning to enjoy the fire's warmth while you cook.
Not having vents will make ash cleanup a challenge, and again limit the control you have over the fire -- but one option you may want to consider is grilling things in foil pouches. When I was a kid, our house was heated exclusively by a wood stove, and my folks would often make something like this but with ground beef (they called it hobo stew) - and once in a while I'll break out a salmon en papillote that I picked up in the restaurant where I worked in college.
Re: other equipment, I would recommend some heavy, heavy gloves and/or long tongs if you're going to be placing things directly on the fuel. Likewise, if you happen to have a cast iron skillet or something else that you don't mind abusing a bit, I say break it out, fire it up, and see how things go with a simple, familiar dish like eggs, burgers, or grilled cheese. Best of luck!
Thanks! I have a cast iron, and I've done the tin foil cooking while camping! I'll have to see what I can do about a lid - maybe I can start off with something like kebabs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.552051
| 2020-12-01T20:55:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112929",
"authors": [
"IconDaemon",
"Tetsujin",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89916",
"notablytipsy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65274
|
Cleaning wax and pesticide from apple skin
I love apples. I like to eat them with skin as it has plenty of fiber in the skin. But apples are famous for wax and pesticides on the skin which I don’t want to ingest. I have read many articles on the web and suggestions for removing the wax from the surface.
These suggestions include soaking in vinegar or hot water and other methods. They suggest that soaking apples in vinegar removes the wax that can be seen in the vinegar. I have done that, but never seen any residue of wax in the vinegar.
So I have set aside a new kitchen sink Scotch-Brite scrubber for this purpose and been scrubbing the apple skin under running water before eating. I think this method should remove most of the wax and pesticides. I would like to hear your input.
The Scotch-Brite pad was new the first time you used it. I'd be more worried about the bacteria growing on the pad than I would the wax and pesticide on the apple skin.
I saw a "fruit soap" in a local greengrocer recently, for washing your fruits and veges. You could check that out to see what the ingredients are.
MaxW, Thanks for the response. I agree with you, of course I don't use the Scotch-Brite for washing dishes. In case of bacterial growth, then I can put a table spoon of bleach in a cup of water and rinse Scoth-Brite in it before using it.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/25217/23376 and http://www.ct.gov/caes/cwp/view.asp?a=2815&q=376676
And: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43038/23376
I have had good results from the hot water and vinegar rinse (although I also add a few drops of blue Dawn soap. I forgot about it once when I had a sink-full of apples and only drained it after the water had all cooled down and it left a really nasty line of scum around my sink where the water level had been. I don't usually see the "stuff" that comes off the apples but that convinced me that it was worth the effort to wash them. If I just have a few apples though then I use warm water and Dawn soap for ease of effort.
Just rinse them quickly with hot water, and afterward with cold water. That should melt the wax, and remove everything.
This is not editing, this is changing my answer completely. I will remove this, this really goes too far, sorry.
Marc, while this is a community-edited site and you should expect some editing of your posts by others, if someone edits your answer in a way you don't like, you don't have to just leave it. You can roll back, or better yet, edit to further improve. In this case, I agree that the edit was overly aggressive, but I also think that your original answer could've been a little more constructively written. So please feel free to edit and undelete your post if you wish.
Yeah I agree I don't think it was rude. Fruit soap does sound like a consumerism scam! But I really do worry about pesticides too, since my generic Raid is oil based and water doesn't mix with oil, so how is water going to clean pesticides?
Milligrams of oil will mix with water. Soap helps. We're not talking a gram and a half of dichlorophenol-indophenol.
I fill a large bowl with warm water, add a tablespoon of lemon juice and a tablespoon of baking soda to the water. Then I use a soft nylon bristle brush to scrub the apples with the water and let soak for a few minutes.
You'll see the water change color from the wax and grime. Rinse them off and your apples will be nice and clean. This works for cucumbers too.
Won't the baking soda neutralize the lemon juice? Why add both?
@Chloe Ya, I'd think so too. What he's basically doing is rinsing the apples... which is something you should do anyway - although it can be as simple as running the faucet and rubbing the apple with your hands under the running water.
I have seen people use their microwave. Put washed apples on paper towel and nuke for 10 seconds or more. Keep watch to see if wax is melting off. If not, maybe no wax. If you buy apples directly from the market farmers they aren’t usually waxed. It is the ones that are stored for winter that are waxed and at the supermarkets.
That's not going to remove anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.552539
| 2016-01-11T04:28:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65274",
"authors": [
"Anna Hartmann",
"BunnyKnitter",
"CJ.",
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Chloe",
"Chris Anderson",
"Diane Theesen",
"Jay B.",
"Kelly Palmieri",
"Marc Luxen",
"MaxW",
"Melissa Stinson",
"Ming",
"Monica Taylor",
"Paul Browne",
"Penny Thelen",
"Pope Munoz",
"Sam",
"SnakeDoc",
"Sneftel",
"Stephanie Mcfarland",
"Theresa Menard",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zlatica Bodrožić-Selak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65148
|
How can I stabilize my hot sauces?
I have started producing hot sauces, the taste and consistency is great!
They are cooked sauces, I meant I cook the peppers and vegetables into the vinegar and water, then put them into a food processor. They are not fermented. In time the water and the pulp is separating in the bottle. How can I prevent that?
If possible I'd prefer to use organic ingredients, or at least things produced from plants with relatively little processing.
I heard carob gum is used for that, but I have no info
If you're selling it on the basis of it being organic and such -- maybe you'd be better off putting something on the label telling people to shake it before using? (and that it's specifically because you don't use thickeners that it separates on the shelf)
Cleaning up comments here as well. We aren't really interested in debating about what is and isn't natural; the question is in a form that invites all answers but hopefully prefers ones in the direction that the OP wants, and readers (and the OP) can simply see the answers and decide for themselves what they want to use.
These products are called thickeners.
Gum Arabic is often used for this as well as karageenan, xanthan gum, sometimes corn starch or potato starch.
You have to experiment with the different thickeners so you get the consistency you want.
A very "natural" thickener - if your texture can take it - would be breadcrumbs. They are used in eg romesco sauces too...
But if you want to store the sauce for a while?
well, you just want to emulsify, so I guess a little flour, in the form of a roux, or beurre manie is a good natural option. Cornstarch is another option, less taste, smoother, but slimier. Arrow root, even more neutral. Or the most natural option is to grate a potato really fine, and boil it for the last two minutes or so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.552956
| 2016-01-07T16:23:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65148",
"authors": [
"Akiva Keaton",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Hazzard",
"Derek McHenry",
"DuesserBaest",
"Felisha Mink",
"Harold Frazee",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Tom Roche",
"bibiana ramos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"piri sos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63992
|
Microwave Food started smoking
I heated food in my microwave on a paper plate and it started to smoke. I had a ton of smoke in my house but now it is cleared. Should I be worried about the microwave? Is it still safe to use?
worried about what? that you made yourself sick? that you broke your microwave?
Have you eaten the food? Was the paper plate of plain paper or laminated with plastic?
It was a paper plate, is my microwave safe to use.
Soot is electrically conductive, so if any got inside the oven internals, the oven might fail or react erratically at first.
That brings a small risk of an electrical fire, so it would not be advisable to run that microwave unattended for a while.
The Problem with even plain paper is that we do not know what else apart from wood fibre might have been in it. On the other hand, Paper is not infrequently used to light barbecues.
Obviously, if you can clean the chamber and fan/fan duct thoroughly of all soot and residue you should be golden re: food safety; if you cannot access these easily ... if you couldn't tell me straight why pulling the plug alone will not always make the device safe, do not attempt disassembly yourself, please ask an electrician for assistance (if oven is expensive) or replace the oven (if not expensive).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.553174
| 2015-12-01T14:43:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63992",
"authors": [
"ADHD Therapy and Medication",
"Eliza Comer",
"Gina Elias",
"Glenn Yale",
"Grzegorz Reich",
"Paul Burns",
"Peter Dey",
"Timothy Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"rackandboneman",
"rbp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68378
|
How do I make a mold from a plastic container?
So I have a cat-shaped plastic container that I'd love to use as a baking mold.
I know I can't put plastic in the oven so i'm asking if there's an easy way to take that container, shape something else to it and make a mold from it?
While your end use is cooking related, your general question is not so I'm not certain that this is the best place for your question... but I'm not sure if there's another site that would be a better option.
There are kits available for making your own custom molds from food-grade silicone. The finished molds can be used for various cooking purposes including candy making and baking.
The laboratory I work for has used products made by The Smooth-On Company for many years and they are of high quality:
http://www.smooth-on.com/Food-Safe-Material/c1387/index.html
Because you're starting out with a with a non-silicone mold, you would use it first to cast some other material such as plaster of paris. Then, use the silicone kit to make your actual baking mold from that.
This video shows a quick overview of the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HyVCVfZ_g8
It's not exactly a trivial undertaking, especially for making a mold big enough to bake a cake. With so many varieties of pre-made silicone bakeware on the market, it may or may not be worth the trouble. (unless the cat is truly Adorable!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.553328
| 2016-04-18T22:00:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68378",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"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
}
|
73956
|
Frozen turkey breast worry
New cook here! So I started to cook a 3 lb. frozen turkey breast. It cooked for 75 minutes and I inserted a meat thermometer, while keeping it in the oven. It registered 165. I took it out and put it in the refrigerator overnight.
The next morning, my husband cut into it and the middle was still frozen. He then put it back in the oven for another hour or so. I just pulled it out and placed a meat thermometer in it while it was out of the oven. It registered 180. I started worrying about the bake, refrigeration, frozen re-bake thing. Should we even consider eating this poor turkey breast?
Always defrost raw meat before cooking...
Perhaps @Catija's comment should be amended. I agree that you should always defrost raw meat when cooking traditionally (say, in an oven), however, with sous vide becoming more common place, one should know that it is an acceptable and safe practice to cook from frozen when using a low-temperature water bath (sous vide).
I don't know if it'll be good, but assuming this time it did actually cook all the way through, it should be safe to eat. Food is safe for up to 2-4 hours in the danger zone, and it sounds like your initial cooking, refrigeration, and second cooking are still within that.
It does sound like something went pretty wrong with your thermometer usage, though. My guess would be that you just didn't manage to find that frozen spot, and need to be sure to try a couple spots and make sure you're getting the temperature-sensitive part of the thermometer all the way to the center of the meat.
It could also be that your thermometer isn't great, and the temperature-sensitive part is too big, so it was in contact with both the frozen part and plenty of warmer turkey outside of that, and sort of averaged out to 165. Or it could be wildly inaccurate! So you might want to test it on a few more things where you have a good idea what the reading should be, and get a sense of whether you can trust it.
And of course, for next time, defrost before cooking. It's hard to get good results cooking frozen food directly, unless it's small enough. (And as you've discovered, a turkey breast is not small enough!)
How is your fridge? Is it possible this turkey breast re-froze during the night after you cooked and put it in the fridge, even though you didn't put it in the freezer? Some refrigerators which aren't working exactly perfect can have a very uneven temperature inside, and food can freeze even in some parts of the non-freezer area. Did your husband say "raw inside" or just "frozen"? Hard to see how a turkey breast could be cooked for 75 minutes and reach a temperature of 165 degrees at some point inside, then be stored in a normal temp. fridge overnight, and still be frozen at all.
@LorelC. How is the OP's fridge you mean? In any case, yes, fridges can freeze things... but they can't freeze just the inside. If the OP is right that it was just the inside that was frozen, then the 165F measurement must've been wrong.
No: this is NOT safe. By the time your turkey was done the first time in the oven, the internal temperatures ranged from 165° to frozen (with the surface probably hotter). In the middle somewhere things were in the danger zone (40°F to 140°F) as the breast melted, with the oven's heat traveling in; some portions of that may have been in the danger zone for much of the cooking process. The refrigerator did NOT instantly cool the entire breast: it started cooling the surface while inside the oven's heat was still traveling in. It was a significant amount of time before the inside was all below the danger zone; combined with the period spent heating up, portions of the breast may have spent multiple hours neither cool nor warm enough to be safe.
When cooking meat goes as far wrong as this, the answer is always going to be a balance between "don't want to waste the meat" and "there's a real chance that eating it will be educational." It's anyone's guess which way your dinner will go. Don't risk it.
This argument would seem to also say that it's unsafe to cook the meat correctly then refrigerate it. In that case, the interior will get out of the danger zone briefly (from when it's nearly done to done, then you take it out of the oven), then it'll take even longer to cool.
@Jefromi, can you explain? Correctly cooked implies that the danger has been mitigated...no? My read of this answer is that it is possible that a portion of the interior (uncooked portion) remained in the danger zone too long.
@moscafj The danger zone stuff still applies to fully cooked food; in order to make it safe, you're supposed to make sure that (1) the total time (before or after full cooking) in the danger zone is short enough, and (2) it at some point gets fully cooked. It's possible that this answer is still correct, but if it is, it's because the acceptable time in the danger zone is shorter pre-cooking than post-cooking, and the FDA "advice for the masses" danger zone stuff I know of doesn't make that distinction.
And the point of my initial comment is that the time the interior spends in the danger zone is not actually shorter in the OP's situation than in the normal cooking situation. The interior would've heated, gotten not-fully-cooked (apparently still frozen in places), then cooled in the fridge, then been reheated to a safe temperature. If it were fully cooked, it'd have spent longer in the danger zone before getting fully cooked, and it'd have taken longer to cool. So... again, conclusion could be right, but basing it purely on time in the danger zone doesn't make sense to me.
@Jefromi You're right: I'll clarify.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.553469
| 2016-09-14T16:52:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73956",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74755
|
Using whole uncored apples in chutney?
I got an apple chutney recipe from a friend. It's an old family recipe and it specifically says to chop the apples but to NOT core or peel them. The recipe is basically just apples and pears, red onions, raisins, brown sugar, cider vinegar and various spices which you simmer gently for a couple of hours. It says nothing about straining or grinding. The onions are finely sliced and it says "chop apples and pears roughly but without coring."
Does the vinegar somehow soften the seeds and core of the apple? Is that important to the taste or texture? I am hesitant to used the whole apple as most recipes I have found online say to core or even peel and core.
A little more information about the chutney recipe in question might be helpful, answers may vary based on the procedure - if the apple is cooked down into sauce, for example, it may be the core and seeds are simply picked or strained out of softened apple; if it is an Indian-style ground chutney, it may be the grinding evens the texture enough that the core and even possibly seeds don't matter (or are again picked out at a later step); while a chunky jam-style western chutney may have to rely on softening the core or dealing with the texture a different way.
Well it's basically just apples and pears, red onions, raisins, brown sugar and various spices which you simmer gently for a couple of hours. It says nothing about straining or grinding. The onions are finely sliced and it says "chop apples and pears roughly but without coring". Does that help?
More information is almost always helpful. I myself am more familiar with the smoothly ground Indian style chutneys, so I can't really say why the core might be included, or how the texture will play out in your particular recipe - on the other hand, the people who have more experience with western style chutneys may find the extra information useful. I hope you find an answer, it is an interesting question :)
Apple cores contain more pectin than the rest of the apple, so including the cores will likely get you a thicker, more gelled chutney.
With enough cooking they'll indeed soften, as long as it's an apple variety that softens when cooked (as opposed to baking varieties that hold their shape) so it's really just the seeds you'd have to worry about. Sounds like the recipe doesn't really deal with them, so I guess you'd have to pick them out after chopping, or strain or pick them out at the end.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.554027
| 2016-10-15T09:23:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74755",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Sarah F",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51219"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76691
|
How do I keep brisket moist overnight?
I will be smoking a brisket on Christmas Eve for 6 to 8 hours, and then completing the cooking of in the oven on Christmas day. I want to keep it moist, avoiding the risk of congealing from overnight refrigeration (releasing liquid then not reabsorbing it).
A friend of mine who is a gourmet cook recommended that it simply be doubled wrapped in foil and left at room temperature overnight, instead of refrigerating. While it would sure solve the problem of keeping the brisket moist, I have concerns about the safety in doing this.
Would that be safe? If not, how can I keep the brisket how I want it?
That's not safe: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat. Perhaps given that, you'd be interested in asking how to keep the brisket how you want it without a safety issue?
Okay, tell me, Jefromi, How do I keep the brisket how I want it without a safety issue?
I was suggesting editing your question, not saying I know the answer :) I went ahead and edited for you.
What exactly do you mean by congealing? Are you worried that the smoked brisket will exude liquid when it's chilled, which won't be re-absorbed?
If you wake up early, you could smoke it on xmas itself. But, try http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/cook_today_serve_tomorrow.html.
Smoking a brisket until it hits around 160F and then finishing it in the oven is a common way to cook brisket. Meat doesn't benefit much from further smoking after it hits 160F or so, and the oven is much less finicky than a grill or meat smoker. For reference, here is a good description of smoking brisket in a charcoal smoker and then finishing in the oven.
When it's time to take the meat out of the smoker, normal practice is to wrap it thoroughly in foil and then move it to the oven right away. Once the meat hits the final temperature (205F or so), you can hold it for hours before serving it, as long as you keep it warm. So, what you want to do is to stretch out the oven portion of the process so that you can go to sleep.
I'd do something like this:
Smoke the brisket to an internal temperature of 160F or so.
Wrap it thoroughly in heavy-duty foil. You want to prevent any liquid from being able to leak out.
Transfer the roast to an oven set to 225F or even 210F-215F if the oven will go that low.
Go to sleep.
With the oven set so low, the meat will take a long time to reach its final temperature. This is a good thing because brisket benefits from being cooked low & slow. And in the worst case, the meat won't be able to get any hotter than the oven temperature.
The next morning, you can check the meat temperature and make any final adjustments. If the meat isn't cooking fast enough, you can turn up the oven. Once the meat reaches temperature, you have a couple of options:
Remove the roast from the oven, and (leaving it in foil) wrap it in towels and put it into a small insulated cooler. It will lose very little heat this way, and it'll have even more time for collagen to melt.
Turn the oven down to its "keep warm setting" (hopefully 170F-180F) and hold the meat that way.
However you keep it warm, pull it out at some point to let the meat get proper resting period. When you finally open that foil, you'll probably find the meat is resting in a pool of wonderful smokey beefy smelling liquid. You can pour that back over the sliced meat, or incorporate it into a finishing sauce of some kind.
Don't keep it. Set your alarm clock and start smoking in time to finish for dinner time. Once you get the firebox going you can go back to bed and set an alarm for 2 hours later. Unless you have done this a few times then keeping the firebox going properly is not an automatic. You can finish most brisket in 6-8 hours. The brisket should already be double wrapped in tin foil.
That's pretty much what I started to say. If the OP starts smoking the brisket 9 hours before they want to put it in the oven, they'll have a bit of breathing room.
@Jolenealaska My positions is why do you need to put it in the oven at all. You just slow down the firebox. You have 2-3 safe hours after the firebox goes out.
I don't know, I've never smoked a brisket. I just know that it was the OP's plan to finish it in the oven. If they want to do that, then it's a good idea to start smoking it 9 or 10 hours before they plan to put it in the oven (assuming a planned smoke time of 6-8 hours).
I guess I'm the OP. The reason for finishing it in the oven is that Christmas dinner is to be served by 2:00 pm (not enough time to smoke for 10-12 hours as the recipe says). That's why I thought I could smoke it for 6-8 hours on Saturday and finish it in the oven on Sunday. But I'm beginning to think I came to the wrong place to find an answer to my dilemma.
@EllenHenneke Sorry about that - OP is short for "original poster". As for this answer, I think Paparazzi is saying that there's no good way to do what you want, and you have to instead get up at 2-4am to start it, to have it ready at 2pm. Maybe someone else will have a more appealing answer, though.
10-12 hours as the recipe says is a bad premise - and I know you will find recipes that say so. I am rarely the head cook but all I know is we start brisket at 8 AM to feed at 2-4 every time. You need to add more or less wood to hit the temps. Ironically in cold it is easier to hit the temps as you get better flow. Brisket is cheap. Not a dish to learn on Christmas. Do you have smoker with a true firebox?
Cook you brisket the day before to your desired internal temp. Let it rest uncovered to prevent further cooking if you hit 203F internal temp. Set your oven to 150F-170F. Rewrap your brisket and let it rest in the oven at the above Temps. Keeping ot above 140F will prevent it from spoiling. You can hold a brisket wrapped in foil, then covered by beach towels in a cooler.
I have started my briskets and finished in the oven for many years. I have never had an issue with tenderness or flavor. The brisket is amazing.. I start on the smoker , once its about 140-160 I wrap, set oven to 215 and when I wake up I take it out , let it rest a while then I cut my burnt ends off and finish them in the oven. Never had an issue. Always make amazing briskets. Time can be an issue when staring a brisket at 9 pm..So this is the method that works best for my time.
If you're already committed to smoking, you're 90% of the way to another option entirely, and that's to make a cured, smoked meat product, which has sufficient salt and smoke to act as a barrier to bacterial growth. Do follow a recipe, for example: http://amazingribs.com/recipes/beef/close_to_katzs_home_made_pastrami.html
At that point, there's no food safety concern about leaving the meat at room temperature.
I've let Brisket rest for up to 5hrs with it wrapped in a cooler with towels.. Still too hot to handle with bare hands and super tender and moist. No bacteria growth ect.. Best brisket I ever made and I pulled at 203.We alive so there's that lol
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.554251
| 2016-12-21T19:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76691",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Ellen Henneke",
"John Feltz",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53023",
"paparazzo"
],
"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
}
|
69460
|
Caramel sauce tastes too sugary what went wrong
I tried a recipe to create caramel sauce, where the instructions were basically slowly heat sugar to 350F / 176c then take off heat, add cream, put back on heat, then mix and it's ready.
When finished the sauce looked like caramel and had the right texture but tasted sugary instead of having that caramel flavour.
Is it that it was undercooked or it's just that a caramel sugar and cream recipe always tastes sugary and I should add something else to get that distinctive flavour?
What color was the resulting caramel?
By 'cream,' I am assuming you mean heavy whipping cream, which is normally used in caramel sauce, and not sweetened condensed cream, which some people use in place of sweetened condensed milk in certain recipes.
The whipping cream in itself, is not sweet, so I'm not sure what the issue could be. Did you accidentally put too much sugar in? Or maybe next time try replacing the cream with butter, or try adding just a pinch of salt to the mixture to combat the sweetness.
I used a pure cream, I tried later with butter and it got closer to what I was looking for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.554814
| 2016-06-04T03:53:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69460",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46178",
"user1605665"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71617
|
Eggless Belgian Waffles become unbreakably hard
I am a big admirer of Belgian Waffles and hence have been trying to come up with the perfect recipe to prepare them. However, I cannot use eggs in waffles because majority of my cousins are vegetarian.
My Recipe:
389 gms All Purpose Flour
5 gms salt
12 gms baking powder
14 gms sugar
500 gms milk
50 gms oil
111 gms cornstarch
Vanilla Essence
I took this recipe from a website and later replaced eggs with 2 tbsp flour & water, 0.5 tbsp of butter and baking powder.
The only problem seems to be hardness. Using this recipe, I get crispy waffles but within 2 minutes, one cannot break the waffles because it turns chewy like rubber. I keep my wafflemaker at 200 degrees for 5 minutes. Waffles are quite crisp but not airy I suppose and one cannot break the waffles apart just after 2 minutes.
I would be glad if you may help me out in any way to prepare Eggless Belgian waffles.
That's a LOT of cornstarch! I just replace eggs and oil in a normal recipe with yogurt, and get an edible result.
Flour, water, butter, and baking powder does not sound like a great egg substitute to me.
Your best option is to just go find a vegan belgian waffle recipe. There are tons of them, and they should be much more reliable than trying to modify an existing recipe.
If you're really set on modifying that one recipe, look for a better egg substitute. There are products specifically designed to act as one, as well as a fair number of other things that will likely work better than what you tried. The problem is, different ones work better in different contexts, and it can take some tweaking to get recipes to work right.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.554934
| 2016-07-23T19:23:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71617",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"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
}
|
70648
|
How does grill/broil mode in a convection oven work?
I'm looking to buy a new oven.
However, it does not have grill mode (broil, in US English) listed as one of the functions while other ovens may have grill mode advertised.
That being said, if I want to grill something in the oven I've linked, can it still be done?
What do you mean by "grilling". The term is used differently in different places, so it would help to understand exactly what you're trying to do.
It usually mean a top element - also called broiler. You need to define what grill means to you.
@Catija If it's an oven, it's the UK meaning - edited.
You can do something approaching it, but it's less efficient.
Basically, you want to place the food close to the top element, and crank the heat all the way up. An extra pan on one of the lower racks of the oven will help to deflect some of the heat coming in from the lower element.
For non-countertop models, you'll also want to leave the door propped open -- if you don't, the oven will heat up and cycle the elements off.
That being said ... the model of oven you linked to mentions "Independent upper and lower element temperature setting" ... so it might be possible to set the upper element on high while the lower one is off or at least on low.
Yes, looking at the zoom on hover pictures, and the text in the features.
You can see 3 dials and individual on/off switches probably for the elements. The fan probably activates when the lower element is on.
Top dial - Controls top element for either single use (broil/grill), combination with Lower element for baking (eg bread, pizza)
Middle dial - Controls lower element
Lower dial - Controls timer
You can try downloading the instructions and see what is written regarding the modes of operation. Else contact the retailer/manufacturer or check for reviews on the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.555073
| 2016-06-12T11:07:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70648",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69378
|
Falafel vs onion baji
What is the difference between the way a falafel is made and the way an onion baji is made? It seems both seem to be based on embedding some veggies in flour and frying it.
They're both fried, but they don't seem to be that similar in composition.
Falafel isn't veggies in flour, it's pretty much just a seasoned chickpea (or fava bean) paste. That paste is pretty thick, so while it might have some extra flour to bind even better, or to make it easier to form into balls, it's not just a flour-based fritter. And sure, the seasoning might include onion, but it won't be made of onions.
Onion baji, on the other hand, is primarily made of onions and flour as you say.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.555251
| 2016-05-31T19:01:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69378",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56822
|
What is the name of the sauce served with fried rice in Indian restaurants
I have noticed a lighter sauce like liquid (watery) with green chilies cut in it served along with fried rice in Indian restaurants. It tastes slightly like soya, and has visible round pieces of cut green chilies in it. (It's definitely not mint chutney.)
Does anyone know the name of that sauce?
Wouldn't just asking the server be an option? Then you might have at least a "sounds like XY" name...
It could be just about anything from a cucumber sauce to chili water.
What colour was the sauce? Was it it sour, sweet, hot, etc?
After seeing two so wildly different answers which both fit the original description, I realized that the question is too vague. This is just the situation this close reason is supposed to prevent: well meaning people taking shots in the dark. If you edit the question with an exact description, it can be reopened. But for now, it could be anything.
@rumtscho I think from his original description (liquid like water with the green chilies) and his follow up comment (that it is not mint and tastes slightly like soya with another reference to the chilies), that my answer is at least tracking in the right direction. I will wait to see if we get a response back from the OP but I would like to see it reopened so that others who may have more info can weigh in.
@Cindy You could well be right, but I think rumtscho was right to close. The only person with more info is the OP; others who weigh in won't have more info, they'll just be making more well-intentioned guesses.
I think the sauce you are looking for may be Nam Prik Nam Pla, pictured below.
The basic recipe is simply sliced birds' eye chilies soaked in fish sauce. Some recipes call for both red and green chilies. Other recipes call for other ingredients such as lime juice, sugar or brown sugar, garlic, shallots, etc.
EDIT Still haven't found anything with Indian origins, but here is a picture of a Malaysian variation, which is birds' eye chilis marinated in soy sauce.
Looks like it matches the description except that it was in an Indian restaurant and this is Thai.
@Sobachatina Yes, but with the proximity of Thailand to India, it is quite possible that the sauces used may be the same or very similar. This sauce is pretty much a staple and is served with many dishes, including fried rice.
It could be a tamarind based sauce if it was Indian.
Hey, this one was the sauce I referred to. I had this when I was in Kerala(South India). They call it as 'vinegar - soy - chilli sauce'
Normally I would say this question is too vague- however a common sauce, found in practically every Indian restaurant, fits that description.
Mint chutney:
It is basically mint leaves and peppers blended with garlic, lemon and seasonings.
It is ubiquitous in Indian cuisine (in several regions) and every Indian restaurant I have been to.
It is not mint. . It tastes slightly like soya and I can found round shape cut green chillies in that. It usually serves with fried rice
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.555349
| 2015-04-20T19:24:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56822",
"authors": [
"Ashley Spadaro",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Cremation Brooklyn",
"David McGill",
"Escoce",
"Futuregeek",
"Karie Larson",
"Leah Edwards",
"Lindsay Ward",
"Luanna Harris",
"Marina King",
"Mary English",
"NRaf",
"Robert Tuchrelo",
"Ryan Evans",
"Sandy",
"Savannah Whitehead",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"tobesjh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64115
|
Is there a difference between preheating temperature and baking temperature?
Many cake recipes say something like:
Heat oven to 350F, then bake the cake around 25 to 30 minutes.
What does this mean? After preheating the oven, what temperature do I bake the cake at for those 25-30 minutes? Is it same as the 350F preheating temperature?
I am new to baking. Please help!
Good luck with baking! :)
There is no default temperature. The recipe is telling you the temperature: 350F. You preheat the oven to 350F so that it's already fully hot when you put the cake in, and then you leave it at 350F to bake the cake.
The whole point of preheating is to have the oven already at the temperature you want to bake at. If you preheated then changed the temperature, then you wouldn't have preheated properly: the oven would be at the wrong temperature.
If a recipe actually wanted you to change the temperature, it would explicitly say so, something along the lines of "preheat the oven to 550F, put the bread in, then reduce the temperature to 500F". That'd cause it to be baked at closer to 550F at first, then closer to 500F later once the oven cools down. But that's not something that comes up much; most things just get baked at a constant temperature.
Bottom line, just do what the recipe actually says to! If it doesn't say to change the temperature, don't.
preheat the oven for 10 minutes and put the cake, continue in the same temperature. Am I right?
Preheat for however long your oven takes. Ten minutes seems likely to be enough, but most relatively new ovens will let you know when they're ready. And yes, leave it at 350F to bake. Nothing in the recipe says to change the temperature, and I said that in my answer too, so I'm not sure what's unclear at this point.
I got confused with preheating temperature and baking temperature. Thanks for you help.
Yes, you should bake your cake at 350 degrees (F), this is what your recipe means.
The preheating step is essential to make sure that the oven has already reached the recommended temperature, including the rack, oven walls etc. Once your oven has "signaled" to have reached the temperature, you might even wait another five minutes or so to be really sure.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise1, the temperature given in a recipe is valid for the entire baking time.
1 Bread is the classic exception where you start at high heat and lower the temperature.
+1 for "wait another five minutes or so." In my experience, many ovens heat unevenly (and, as you note, it takes longer for the walls, etc. to get to temp). Even though they signal that they have achieved temperature, it's best to wait a few minutes for the oven to "even out" before putting something in -- especially for a sensitive baked good like a cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.555645
| 2015-12-05T06:42:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64115",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cara mel",
"Cascabel",
"Ella Corcoran",
"Futuregeek",
"Johnnie Pettiford",
"Life with shanti Sasi",
"Raabiah Israel",
"Sharon Chaltraw",
"Steve Cooper",
"Steven Norrie",
"Sumiya Sharieff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35025"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54981
|
How do I find a recipe for the New Years Treat of Kozenach?
Many years ago (at least 50) my dear Babuska and Auntie used to make something called "Kozenach" on New Years Eve. At the stroke of midnight our entire family would drink champagne and eat this wonderful desert. This desert consisted of the best freshest pure honey my father could find from his beekeeper friends and walnuts that we all would crack open carefully so as not to get the shells in. The women would prepare these 2 ingredients by cooking them together and spreading them on many plates because everyone ate this like it was the best thing in the world, it was.
I have looked all over the internet for recipes, asked friends, gone to church but couldn't find anything. Does anyone have any clue or has anyone experienced this wonderful sweet of my childhood called "Kozenach"? Do I not have the right name? Is there something else like this I could search for?
This was a Russian dish but people of different ethnicities (Armenians, Russians, Germans, etc.,) also enjoyed it very much. I have tried to find the elder women who are still alive who made it, but unfortunately their touch and memory is not there. It is the same for homemade "halva" which is totally and unfortunately not the same that is sold in stores, pre-made or even made at the stores. I used to make this but again, my memory and my own recipes are lost (this recipe is basically making a roux and adding sugar water).
Search for "Gozinakh" or "Gozinaki" and you should be successful. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozinaki) Often, it's a problem with regional varieties and transcribing from Cyrillic into Latin letters. But remember: Recipe requests are usually off topic here...
And for future reference: If you can't find something by the proper name (or because the spelling is unclear), you can try with the main ingredients and a few other keywords. I googled "walnut honey russian candy" instead of your "Kozenach" -> worked like a charm.
I've edited this to simply ask how to find a recipe - or essentially, what it's actually called. That's a fine question to ask. We just don't want to get into the business of having a dozen people all posting variations on a recipe and arguing over which one's the good one :)
Thank you all so much for your help and info. I do have a Russian cookbook, but it is Russian and since my Mom can't translate anymore and I do not read in Russian, I spell as best as I can. Unfortunately google is still a big mystery to me as well as the internet and I have no idea how I got on this site but, have bookmarked it. Please take off bounty points of 50 Jefromi because I have no idea how to even though I have read and re-read and give them to yourself and 50 to Stephie. Please do this for me because I will not be able to do it or figure it out. Sorry & Thank You Very Much
I had to learn more about Google and found "Armenian Gozinakh" and started experimenting. Basically on the internet it was more like a peanut brittle but after some patience and love, I got it to the consistency I wanted which was softer and "spreadable". It set a bit, then we cut into triangles right on the plate and served. Delicious. Thank You All
Sadly, My Mama died a week ago. Tonight I decided to come back to to this site because she and I would always talk about it. I will inform you about Armenian Gozinakh because at Mamas luncheon I made the deserts and my friend volunteered me to go back and start baking and cooking for the Ladies Aide bacand our Desert Fair, Paklava here you come back. Old world deserts will be back and I will tinker back here. Thank you all, you will be part of my salvation
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.555925
| 2015-02-21T08:34:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54981",
"authors": [
"Alan Barkshire",
"Cascabel",
"Stephen Leonard Walker",
"Stephie",
"Yvannia Flakes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"ma2w hitokiri battousai u",
"sharon holt",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55250
|
Is it safe to not wash mushrooms?
Most chefs stress the fact that white button mushrooms, and others, should not be washed to be cleaned. They say to either lightly brush them or just pat them with a cloth or paper towel to get the "dirt" off to clean them, and then cook or eat them raw. Do not "wash" them, to clean them, because the chefs says the mushrooms get waterlogged, and they believe something happens to the taste.
Well, as a little girl my Dad took me to a mushroom farm. It was disgusting because of the smell of manure. The mushrooms were in trays, enveloped totally in the manure in trays, that were stacked high according to the sizes and I don't remember what else. We were in darkness, and my Dad would go from one area to the next buying trays from all over. Years later, I became the buyer and I don't remember much other than the awful smell, the sizes, the darkness and how much I still loved to eat mushrooms. To prepare I washed them with water, got off all the excess manure, and depending on how the mushroom was to be prepared, stuffed, quick boiled in lots of salt then kept in that same salted water to be eaten with sour cream, fried with butter, prepared them many ways.
My question is, why do chefs insist that you should not wash, only use their method, lightly brush or towel off the mushroom? Isn't safety a reason to wash? And washing doesn't change the flavor, right?
Sorry, my computer is new and keeps cutting me off. We feel that the mushrooms are dirty and all of us have gotten sick with the chefs methods. w
cont- washing does not change the flavor and we all wash and dry the mushroom. We even wash, boil in salted water, put in jar, cool and it lasts for about a few days because everyone goes crazy to eat it, and we put sour cream on it. It is delicious. We use the leftover juice to make a vege soup or a cold soup. So, why do these chefs all over the food network, internet, classes, etc., say wipe when for even over my Moms lifetime, 85 years, she has told me she washed those dirty mushrooms. Why don
related: How to clean mushrooms?
I don't think that there is a health risk regarding microbiological aspects. Cultured mushrooms are typically grown on sterilized substrate.
I have read a couple of experiments (in Dutch so I will not link them here) where people cooked the same dish from the same shrooms, with one batch brushed and the other washed.
The washed batch did need higher temparature to actually fry, instead of just boiling in their own moisture and the texture in the finished dish remained different. There does seem to to be some merit to the culinary traditions here.
As for the safety aspects, perhaps this will ease your mind somewhat:
Research minimizes effects of federal produce standards on mushroom industry:
But a new study shows that heat generated during the traditional composting process -- originally developed to kill insect and fungal pests of mushrooms -- is adequate for eliminating human pathogens that might be present, according to researchers in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.
If you got sick from eating a dish, the cause may not have been in the nutrition beds the shrooms were grown on.
Thank You I appreciate the article. I do understand that washing adds more water hence more cooking time. I adjust the fry pan, the heat, and how much oil or butter I use to prepare the dish. The one thing I have though, is peace of mind, and until that smell gets out of my head, we will still all wash. I waste too much time smelling food to make sure it passes my nose test. Want to laugh? When I first got married, 40 years ago, I was making stuffed bell peppers. I bought about 30. The first one I cut the top off, out flew a BIG MOTH! I screemed! Returned to store cut one, MOTH flew out again
Fair enough of course. If you find something distasteful, simply don't eat it!
I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the article from Penn State regarding the safety of the soil and the heating of the soil regarding manure. I am still skeptical but also a realist. The more I read, the more it makes sense and it has been a long time and a lot of good things have happened since my dinosaur days. I will still wash and try to smell garlic and onions instead of manure while working with mushrooms. Thank You
Today, 3-2-15 we ended up at the hospital most of the day and got a salad at the cafeteria there. I decided to put fresh mushrooms on but they did look a bit dirty. I asked a person working there if they washed them, they said no, just wiped them. I pointed out they looked dirty, they said they were fine. I got them, shared with a friend. We looked at each other and agreed the taste was bad, gritty, and different from washed ones. We returned the salad. This was a hospital cafeteria. We did not get sick. So, as Richard ten Brink said "if you find something distasteful, simply don't eat it!".
Alton Brown, Harold McGee, Robert Wolke, and Kenji Lopez Alt have all tested washing mushrooms by weighing them pre and post wash, and found they absorb an insignificant amount of water that does not significantly affect cooking time. Both McGee and Wolke tested by soaking the mushroom for five minutes rather than simply rinsing. They all encourage washing mushrooms. Several suggest washing them, using a salad spinner, and then cooking slightly longer. For example, Lopez Alt's testing found they absorbed only about 2% of their total weight which translated to an extra 15 to 30 seconds of cooking time.
McGee describes his process in The Curious Cook, Wolke in What Einstein Told His Cook, Lopez Alt in The Food Lab (and also Serious Eats) and the best I could find for Alton Brown were transcripts from the Good Eats Fan Page.
Wash right before using - not storage. Also, as Wolke notes, mushrooms are already mostly water to begin with - if your mushrooms are steaming rather than browning, it's more likely that your pan is too crowded, rather than a function of having washed them.
Honestly, I would wash them. I don't care if that affects the taste slightly. Eating unwashed fruits and vegetables (especially raw) is a risk factor for many diseases such as listeria, salmonella and toxoplasmosis. Don't soak the mushrooms to wash them, give them a quick rinse under warm water, and use your fingers to clean the dirt off them. Then pat dry with a towel, and let air dry, before adding them to your dish.
I don't think that there is a health risk regarding microbiological aspects. Cultured mushrooms are typically grown on sterilized substrate.
Most mushrooms are not grown in manure but rather in dirt under a layer of peat moss. Mushrooms consist mostly of water so rinsing them quickly and drying with paper towel will not change the flavor or browning time.
A miniscule amount of water content can change the behaviour of an ingredient significantly... we all consist mostly of water but drinking or not drinking a pint of it can make a big difference to how palatable we are :)
I thought everyone peeled mushroom caps with a pairing knife. That's how I was taught to clean them. It's a bit labor intensive, but usually the number of mushrooms used is not that large. Holding the stem with a paper towel usually cleans it, or simply cut the stem and do not use it.
Thank you for sharing your way of cleaning mushrooms but unfortunately I usually use at least a pound or more. It would take too much time but it is a good way to clean them. I do use the stems by the way.
Peeling mushrooms is not universal practice at all...
Definitely a fine dining practice though.
I definitely agree with most chefs, that mushrooms should not be washed. They are kind of like sponges, so when you sautee them in butter, you want them to absorb the butter, and get crunchy. Also, all the mushrooms I've ever seen, only have a bit of peat moss on the bottoms of the stems; no dirt, and certainly no manure. I also agree with the fact that a little bit of bacteria is good for our immune systems, as well as the fact that most people are germaphobes nowadays. Also, most people are so stubborn and do not want to listen to any proof contrary to their beliefs, and therefore: if you're a germaphobe, rinse your mushrooms, or else you won't enjoy them, because you'll be obsessing about bacteria and want to vomit. Definitely not very appetizing, Imo.
Crunchy mushrooms?
I also believe that we have so many kids who have allergies now because of all this washing, sterilising stuff. We have become almost paranoid. Mushrooms are grown in sterilised compost. People have collected them from woodlands for centuries. The trick is to know the edible ones from the poisonous. Basic cleaning is enough. If you peel them, you throw out the best taste and many of the vitamins. I don't eat grit but a bit of dirt never hurt anyone. Chefs have to have qualifications in food hygiene and they know what tastes best.
Mary, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I think that editing your post could help it be a better answer (see guidelines here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer). As the question is about why chefs are adamant about not washing mushrooms, you could (as an example) answer by pointing out the last part of your answer [chefs have to ensure food safety], and then cite some resources to back up that position. As it is, your answer is anecdotal, and does not specifically point to provable facts, which are good when addressing a food-safety question.
1st of all, I would say to rinse mushrooms if dirt is visible or just to get rid of any loose debris. In reality just water to rinse, it does nothing but remove loose dirt, bacteria and other pathogens that are stuck on the fruit will not be "washed off" the fruit is not much "cleaner" by rinsing. Now mushrooms, they are a bit different....they are actually anti-microbial, that means that they actually kill most bacteria so they will have far less live bacteria on them. The important thing to understand here is that our ancestors have done it for ages...the problem with us now in the future is that we try to kill EVERY bacteria...we are scare of getting sick. when need to build up immunity like the good old days. we don't need to disinfect EVERYTHING...some bacteria is actually good for your health.
However safe or unsafe it may be to eat unwashed mushrooms, the "our ancestors have done it for ages" argument is not a good one: plenty of our ancestors got severely ill or died from foodborn illness, and plenty of people still do.
Rinsing does in fact absolutely remove pathogens (including bacteria), and studies have shown this again and again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.556368
| 2015-03-01T09:27:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55250",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Debbie Welch",
"Gemma Roberts",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Jo W",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Lacey Higgins",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Rob Hobson",
"Robert Altendorfer",
"Winwin Myfriend",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"john casey",
"rackandboneman",
"soup4life",
"sue graham",
"user33210"
],
"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
}
|
63874
|
Is powdered sugar a dietary alternative to granulated sugar?
How does powdered sugar stack up to regular sugar and artificial sweeteners in terms of sugar/carbohydrate content?
Well, strictly speaking... Powdered has a lower specific weight than granulated sugar, at least according to this site, so one cup of powdered sugar contains slightly fewer calories than granulated sugar. On the other hand, you get the same effect if you just don't fill your cup to the brim. Less sugar has fewer calories than more sugar.
The one difference is the increased surface area in some uses will make it taste sweeter allowing less to be used.
@FedericoPoloni ... which is only relevant in those regions where you use volumetric measurements, not where a scale would be preferred.
Powdered sugar is, basically, just sugar, but with the grains ground to a fine dust.
To be very precise, powdered sugar sometimes contains an anti-caking agent like corn starch to prevent clumping but as far as nutritional values go, treat it like ordinary sugar.
So:
Powdered sugar is no sugar alternative because it is simply sugar.
Many sugar substitutes come in powder form, but they are labeled as substitutes, not as sugar.
If you add water to sugar, you get syrup / sugar solution. If you add water to powered sugar, you might very well get a glaze / icing. This is due to the (almost always) added cornstarch or potato flour. So powered sugar is not simply sugar. From a diabetes perspective, it is the same is sugar because it mostly contains sugar. But it is not equivalent from a cooking perspective. So I doubt sugar-replacement sweeteners would be a good replacement for powdered sugar in a recipe.
@dynamo, the "glaze" has absolutely nothing to do with starch. The crucial thing for a glaze is to dissolve your sugar crystals - powdered dissolves simply faster, but you can get roughly the same effect if you heat sugar with water. Besides, not all powdered sugar contains starch.
Very late here, but you will not get a powdered sugar-type glaze by heating granulated sugar with water. You will indeed make a sticky syrup if you heat or mix regular sugar with water. You will also get a syrupy sticky mess if you heat powdered sugar with water. A nice glaze depends on a proper dispersal of crystals, which then dries, not their dissolution. If you dissolve sugar, you'll have to heat it past 240 (at least) to get any sort of glaze, and it will be different from the simple powdered sugar one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.557222
| 2015-11-26T12:36:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63874",
"authors": [
"Aaron Cadwaladr",
"Elsa Savage",
"Federico Poloni",
"Francis Brown",
"GdD",
"John Murrell",
"Kevin Smith",
"Lori Pierce",
"Michelle Herbers",
"Mick Baines",
"Nancy Rivera",
"Pacifica Zindi",
"Stephie",
"dynamo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"neil",
"roger levine"
],
"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
}
|
63257
|
How do I preserve my mushroom stuffing for freezing?
What do I have to do to preserve a mushroom stuffing with eggs, crab and cheese as ingredients so I can freeze it for use at a later date?
When you say "mushroom stuffing" do you mean "stuffing that goes inside mushrooms" or "stuffing made out of mushrooms plus other ingredients? If the former, are you trying only to preserve the stuffing itself or the mushrooms with the stuffing in them?
But, as Catija indicates below its not clear whether you are stuffing mushrooms or whether the stuffing contains mushroom. Based on the other stuff used I am going to go ahead and guess that you are stuffing mushrooms with this, but I am going to make this and if/then answer to cover both cases.
If the stuffing contains mushrooms:
you have to decide whether it's ok for the mushroom to get mushy, then you don't have to do anything special, just make sure it's in a freezer bag and get all the air out. However, If you want your mushroom to stay firm, then don't freeze it, and wait until you get closer to the day you need to use it, then you can refrigerate it for a day or two.
If not:
I think you'll be just fine to freeze it. I might freeze the portions on a cookie sheet first before putting into a bag, it will make thawing swifter and more painless.
It's unclear to me actually, whether there is any mushroom in the stuffing itself...
@Catija you know what? based on your comment, I re-read it and you are right it's not clear. Is this a stuffing for mushrooms or is this a stuffing that contains mushrooms. It's probably the former in which case I think freezing will be just fine.
Here you still need to consider what kind of freezing you are using. Dry freezing dramatically dehydrates food and shortens the shelf life. Homemade mushroom gravy, once cooked and stored neatly and properly, will remain usable for up to three days in the refrigerator.
What do you mean by "dry freezing"? It almost sounds like you mixed up the phrase "freeze drying", but I doubt that anybody is doing this at home. Also, freezing extends shelf life, doesn't shorten it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.557459
| 2015-11-07T17:51:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63257",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Donna Cummings",
"Escoce",
"Kate Smyth",
"Mohammed Jamila",
"Nannette DeBose",
"Rita Pampanin",
"Yumi Suzuki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63278
|
Is mold inside eggshells a sign they're unsafe to eat?
Cooked (over-easy) a duck egg this morning. When cleaning up I noticed black mold inside the shell of the egg I had just eaten. Was it safe to eat?
You will find out quite soon. If we don't hear from you again, it was a yes ;). Do you have a picture of the egg shell?
Hello Cheri, your question is not answerable. You could just as well say, "I bought stock of company XYZ, will I get rich?". Food safety will only tell you under which circumstances there is 99.9999999% certainty that nothing will happen. Everything else (including obvious spoilage) falls under "we have no idea".
I think the best advice if you are worried is to seek medical advice from a trusted medical professional. If you still have the egg she'll they may be interested to do a culture or they may simply be able to identify it as is. They will be best able to help you to know the best course of action at this point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.557673
| 2015-11-08T17:54:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63278",
"authors": [
"Alejandro Peña",
"Claudia Cihlar",
"Erin Lindahl",
"Gerri Fellow",
"Iassen Trendafilov",
"Michael Smith",
"NadjaCS",
"Patrick Hofman",
"Sally Zac",
"Sharon Choo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"margaret mcpherson",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66188
|
Buying a "blender" that can purée a potato
My wife had a "smoothie" made by a co-worker that is based on green apples and raw red potatos. Our smoothie maker can't do that and leaves unchopped bits and a gritty feel.
Her friend uses a Vitamix blender, and looking up the model number not only induced sticker shock, but reviews raised concerns with the item leaving bits of teflon in the food etc. And the price for just a replacement pitcher is so high that it appears overpriced.
What is it about a blender that allows it to make a good purée rather than just mixing things easily? I think it might be the design of the blade and base, not just raw power: even a modest powered blender doesn't stall or run out of power; but it doesn't chop any finer no matter how long it is left running. It might also involve speed vs torque usage of power.
Does anybody know what makes a machine capable of making a good purée as opposed to just blending, especially when both kinds are sold as “blenders”.
Should I be looking for ones with different options for blades like a food processor, to make it well suited to different purposes? E.g. I have seen blades just for milkshakes.
In general, how do you shop for one when the only information a seems to be total power and the number of presets?
I think this question is the best we can do for you. We don't really do product recommendations but the answers here will help you figure out what to look for in a blender.
Catija is correct, product recommendations are off topic. I don't think this is a duplicate, because the other question is about general use and you have much more specific requirements. But we can't tell you which model to get, or what to do to find it. That's why I had to edit out a part of your question. The best we can hope is that someone knows exactly which characteristic of a blender makes it suitable for your purpose.
I understand that specific products is considered not-durable information, but how to find it ought to be OK. It transcends specific products and goes into evaluation criteria.
@JDługosz Yeah, that's fine - I put a bit of the original question back in. It was really just the "what brand" that we don't want to get into.
If I may add, you should never mash potatoes in a blender. You will end up with gluey cement-like stuff. You dont want to completely destroy the cells and relase all the strach. A ricer is the best tool for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_ricer
@MarcLuxen : you shouldn't put cooked potatoes in a blender to mash them. The question specifically mentioned raw potatoes.
also related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22639/67
Sorry, my bad. You think the result would be better though? ;-)
Recommendations aren't really on-topic here, but you're welcome to ask everyone what they think in our chat, The Frying Pan. Though I'll note that Cooks Illustrated rated the Breville Hemisphere as almost as good as the Vitamix.
About OP's comment on if high powered blenders chop finer, Kenji from Seriouseats have shown results that show that these do actually chop finer, and result is usually so smooth it passes through cheesecloth. http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/12/high-end-blender-test-equipment-breville-vitamix-blendtec-review.html
Thanks, Ron. I'm interested in something that will last and still have parts made for it years later.
Your requirements appear to be for a "raw food" blender, the motor on those units are typically well above 500 watts (1000+ Watts). This enables harder/tough foods (such as ice, kale, nuts) to be broken down smooth enough that no sieving is required, with less risk of overheating the motor. Note: when a blender has a nut bag, or a nut bag option, it alludes to potentially not able to break down harder food without leaving noticeable particles.
There are a few blenders suitable for raw food enthusiasts, depending on each model they may have a:
Tamper
Higher rpm (20,000+ rpm)
Higher power (500 Watts — 1000+ Watts/2–3 horsepower)
Compared to a standard blender (typically 200–400 Watts)
Different jug design/dimensions (width/height)
Different speeds and/or cycles/programmed settings (e.g. smoothie, 60 seconds, 90 seconds, clean, etc.)
Different Blade designs
Smaller portion containers (capsule/bullet shaped)
A tamper is usually provided to allow the user to push food items back towards the blade. When a tamper is not included on some of the other blenders it may be due to a different blade design along with a different power motor. This may cause all of the food in the blender to be pulled back to the blade by the vortex it creates, thus alleviating the need for human intervention.
The price variance between blenders is wide, and quite expensive for some of the higher performance models. Intrinsically some research into refurbished models.
In direct answer to the questions from OP.
What is it about a blender that allows it to make a good purée rather than just mixing things easily?
Does anybody know what makes a machine capable of making a good purée as opposed to just blending, especially when both kinds are sold as “blenders”.
Mainly power of the motor, and the blade design enables the blender to breakdown hard foods completely. Regular blenders do not have the power, nor the cooling ability for the motor to operate at long enough periods - even some models that market suitability for crushing ice can be known to overheat/fail.
Should I be looking for ones with different options for blades like a food processor, to make it well suited to different purposes? E.g. I have seen blades just for milkshakes.
In general, how do you shop for one when the only information a seems to be total power and the number of presets?
Blenders that have a high power motor, high rpm, and/or market its suitability for ice/nut butters/hard spices (e.g. nutmeg), indicate potential. Where possible, check reviews (where blending nuts has been tested) or better still, when the blender has demonstrations. You may be able to request a demo on nuts, if so you could taste or strain this into a sieve or paper towel/kitchen towel — to check for any particles that have not broken down.
+1. A high-powered blender is capable of running longer, but will also probably make it smoother faster. When making smoothies, I've never felt the need to run our Blendtec longer than 60 seconds -- the "smoothie" program. If I want to maintain a little more texture -- say flecks of frozen strawberries -- I use the 30-second "milkshake" setting.
In general, how do you shop for one when the only information a seems to be total power and the number of presets?
Product reviews from real users is your best tool. Problem: it is time consuming to read many reviews and weed it down to the helpful ones, and the comments are not always accurate.
I heavily rely on Amazon reviews, even if I don't end up purchasing there. What I like about Amazon reviews is the "ask a question" feature. For example, you could ask "can this puree an apple, not leaving a gritty feel?". When I've asked questions on a popular product, I've gotten same day answers.
+1. I also visited a bunch of cooking/smoothie blogs and sites for reviews. (I ignore the sites that are purely reviews of anything and everything.)
If you have access to one, try a food processor - they vary, but some (left running long enough) achieve a pretty convincing puree. You could also try pre-grating the potato (and apple, if you like), using a different blade, to speed the process along.
I just "upgraded" to a 30+? year old cuisinart (from the made in Japan years), which is both quieter and more prone to achieving a puree than the presto I'd been using for 20+ years. Sticker-shock (which would have been profound when new) should be blissfully low at a yard sale, estate sale, second-hand shop or similar source, and I'm pretty sure there's no teflon to come off.
I had suggested using the Cuisinart (perhaps a specialized blade is available) but my wife didn't want to use that for smoothies.
Standard steel chopping blade - made puree out of soaked (but uncooked) chick peas/garbanzo beans - somewhat more than I intended, actually, but it was the first thing I did in the "new" processor. My previous processor would have left it rather coarser. I'll need to back off the processing time to get the same texture I used to.
The one number which can give you some real insight of whether a blender can pack a hard food is the motor torque. Others like watt numbers are not really relevant - while you probably cannot blend a potato well with a 5 watt blender, it is perfectly possible to make a 1000 watt blender that's not up to the task, and many producers on the market do it.
Since I have never seen a blender manufacturer wihch publishes torque, you have to rely on reviews.
Also be aware that a blender is for making liquids. If you intend to throw in chunks of something hard without it being suspended in a liquid, it is quite likely that it will have trouble, unless you get one of the extra powerful top-tier machines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.557830
| 2016-02-03T23:22:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66188",
"authors": [
"Amy Briley Wiench",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"JDługosz",
"Jacqueline Weiss",
"Joe",
"Marc Luxen",
"Marilynn Schumann",
"Michelle R",
"Ron",
"Wayne",
"derobert",
"diane means",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59969
|
Can I replace brown sugar with white sugar without using molasses in cookies?
I don't know if I can replace the brown sugar with white sugar because the recipe already calls for white sugar too.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14872/8305
Many recipes require both brown and white sugar. It is possible to substitute the brown sugar for the white sugar 1:1 but several things will change in your final result.
Taste - Brown sugar is essentially white sugar with molasses. The molasses adds a malty thick complex sweetness. With just white sugar your cookie will have a less complex flavor.
Note: To combat #1, you can add a little bit of: honey, dark corn syrup, maple syrup, brown rice syrup or barley malt syrup to make up for the flavor loss.
Texture - The white sugar will melt at a lower temperature meaning it will not be able to hold the shape of the cookie before the gluten sets. The sugar will melt and cause the dough to spread out. When using brown sugar, the dough will be able to set before the brown sugar melts. So when baking cookies, using all white sugar will result in a flat/thin crunchy cookie while using more brown sugar will result in a thicker, softer cookie.
Note: To mitigate #2 you can chill your dough before you bake the cookies to help prevent your dough from spreading too thin during the baking process.
If however you do have molasses, you can easily create your own brown sugar by mixing 1 cup white sugar with 1 tbsp molasses.
Like jay mentioned; what's kind of funny about brown sugar today; its actually white sugar that has molasses in it. The only difference is the missing taste from the molasses and more importantly. The cookies will be SUPER crispy. Try adding some type of syrup to reduce if possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.558892
| 2015-08-16T19:53:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59969",
"authors": [
"Apples",
"Bill Fraune",
"Bob Smith",
"Crystal Schmotzer",
"David Strahm",
"Dolores Rayfield",
"Jackie Soilleux",
"Jae Elrod",
"Jay",
"Marcia Booth",
"Paula",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"muhanad ahmed",
"zerobane"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64884
|
How do I trim fat down to an even layer?
Say I have something like a pork shoulder that I want to serve whole, with the layer of fat nicely browned under the broiler, but the fat is much thicker than I'd actually like to serve. How can I trim it down to a layer of the desired thickness without leaving it obviously uneven, so that it'll cook evenly and look good? I know to use a good sharp knife, but beyond that are there techniques that'll help out?
Are you planning to remove the skin? As opposed to just scoring it?
@Stephie Usually they don't come with the skin itself here (just a fair amount of fat), and if they did, that'd probably be way thicker than I'd want to actually eat. I want to be able to just eat it as-is, with the nicely browned surface, rather than needing to trim more away at the table.
The problem is that the fat cap on a shoulder, when placed on top during cooking, generally helps the meat to maintain moisture, so removal after cooking is probably considered a best practice by most.
As far as the actual trimming process, the score method suggested by @user2052413 should work OK. Another idea would be to serve it sliced and trimmed, but that may not suit your expressed preference above....
@Kkinsey Sure, it may be best to trim post-cooking; the question still remains how to do it and get an even layer. I've had things served in restaurants that were clearly at least finished after trimming (nicely browned at the top of the layer), and very smooth.
Also I'm pretty sure that you don't need all the fat there for it to cook properly. Past some point, it's just extra fat.
This may sound ridiculous, but I cook the meat to about half-done before I trim it. Then just use a filleting knife, the same one I use for fish, and I insert toothpicks to the depth where they encounter solid meat, so I can judge how thick the fat is. Then I just fillet the fat off, using the toothpicks as a depth guide and removing them as i go, and I peel the sliced fat back with a fork. You should be able to get it all off in one sheet.
I would score the fat in a nice diamond pattern, then with a sharp knife, start trimming the fat. The pattern will help hide the obvious uneven surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.559084
| 2015-12-29T00:09:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64884",
"authors": [
"Carol Bright",
"Cascabel",
"Diane Lennox",
"Kevin_Kinsey",
"Linda Bolger",
"Rachel",
"Sean Henderson",
"Stephie",
"Tamera Ferguson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42457"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64589
|
What is this distinctive smell in some dry cured sausage?
A lot of good dry cured sausage, especially styles of salami with mold on the casing, has a very specific smell. I'm not sure how to describe it, but in my mind it's somehow strongly associated with umami. It's not present in all salami by any means, but very obvious in some, for example this kind or some of these.
What exactly causes that smell, and is there a name for it?
Salumi are generally cured with the addition of starter cultures (Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococus acidilactici, for example). These cultures add to the sour, tangy flavor, but also to the aroma. In addition, Here is a report on glutimate concentration in dry cured ham. (generally cured with salt alone). I am sure the mechanism in cured salumi is similar. So, the aroma is closely related to fermentation and the concentration of glutimates, which increase umami. Then there is the terrior. Much like wine, cured meat products have flavor and aroma profiles that are distinctive to the location of their raw products and manufacture...what the animals ate, the environment of the curing room and its associated microflora. Finally, a favorable mold spore is either added (or naturally populates the curing room) for the purpose of keeping destructive molds off the drying product. All of this contributes to both flavor and aroma. Is there a name for the "cured meat aroma"? I have been unable to find one. I suppose, like wine, cured meats can be described by the flavor and aroma profiles that that are observed by the consumer.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this is something specific that's strongly present in some but not all salami. I'll try to clarify in the question.
I am not sure that your clarification would change my response. Several mechanisms contribute to the aroma. Your examples certainly highlight salumi that are made with the introduction of white mold. Perhaps the aroma you are looking to describe is a product of the white mold...I still don't think it has a specific name. I do know that when I cure meats with and without the introduction of white mold, they smell differently. That mold has a characteristic smell.
Thanks - I just wasn't sure if you were talking about a more generic smell or that particular strong one.
Not to discount any information in moscafj's answer, there are other factors that affect the aroma of certain salame and cured sausage products.
Some, for example have natural salame aromas added to their mixture. From Academia Barilla :
The meat is mixed with salt, spices and natural aromas.
These natural aromas can be found in packages on the Internet.
Another factor may be the type of casing used. From Fra' Mani :
We use salted casings from pork intestine for products such as dry salame because of the very desirable aroma they impart.
So, pinning down something specific may not be an easy task as there are many variables. I would say, to narrow it down, you would have to find the common denominators in the salamis and cured sausages you detect this aroma in.
Truedat!! Aroma also influenced by spices, depending on salumi recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.559314
| 2015-12-20T01:57:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64589",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Divakar Duraiswami",
"Karen Mclaughlin",
"Len Dawes",
"Leslie",
"Marguerite Shreeve",
"Tara Edwards",
"avraham klarberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"matthew Strachan",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77173
|
How does imitation cinnamon flavor differ from real?
To me, imitation cinnamon flavor (like the extract, or artificially flavored candies) tastes pretty harsh, and not all that much like cinnamon. I can only assume it's an artificially-made form of the main aromatic compound in actual cinnamon.
So why do they seem so different? Are they actually identical? And how much of the real cinnamon aroma comes from that versus other things?
Interesting, I don't think I've ever heard of this product. I know that most "cinnamon" in the US isn't actually cinnamon but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about?
@Catija There are definitely imitation cinnamon extracts that you can buy, as well as a lot of commercial artificially flavored cinnamon products (like Red Hots, and I think cinnamon Altoids). I recently had someone's homemade glazed cookies that really obviously had that flavor in them, so apparently people do actually use it sometimes :)
Oh! Extracts. Gotcha. I had ground cinnamon stuck in my head so I wasn't thinking about an extract. :)
Imitation cinnamon is primarly pure cinnamaldehyde, or a related chemical. That's chemically identical to what's found in cinnamon sticks and ground cinnamon, so you're not consuming anything you wouldn't also be getting from real cinnamon. It's what produces the piquancy (burn) of cinnamon, as well as the scent and flavor.
It's actually probably derived by extracting it from cinnamon bark (likely poor quality cinnamon bark that wouldn't taste good added to baked goods), though that can be labeled "natural" rather than "imitation". "Imitation" may indicate that some of the other flavor chemicals in it are synthesized, or that they will include some synthesized cinnamaldehyde if that turns out to be cheaper.
Natural cinnamon is made by dissolving cinnamon bark in a solvent like ethanol. Imitation cinnamon will also come with a solvent, with the same concentration of cinnamyl. It also contains a few hundred other chemicals, some of which are known, some of which are unknown, that are also dissolved from the bark.
If you buy a bottle of "imitation cinnamon" it will have at least some of those chemicals added in as well. The imitation versions have a more one-dimensional version of the taste, while the natural versions are more well-rounded. Adding in other chemicals tries to give it a less one-note taste.
For commercial flavors, like those added to candies, they'll use different sets of additional chemicals depending on their desired flavor profile, and the cost. More complex mixtures are more expensive to develop and make. Cheap candies tend to have just a few: their goal is to hit you with the heat and with a really obvious "this is cinnamon" effect.
Hm, so, there's a single very specific flavor I'm thinking of here, and I guess that means it's probably pure cinnamaldehyde. It just seems so much harsher, and so significantly different from real cinnamon... I guess one or two of the other biggest components of the natural flavor somehow balance it out?
Those artificially-flavored candies tend to use a lot of cinnamon flavor. They're often specifically trying to shock you with the burning sensation. If you sniff them, so that you're not getting the burn, it will probably smell more like a bad parody of cinnamon.
So the other flavors don't so much "balance out" as that they're just giving you less of the harsh parts while hitting a lot more, different flavor notes. An extract will have upwards of 100 detectable flavor compounds, while a good lab-made flavor (natural or artificial) will have perhaps 20 or 30. Even the cheap ones will usually have at least 3 or 4 others.
Well, the thing I'm thinking of is very one-note, so I'm not sure about 3-4 others. It's recognizable as "the normal artificial cinnamon flavor", which I associate with cinnamon more because that's what it's called than because I recognize it as cinnamon flavor.
I could imagine somebody trying to produce an ultra-cheap candy with nothing but cinnamaldehyde, kinda the candy version of "hot sauces" that are nothing but capsaicin.
Or it might be one of the variants, like cinnamyl formate or cinnamyl alcohol. Maybe somebody got a bargain on a tanker truck full of the stuff from China.
Sure, but it's something I recognize all over the place, it's not like it's just one brand. So it has to be either a really standard blend or pure cinnamaldehyde (or very dominated by it), and that apparently makes it not taste like cinnamon (to me, at least).
It's probably dominated by cinnamaldehyde, with the same few additional flavours which are also quite harsh. There are probably significant sweet components of real cinnamon that don't make it to any imitation flavouring (or maybe not even to the real extract if they're not soluble in alcohol). Then more of the main harsh flavour is used to make up for it - plus extra in the hot-cinnamon candies
I wonder if @Jefromi is thinking of true Ceylon cinnamon as "actual cinnamon" whereas the imitation stuff is made from Indonesian or Chinese or Vietnamese cinnamon, which is cassia. I find that in the US, anything sold as cinnamon in grocery stores tends to be cassia, which has a much harsher and smokier flavor than Ceylon cinnamon. I buy Ceylon cinnamon online because I prefer its gentler flavor that doesn't overwhelm the dish and the palate. But it's more expensive than cassia. I'm willing to bet that the extract, at least that made from bark rather than synthesized, is derived from cassia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.559580
| 2017-01-05T19:00:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77173",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67451
|
How can I find flavors that pair well with a given ingredient?
"What goes with X?" is a common question. It could be a starting point for coming up with a new recipe for an ingredient you have on hand, or a way to come up with a variation on an existing recipe.
So how can I find such flavor pairings? Are there resources dedicated specifically to this sort of thing?
Note: this is intended as a canonical reference which we can provide when people ask flavor pairing questions.
First, a caveat: different people and different cultures have different tastes, so no pairing recommendations are likely to be perfect for you.
Books
You can find books on this topic, for example by searching for flavor pairing on Amazon. A couple of the most popular ones:
The Flavor Bible - for each ingredient, lists a large number of other ingredients that pair well with it, with the best/most popular ones highlighted. Also includes a small number of example ideas of dishes and several-ingredient combinations.
The Flavor Thesaurus - for each ingredient, lists a fair number of good pairings, each with a bit of additional description and perhaps recipe ideas.
Websites
There are a few websites discussing this sort of thing:
IBM's Chef Watson - lets you pick an ingredient, then suggests others, which you can accept or reject to get additional suggestions. Also provides example recipes. Free.
Foodpairing - lets you pick an ingredient, then suggests "matches". Free version has a limited set of ingredients, and for a monthly fee you get everything.
VCF 2000 - a commercial database of volatile compounds in foods. It has a demo, but the actual database is extremely expensive (currently $2775). Between that and the difficulty of basing things on aromatics, it's probably not particularly useful, though.
On pairing by aromatic compounds: while folks have used this to come up with ideas, it really seems to be at best an oversimplification. Plenty of things with "matching" aromatics don't end up being good pairings, and plenty of commonly liked pairings have very different aromatics.
Do it yourself!
Searching for recipes is actually a pretty effective method here. Just search for "X recipes" on Google, or search for X on your favorite recipe site, and look through the recipes to see what other ingredients people use with X. You'll quickly come up with lists of ideas quite similar to those you might find in dedicated books or websites.
Yes - and if you happen to include what is in the fridge in your Google pairings search you might find a way to use what you already have :)
+1, I have the Flavour Thesaurus and it's quite handy. I used Foodpairing before it became a paid service and found the way they linked food items together to be very interesting!
Unfortunately, "foodpairing" based on aroma compound (chemical analysis) is just a myth. Even H. Blumenthal finally agreed that it is merely a list of ideas. H. This and P Gagnaire showed that elements that didn't work together according to foodpairing could actually produce great dishes (e.g. camembert+raspberry). H. This showed many other arguments against pseudoscientific "foodpairing" (ex. between two ingredients you will nearly always find identical compounds anyway).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.559959
| 2016-03-15T17:52:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67451",
"authors": [
"Amy C",
"Georgia Harvey",
"Grace Sooknanan",
"Keya Reedus",
"Mark Hamel",
"Mary Joseph",
"Ming",
"Ray Sotto",
"Robert Shober",
"TZDZ",
"brianlmerritt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44112",
"raupeka",
"tracey calvert"
],
"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
}
|
46252
|
How do I use tamarind powder?
If a recipe calls for tamarind pulp/paste/concentrate, can I substitute powder? If so, how much tamarind powder should I use?
Tamarind powder is very different in flavor and consistency, I would be very cautious in substitutions.
@metacubed If you can elaborate a bit that might be a good answer! I thought it might be usable to get similar tartness and when it's mixed into something the texture wouldn't matter too much.
I'm having trouble putting the difference into words, hence the comment. A large part of the tamarind flavor (in traditional dishes) is because of interactions with other ingredients. That doesn't really happen with dry powder.
I would agree that tamarind powder is not the best substitute, and I would add that whole tamarind is not that hard to deal with if you can find it. In my experience, it only took one attempt to go from "What am I supposed to do with these giant peanut-looking things?" to "Oh, this is actually pretty easy." If you really don't like the extra step, make more than you need and freeze the rest. Also see this question.
I would like to point out that the block, pulp, paste and powder each impart different properties to anything you cook or prepare.
The blocks of tamarind pulp are the tamarind fruit pods stripped of the outer husk and compressed tightly together. It is full of fibers and seeds.
The pulp is usually a processed version of the block and should be relative free of fibers and seeds.
The paste is further refined and has been sifted and strained to remove the fibers and seeds.
From what I understand the powder is the dehydrated juice made from the process of compressing the block.
To prepare a container of pulp from a block; break up as much as you need and reconstitute it by covering it with boiled water. 15-20 minutes is sufficient to allow it to soften. Push a bit at a time through a fine meshed strainer. We find that a spatula or small scraper is really helpful for this step. You're essentially rubbing the fibers (and seeds) against the strainer to separate the pulp from the fibers. The pulp falls through and the fibers stay behind.
In the end, you should have a bowl full of soft tamarind paste that is about the consistency of apple sauce. This is now ready to be used and can be stirred directly into your dish.
Save the water that was used to soak the tamarind. You can use it in your cooking in place of some of the water or broth.
How does this paste you made from the block compare with the powder... It doesn't... It seem in my opinion to be a completely different taste. I would not use the powder to prepare pad-thai or a Malaysian curry as it rarely imparts the same punch as freshly prepared pulp.
if you like more sourness in your dish you can actually same quantity to that of a actual paste pulp/paste/concetrate. If not I would suggest to do 3/4. Small Tip : Depends on what dish you are making, sometimes use of powder could be tricky and might not get well blended into the dish. So mixing it up with hot water prior to adding to the dish is a safe move and make sure it mix it really well, else eater could end up with a lump of tamarind. Hope this helps.
make a past out of the powder and use it. But always add half of what's called in recipe and later you can add to taste.
found this on a recipe - 1 teaspoon dried tamarind (or one-half inch fresh tamarind thinly sliced or diced)
Do you mean tamarind? You said turmeric.
@Jolenealasla I don't think you'd thinly slice or dice tamarind...
@Jefromi Yep, I was kind of thinking that too. Maybe frozen?
sorry about mixing up words (autocorrect), I get them in bars or slabs, seeds removed and packed like cakes from Asian stores.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.560248
| 2014-08-09T22:43:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46252",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Herman Schoonover",
"JTL",
"Jason Walton",
"Joe Pardini",
"Jolenealaska",
"Local Tree",
"Lohajongooglemailcom ajon",
"Meghan Hoffman",
"Startup Hakk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"joell Swanson",
"metacubed",
"user110388",
"voddy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104665
|
When is the best time to freeze bread?
We have a small household and most baked goods are not finished before they go stale.
For bread and buns, when is the best time to freeze?
After knead?
Before first proof?
After proof?
After second proof?
I've removed cookies because they're a very different thing from bread; feel free to post a different question if you'd like to know about them too. For bread - you listed a bunch of options, but not after baking. Was that deliberate - are you trying to still have some baking left to do, so it's more like fresh-baked? Or was after baking supposed to be on your list? (not sure what to make of first proof, second proof, and... another proof?)
In the book Advanced Bread and Pastry, Michael Suas outlines three methods that he recommends to professional bakers (but also applicable at home) for freezing bread at various stages, roughly in decreasing order of quality:
Par-baked process. The bread or rolls are prepared normally and baked normally, but for a shorter amount of time (just until the structure is set). For best results, Suas recommends a relatively high temperature at first to maximize oven spring, then decrease to a much lower oven for the rest of the baking time.
Bread should be pulled from the oven before most substantial browning, with just the basic structure intact so the bread doesn't collapse. Loaves or rolls are cooled to about room temperature and then frozen quickly. They may then be removed directly from the freezer and baked immediately, usually at a relatively high temperature. The biggest challenge for a home baker here is potential moisture loss and slight staling during cooling and freezing (as commercial bakeries tend to use a blast chiller). But if done well, the results are basically the same as normally baked bread.
Frozen dough process. The dough is mixed/kneaded, divided, shaped, and frozen immediately to minimize fermentation and gas activity. Generally the only modifications are to use cold ingredients and to mix/knead more thoroughly, as the lack of a shaping step after defrosting means that the the gluten must be thoroughly developed during the initial mix. High-gluten flour or added gluten may also help with the final rise. (Gas production and fermentation is then limited to avoid more damage to the gluten structure during the freezing process.
It also makes it easier to wrap the dough tightly without much dough expansion during the freezing process.) When frozen dough is to be held longer, a higher yeast content may be used as the yeast activity will gradually die off with prolonged freezing. The best thawing method is slow and in the fridge. This also allows the possibility of reshaping (if necessary) before the final proof at room temperature. Final quality is usually okay but lower than parbaked results, either due to insufficient yeast activity/dough structure after freezing or excessive "yeasty" flavor if more yeast is added to the inital mix offset this. This method is usually best for enriched doughs that can distract from the lack of good flavor development.
Preproof frozen process. Here the dough is mixed in the usual fashion, then shaped and allowed to undergo a single proof to about 75% of the usual final size. The dough is quickly frozen. It can then be removed from the freezer and placed directly in the oven to complete its rise and bake. This process is the most temperamental and least likely to produce bread of high quality. Suas only recommends this method be used for things like breakfast pastries with a high butter content -- to distract from poor flavor development and texture -- that will be consumed relatively quickly after baking. But it is very convenient to get a warm "fresh-baked" product quickly with little effort at the end. Still, Suas strongly recommends par-baking over this process for most baked goods. (And the frozen dough process at least allows the possibility for reshaping and controlling the final rise to get a better product.)
I've tried the first two processes myself at times, and they've both produced reasonably good results. Like the information I summarized above, I wouldn't recommend letting the dough rise before freezing though, unless you're going to parbake. More gas bubbles mean more ice crystals that will potentially damage the bread structure during freezing.
Other answers and comments have mentioned the possibility of doing a complete normal bake and freezing the final loaf. That's also a reasonable possibility, but if I'm to that stage and I know I'm going to freeze some bread, I often pull out some of the loaves a few minutes early, so I can defrost/finish baking them in the oven.
The one concern to that is that parbaked bread (in my experience) tends to stale a little faster after it is defrosted and baked, partly due to moisture loss during two stages of baking and two stages of cooling. If you don't plan on eating most of the bread right away after baking, I'd probably tend to either freeze fully baked bread (and defrost at room temperature), though the "frozen dough" method may be acceptable for richer bread doughs or doughs that don't depend on a high rise (e.g., pizza). The choice of method really depends on how much work you want to do at various stages, the type of dough/bread, and how quickly you plan to eat the finished bread.
Can you clarify the second method? Ina typical bread process you have first proof, and the shaping followed second proof. At which step do you freeze?
I don't freeze large loaves often, but I freeze homemade bagels regularly, and baguettes or small batards occasionally. My personal preference is to freeze after the bread is baked and fully cooled; mostly to avoid dealing with any yeast issues related to freezing raw dough.
Just wrap it in plastic wrap if you're only going to store it for a few days. For longer storage (up to a month) wrap it in plastic followed by foil.
Bagels thaw easily in the microwave for 30 sec and then toast to re-crisp. For crusty breads like baguettes and batards I warm them from frozen in a 400˚F oven for 10-15 min. For softer breads or rolls it's probably best to thaw them at room temp and then warm them in a 350˚F oven, 5-10 minutes, wrapped with foil.
If you freeze or refrigerate baked bread/bagels you’re going to increase the starch retrogradation.
@zetaprime which shouldn’t matter because the OP wants to avoid staleness issues exactly by freezing and then baking/serving what is going to be used within a short time frame. Nevertheless a good hint - the previously frozen items will possibly go stale a bit faster.
I would freeze the dough before the second proof. And when you’re going to bake it, you can first defrost in the fridge and let it rise at room temperature before baking. This way you also ensure that your yeast is alive if it rises after being frozen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.560583
| 2020-01-11T03:20:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104665",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Stephie",
"erotsppa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79171",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3141
|
What is the purpose of creaming butter with sugar in cookie recipes?
I got distracted while assembling the dry ingredients for a cookie recipe and added the sugars, which were supposed to be creamed with the butter first. Fortunately, the sugar was added last and I was able to salvage enough to cream it.
What does creaming the butter and sugar actually do? Had it been on the bottom of the bowl under the flour etc, could I have just beat everything together?
The recipe is simple and just calls for creaming and then adding egg, and after that, dry ingredients. It's nothing fancy.
Creaming puts the air bubbles into the mixture. The baking powder only helps enlarge the bubbles, not make them. In cookies the creaming plays another essential role, which is to help dissolve the sugar. To cream the butter keep it cool and do it for a few minutes (at 65°F, harder in the summer).
It has recently been discovered that cookie dough is different from cake batters. Sugar is part of the structure of the cookie and not just a sweetener, tenderizer, and browning agent. It forms the base upon which the fats and the starch granules of the flour are embedded. The sugar needs to dissolve for the matrix to form.
If you beat the whole thing, it will be harder to get bubbles in and you may end up overworking the dough. The cookies will end up flat and tough.
I forgot to mention that Cookwise has a worksheet on how to fix cookie recipes: fatter, thinner, softer, crunchier, etc....
Note: this answer is from a merged in question which was asking specifically about the chemistry of the creaming method.
The creaming of fat (typically butter or a hydrogenated vegetable shortening, such as the US brand Crisco) is more a mechanical process than a chemical one.
Sugar does not dissolve in fat, and pure shortening has no water to dissolve the sugar. Even butter is composed of no more than about 20% water, which may dissolve a small amount of sugar, but then will be saturated.
No significant chemical reactions are taking place during the creaming process.
The sugar crystals have very sharp edges. Under the agitation of the creaming, the sugar is forced into the fat mass, and the sharp edges cut into the fat phase small bubbles carrying air into the fat phase.
Because it is a mechanical process, you want the fat neither too cold (which makes it harder to mix), or too warm (when it will be so soft that it will collapse, and it is hard for the air pockets to be formed). Baking Info's article on the creaming method tells us the ideal temperature for creaming is 21°C (70°F).
When fully creamed, the mixture is a foam of sugar crystals and air in the primary fat phase. This air helps to leaven the baked good.
In many baking recipes, the next step after creaming sugar and fat is to emulsify eggs into the fat phase. This is also a mechanical process, as the egg proteins and liquids will form small drops throughout the butter phase. The additional water from the eggs will also continue to dissolve some of the sugars, but the product of this step is an emulsification of egg/water/syrup droplets and air pockets in a fat phase with sugar crystals embedded within it.
Creaming butter helps to melt down the sugar because sugar does not dissolve in fats.When there is exact amount of cream in the cookie the mixture contains sugar crystals and this helps to bake the food easily.
The amount of sugar added will affect the texture of your cookies as well as give sweet taste to the cookies.
Welcome cookies, we always appreciate good answers, but links that don't contribute to the answer are not allowed and will be removed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.561178
| 2010-07-25T00:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3141",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Luke Quinane",
"Martin E. Wilson",
"Trish Brennon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5691",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6465
|
What is the difference between doughnut and krapfen?
I have been in a shop where you were able to see how they made doughnuts. The first thing I thought was that they were krapfen.
Are there any differences between krapfen, and doughnut? Does one use different ingredients?
No, it is the same thing in English and in German.
There doesn't appear to be any difference. Wikipedia says "In English-speaking countries, Berliners are usually called doughnuts and are usually filled with jam, jelly, custard or whipped cream", and this page says "The English translation of krapfen is cruller or doughnut". There are so many variations of filling, topping, shape and so forth that it is hard to establish a single identity anyhow.
Cruller and donuts are different; a cruller is a fried pastry, while a donut is fried dough. The fact they are different enough is also evidenced in the Wikipedia article, where it is reported that the chain of doughnut shops stopped carrying traditional crullers, claiming that the hand-shaped treats were too labor-intensive, and couldn't be simulated with new machines for mixing doughnut batter. I have eaten krapfen in Italy (I think artisan is the correct word for the shop); the difference I could note between a donut and krapfen is that a krapfen doesn't have a hole, and [continue] …
… donuts can have a variety of toppings (while I saw krapfens with just two kinds of toppings).
Filled doughnuts in English usually don't have holes either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.561495
| 2010-09-01T01:45:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6465",
"authors": [
"Walter Riccobene",
"Wizard79",
"Yamikuronue",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6127
|
How to clean cauliflower?
I have asked many people about "best to way to clean cauliflower" before cooking. I got several answers, like keeping in salt water or add soak in turmeric mixed water.
And also how do you remove worms from cauliflower?
As Jewish law frowns on the consumption of insects, they have rather strict rules for cleaning them. Search for 'kosher cleaning cauliflower' on your favorite search engine ... or see http://cor.ca/view/271/cauliflower.html or https://oukosher.org/ou-guide-to-checking-produce-and-more/
A bucket of salty water is the best way to get rid of bugs. That said, I've never had a problem with bugs in store-bought cauliflower.
You need to completely submerge the head in water, so a bucket that can fit the whole head is best. Add about 2 Tbsp salt per quart warm water to get it nice and salty. Submerge the head, florets down (they float, so a weight to keep it submerged will help). Let sit 5-10 minutes, remove, rinse, and eat as you please.
The salt in the water helps to kill the bugs and encourage them to let go. It also might kill some surface contamination if it exists, but this isn't really the point. You should see bugs either floating or at the bottom when you remove the cauliflower.
If you don't need the head whole when cooking, core and cut into desired size prior to soaking.
I actually break it apart into the size you want to cook it and then let it soak in salt water (this help get into the crevices). Then, toss into a colander and spray with a sink sprayer while shaking it. I do this with similar veggies as well.
what's a sick sprayer?
I think he meant sink sprayer.
Tap Water is what I've used.
Ok peoples....what you have to do with store bought or garden fresh...is soak the broccoli in salt water...now here is the catch....after a few minutes you will see white flat works swimming at the top of the water...its absolutely disgusting...scoop them out...wait for more...once no more come up..rinse it very well. Unfortunately I have been so grossed out after seeing those white babies that I haven't eaten cauliflower in years...but hey...go for it.
did you mean to say cauliflower because you used broccoli which is similar, but not the same? As part of your sentence you use the saying "white flat works" I am unsure what this is, this seems unclear and could use a reference or a better description.
I think he or she meant "white flat worms". But I also am wondering whether this post is about cauliflower or about broccoli.
It may well be a process that works for both, but OP definitely needs to clarify that. And also the last sentence is pretty superfluous.
boil in salt water before u eat
This is how to cook, not how to clean
I can imagine that the OP meant that a cursorily cleaned cauliflower is safe to eat after this boiling, so in my opinion, this is a terrible answer instead of a not an answer. But I will leave the new flag unhandled because maybe other mods see it in a different way.
Agreed, just a terrible answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.561661
| 2010-08-27T04:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6127",
"authors": [
"Agnel Kurian",
"BWestt",
"Carmen Schenker",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Ketan",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam Holder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93603",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7849
|
How do I remove bitterness from bitter melon
We use bitter melon/bitter gourd for making curry. We boil bitter gourd in water couple of times to remove bitterness which is very time consuming.
Is there any better way to remove bitterness?
Cooking in a microwave, as opposed to stir frying reduces bitterness. I've never tried boiling, so can't compare.
Some people claim you can reduce the bitterness of eggplant by slicing it then salting the slices, wrapping in a clean cloth, and putting some weight on it. The salt draws out moisture. It's possible a similar technique would work with your bitter melon, although I had never heard of it before your question. It might not save much time, but you wouldn't have to watch them while doing the salt treatment.
This does work with bitter melon; I have done it many times. It's a good idea to then soak it in fresh water afterwards to remove as much salt as possible and rehydrate the outer surface - time permitting
Technical term is "degorging", not to be confused with "disgorging" (which could happen with a dish where the bitter melon was insufficiently degorged) :) Also a well known technique with eggplants.
My mom uses this technique with cucumbers and bitter melon. Slice off the tip of the bitter melon. Then put the tip back on. Now rub the cut surfaces together in a circular motion. This draws out the moisture and bitterness from the cucumber and bitter melon.
I also heard that the longer you cook the bitter melon, the more bitter it will taste. So boiling it many times may actually make it taste more bitter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.561952
| 2010-10-05T11:51:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7849",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87424
|
How to correctly make chocolate bars?
I was hoping someone would be able to help please?
My brother has started making chocolate bars, we are using cargill 30% cocoa chocolate- we fill the prefamac chocolate machine with approx 7kg and leave the chocolate to melt for about 6 hours at 41-45 degrees. Once melted, we bring the temperature at 30-31 degrees and seed this chocolate and maintain the temperature- we allow the wheel to consistently mix the chocolate. As we fill our chocolate bar moulds we keep topping off the chocolate in the machine with more chocolate which we melt in the microwave at 30-31 degrees.
The issue we are having is that that the chocolate- once we eat it, it won't melt in our mouths like other chocolates melt when you let them sit in your mouth.
Are we doing something wrong? How can we make the chocolate so it is the type which can melt when sitting in ones mouth?
When you take one of the chocolate buttons and place it in your mouth, does that melt?
Certainly sounds like either a material or tempering problem,
Thanks for your response, we are using cargill 30% cocoa chocolate- we fill the prefamac chocolate machine with approx 7kg and leave the chocolate to melt for about 6 hours at 41-45 degrees. Once melted, we bring the temperature at 30-31 degrees and seed this chocolate and maintain the temperature- we allow the wheel to consistently mix the chocolate. As we fill our chocolate bar moulds we keep topping off the chocolate in the machine with more chocolate which we melt in the microwave at 30-31 degrees.
Thanks for the updates. It'd be really helpful if you also answered Spagirl's question (does the original chocolate melt in your mouth?), and if so, if you could describe the final result. Does it have some snap, like it's correctly tempered, or is it crumbly? Is there anything else to indicate something's gone wrong, e.g. changes in flavor or appearance?
Is it compound or couverture chocolate? What are it's ingredients?
I have checked and it is couverture chocolate, other than that- we are mixing a flavouring made for chocolate and peanuts
The secret ingredient of all Chocolatiers: cocoa butter...
I use a different brand of chocolate (Callebaut) so I don't need to add any cocoa butter, but as I've never used your brand before, directing you to their product line.
Be careful, because too much cocoa butter will make the chocolate melt in your hands and in your mouth! ;-)
I would start off with 10% of total weight of additional cocoa butter and increase if needed (start with small batches as 7Kg is a lot of chocolate!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.562119
| 2018-01-31T12:24:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87424",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Polyscript",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64795",
"soup4life"
],
"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
}
|
8927
|
Gummy residue from baking spray/oil
I'm sure everyone's seen this - that brownish stuff left behind when you grease an area of a baking dish that gets left exposed to the heat. Soap doesn't bother it too much, and it likes to gum up my scrubber. What's going on there, and are there any easy ways to get it off?
Your spray/oil is a drying or semi-drying oil. Switch to something less unsaturated, and your troubles will decrease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_value I use mostly olive oil. Coconut, palm, canola or peanut oil would also work. Corn and soybean oils are disasters waiting to happen.
I see I've been here. The link is still good.
When oil gets overheated, it turns into a polymer that is insoluble in water, even with soap.
The best way to clean this up is with Barkeeper's Friend, Bon Ami, or a similar solvent (I think they're all alkaline-based solvents). It's non-abrasive, and safe to use on almost all cookware without leaving marks.
Edit: To help prevent this from happening in the future, use a paper towel to wipe off any excess baking spray on the edges of the baking dish that won't be covered by food.
To expand on what Bob said -- basically, the oil polymerization is the exact process that you're trying to get when you season cast iron ... it just really sucks when it's all splotchy on your other pans.
Yeah, I know, best solution is not to let it happen - but sometimes you forget, or miss a spot. As for the cleaning tips, thanks - though I don't think alkalinity is the factor there. Wikipedia says Barkeeper's Friend's active ingredient is oxalic acid, while Bon Ami's listed active ingredients are sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate, and feldspar (described there as mild abrasives, though obviously alkaline too). I'm sure both work great though!
I probably sound like a broken record chiming in on every thread about cleaning, but I live and die by my Barkeeper's Friend!
Dunno about Barkeeper's Friend, but Bon Ami is, indeed, an abrasive. It's less likely to scratch than some other scouring powders that aren't milled as finely, but its primary cleaning action is still mechanical rather than chemical.
I just soak the pan in water for a day or two, which loosens it enough to scrub off without any other gunk.
not sure if it will work or not, but perhaps a soak overnight in a mild acid solution (like vinegar or lemon juice) would help.
Thanks to everyone chiming in - I'll definitely try acid soak in the future. This time I managed with just scrubbing and baking soda. (I try to avoid buying too many cleaning products, though the two mentioned here don't sound too nasty.)
I used a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser last night on my deep fryer. It took a little elbow grease but it came right off, no chemicals needed
Don't just use them on everything: "Not recommended for the following surfaces: high gloss, polished, dark, brushed, satin, faux, bare/polished wood, copper, stainless steel appliances, non-stick coating or vehicle body. Rinse required for surfaces in direct contact with food." Source: https://www.mrclean.com/en-us/how-to/kitchen/clean-cakedon-casserole-pans
I don't know of any method for the burnt-on oil in particular, but for difficult to clean pans in general, I usually resort to razor blades (not cartridge ones though). Something like a proper scraper tool would be even better.
Basically, something really sharp that can get underneath the substance, and then it can't help but come off.
Chemically, I'm assuming the stuff left on the pan after the cooking process wouldn't be the oil, since that comes off in soap. I suspect (guessing here) that it's the propellant from the can. Which isn't really that much of a pleasant thought.
The same thing happens if you oil the pan the traditional way rather than using a spray, so it has nothing to do with the propellant.
A few years ago, I found that many hardware stores sell “plastic razor blades”. They’re sized to fit into standard razor blade holders, but less damaging, and often double sided. I’ve gotten two types so far, and the yellow ones from Ace Hardware were sharper and stiffer than the black ones I got from a non-chain hardware store. Also, Lodge sells a two-pack of plastic scrapers that work really well and have lots of curves on them to fit almost any pan edge they’re maybe $3-4, but way more online.
I use baking soda. Wet the pan but don't leave water puddles in it. Poor on some baking soda and rub firmly over the affected area. Rinse well and enjoy the satisfaction of having removed that tough,gummy ick.
Comet and a small scrub brush with a handle . I bought a wooden handle metal bristol small brush generally used to scrub battery acid off and use on my stainless steel pots and pans. I am sure it would work on glass too.
Plain oil painter's turpentine does the trick. Thins the oil, dissolves residue...discard excess liquid oil, apply turps with an old bristle type paint brush. Thick caked-on gunk (like an abused deep fryer) may take a couple of applications or soaking but unlikely to have to wait "overnight". Turps isn't gritty and gets in the finest cracks to displace plasticized oils so fine polished finish on stainless steel isn't blemished with scratches from grit based cleaning products. Wipe with paper towel.
Clean residual turps "smell" off appliance with any dishwashing detergent or methylated spirits for extra clean.
Place your baking dish in a larger baking pan & squeeze soap dish over it plus a couple of handfuls of baking soda then add hot water to cover the dirty baking dish. Let it soak for an hour of so then just scrub with a brush & that's it!
You can buy a large box of baking soda at Smart & Final or Sam's Club or Costco.
The baking soda will not scratch your baking dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.562335
| 2010-11-07T22:55:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8927",
"authors": [
"Adam Seabridge",
"Allison C",
"Avaq",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"HunnyBerri",
"Ichiban Otousan",
"Jeremy Miles",
"Joe",
"Kate Riggall",
"Marti",
"Nora White",
"Sariha Ahmad Faisal",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"brimborium",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user24495"
],
"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
}
|
7303
|
Camping with tofu
I'm about to take an extended camping trip, and I'd love to be able to make some decent tofu. (I'm mostly vegetarian, and I'm definitely going to be craving protein.) My usual methods at home are baking and pan-frying in cast iron; I like the browned outside and tougher texture. I'm going to be cooking on a propane stove, so baking is obviously out, and heating cast iron would run through the propane pretty fast. My best thought is to go all out pressing the tofu, using something absorbent at the end to make sure the outside is as dry as I can get it. Is there anything else I could do to get nice, browned tofu using a minimum of fuel?
Edit: I'm asking about doing it without campfires. I may have one now and then, but it's a solo trip (not as much bang for your buck with the wood) and there won't be fire pits everywhere.
@Jefromi - have you considered textured vegetable protein instead. Full disclaimer: I hate the stuff. However, it's what I survived on for two weeks backpacking (cooking over fire only, no stove). You rehydrate in water and then use it like meat - with rehydrated vegetables, or I once ate it as a taco filling with salsa. If you're backpacking, dehydrated TVP will be nice & light.
Also - there are several types of TVP, don't get the kind cut into small chickens and dinosaurs and such, you can get cubes for $4-5 less/lb if you go to specialty stores/online.
Will there not be campfires? Cast iron on the campfire will do you wonders.
@justkt: Good suggestion, thanks. I don't actually mind it too much, so I'll probably do a bit of that too. @Dorrene: now I just want to have dinosaur-shaped food!
If it's firm tofu, you can always try just grilling it over open fire w/ a freeloader fork. (telescoping fork ... but make sure to get one for camp fires, not the novelty ones)
Not specifically tofu ... but if it's an issue of protein, I'd recommend bringing along some gorp : http://www.backpacker.com/may_2001_food_reader_gorp_recipes/skills/2046
Do you have one of those wire racks that hold food in tight but give access to both sides through a grid? I think folks use them for fish sometimes. Anyhow, brush your tofu with oil, put it in one of those racks, and then give it direct heat over the stove or campfire.
Same idea, but just use tongs and do one slab at a time. It will brown and heat through quite quickly.
Actually, you can do the same thing you do at home in cast iron in an aluminum camping skillet. Just get it real hot, add oil, make sure the tofu is dry, and don't crowd the pan and you'll still be able to get that crust that you love. (As do I).
Careful with aluminum and really hot campfires, we've lost some pie "irons" in the camp fire when they melted away.
I don't have one of those racks, and I'm not sure if I've seen one - could you post a link/picture? And yeah, I can always do it in aluminum, it's just the amount of fuel I'll go through (I'm a little obsessive).
@jefromi - something like this: http://amzn.to/d1OGJs
@Michael: Oh, I feel smart now. That's a great idea, thanks.
@ManiacZX - that's why you get a cast iron pie iron. It's the only cast iron I own (not by choice, I'd take more) and it's amazing!
@jefromi - good deal! @justkt - I love pie irons too! Toasted PB&J on white bread, or a quick "apple pie", great stuff!
@jefromi this might be a good piece of equipment too for grilled tofu sandwiches: http://bit.ly/dDaShd (hobo pie iron). they come in all different shapes, sizes.
Cooked tofu will keep almost as well as raw tofu, and it will be lighter, as the water will be gone. Depending on how long you're planning to camp, you can just fry it all at home, then reheat small amounts of it for dinner.
That's a great suggestion, thanks - I can at least manage for some of the trip that way. (I'm taking a month!)
This was my thought exactly -- I usually bake large quantities; a couple blocks at a time at least -- i would think this would be your best bet.
Also, how do you plan on keeping tofu in any state good for a month!?
I recommend to use tempeh on the trips rather than tofu. Tempeh is capable of being still good even after like 3 weeks in really hot weather (Philippines), while tofu will go bad after few days.
This is not at all an answer to the question - and besides, someone else already suggested tempeh.
@Jefromi, sorry for answering your question! I found the durability of tempeh and tofu the most important for camping and nobody wrote this.
@Jefromi : Tempeh was mentioned, but not why ... as someone not familiar with the stuff, I wouldn't have known about its longer shelf life until Tomas specifically mentioned it.
Well, I guess it could be useful to someone else... within the scope of the question I was asking, this is extraneous information. I was just asking about cooking methods, not substitutions. (And If I'm car camping, I have an ice chest.) Oh well.
What about making it at home, and just reheating it while you're camping? in addition to tofu, there's tempeh -- and i just read this recipe before checking in here, so this seems timely: http://tinyurl.com/295apgb (leave out the green beans, of course)
Not sure why, but adding a dash of Tamari while the tofu is being cooked can help with that outside crusty texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.562849
| 2010-09-14T19:23:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7303",
"authors": [
"Ala",
"Bart Sumner",
"Ben",
"BluDragn",
"Cascabel",
"Dorrene",
"Ed Smith",
"Joe",
"ManiacZX",
"Marcus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Raistlinxw",
"Tara",
"Tomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7348",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"sw."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17074
|
How can I make breadcrumbs without a full, yeast-leavened loaf of bread?
What's the best (fastest, most efficient) way to make breadcrumbs from scratch, without having any old bread?
I'm curious if there's something quick I can do, when I realize I want 5 cups of breadcrumbs and have no old bread, and don't want to buy or bake a loaf of bread just to immediately pulverize it.
That is, what is the fastest, simplest, easiest bread-like thing one could make, which would turn into breadcrumbs in a food processor?
One more edit: I didn't really intend this to be asking "what other ready-made things can I buy (or have around) and turn into breadcrumb substitutes". I want to know, at the very least, the best way to streamline the process of making and drying bread given the fact that I don't care if it's ever moist enough to eat as bread, and don't care about its overall shape or texture or anything else we usually care about in bread.
I am confused - you want to make bread crumbs without first making or buying bread? So are you looking for an alternate ingredient from which to make breadcrumbs?
@Katey: Surely breadcrumbs do not require a full loaf of bread. You don't really care much about structure. I imagine you could get away with some sort of quickly thrown-together flatbread with minimal leavening (possibly just steam), rather than taking all the time to make a normal bread with yeast.
I somewhat suspect that anything you could make that would approximate bread crumbs when processed would be more expensive and time consuming to make than actual bread. We'll see what kind of answers arrive, anyhow...
@Aaronut: Yeah, I don't know how answerable it is - maybe a quick soda bread, baked fairly thin to minimize baking time, is about the best one can do.
@Jefromi No, they don't require a full loaf of bread, just some toasted pieces or hunks. I guess I am just not sure why you don't also want the leftover bread that would result from baking or buying a full loaf of bread. Substitutes (which is not what it seemed like you were asking) are going to be your best non-bread solution.
@Katey: Well, I thought I'd at least ask. Baking a regular loaf of bread isn't exactly instant, and I do like to do things myself! (Plus, fresh bread takes some drying out, so if you baked something that was most of the way there already...)
@Jefromi, When you present your question as I'm curious if there's something quick I can do, when I realize I want 5 cups of breadcrumbs and have no old bread, and don't want to buy or bake a loaf of bread just to immediately pulverize it. You are presenting a "substitution scenario". This notion of "how do I make breadcrumbs without bread" is non-sense.
Given your edits, sounds like you mean "breadcrumbs without a full yeast risen loaf of bread". You want breadcrumb consistency, but a faster way to do it. I think its a great thing to ask. (I also think some substitutes like in @Cos's answer are great as well.)
@rfusca: I've edited my title. That said, I thought it was entirely clear from the body of the question that I didn't mean I wanted to create breadcrumbs out of thin air, or out of a rutabaga.
So you want to "Bake" Something, but not bread, and end up with Bread Crumbs?
The indirect question would be whether commercially made breadcrumbs are baked as bread or not...
Dry biscuits (American 'biscuits' - not cookies), or anything other flour based quick bread that dried out - if you're trying to replicate the bread crumbs. You may be able to get by with a modified muffin recipe as well. You'll want to avoid fats and oils to reduce the moistness.
Yeast bread develops a particular flavor and larger hole structure than quick bread though. The flavor of a quick bread breadcrumbs should be slightly different, but in many dishes the subtle difference won't be overwhelming unless the breading is a 'star' of the dish. The hole structure really doesn't matter luckily - as developing that is a large part of the time factor of real bread.
Drying it out will be the harder part. The denser structure holds moisture better, so slice it thin and give it low, dry, long heat.
Personally, anything that you're going to make for the purpose of breadcrumbs that isn't just a substitute (like cereal, crackers, etc in the other answer), sounds like it'd be easier just to make a loaf of fast rise bread to me.
Three substitutes come to mind:
Saltine Crackers
Pretzels
Select brands of Cereal (Chex, Corn Flakes, etc.)
Take these for a spin in your food processor till you reach the consistency you desire.
Depending on your ultimate goal one or any of these could serve as a suitable sub for "bread crumbs"
I'd also add that pita chips would be a solid option, if you have them lying around.
Good point @Katey... though Pita chips are not commonly lying around at my place...
For a zero carb recipe you can use pork rinds as well
@lazo: I don't know whether to be disgusted by the fact that it's pork rind breading, or disgusted by the fact I didn't think of it first.
I like rice krispies myself. The poor mans panko breadcrumb. I'd also expand the cracker selection: I've made bread crumbs out of damn near every cracker in existence. If it's crunchy, it'll do.
Rice Krispies would definitely fit under "Select Cereals" where pork rinds as breading is just plain disgusting. Tried it back when I was doing the Adkins diet. YUCK!Ya, sure it is 'zero carb' and negative flavor.
The portion of your answer that actually sort of fits my question is crackers: those could be much faster to make than bread, and wouldn't need to be dried out additionally to easily process.
Hardtack. Or any other kind of plain, baked cracker.
Hardtack is baked from a simple dough made with flour, water, and salt. It is rolled out, and baked till brown into a kind of cracker. It is often twice baked, to remove all moisture for long term storage - depending on the moisture of the dough, how thickly it's rolled, and the kind of breadcrumb you need, this might not be necessary, or might be helpful. Many are rolled thicker and baked longer if they're intended for storage - but if you roll it quite thin, like a cracker it will bake quickly to the right texture, and if it's dry it should crumble easily into something like breadcrumbs.
Alternatively, you can pick any recipe for dry crackers or plain unleavened biscuits (think European style, not American). Hardtack is the simplest of these types of recipes, but some have more ingredients (sugar, salt, oil) if you want a bit more flavor in your breadcrumbs, or if you want to use a little leavening you should end up with a lighter texture.
The crumbs you get will be similar in texture to using saltines or pretzels, a little bit hard, dense, plain. But they'll work pretty well for most recipes, and you can make them with whatever flour you've got at hand. They're also pretty quick to make and very simple - one of the cracker recipes quoted a half to three quarters of an hour for a batch. One of the hardtack recipes suggested baking times of as little as 5 min per batch (depending on how thin it is), and the mixing time of the simpler version is not much more. Since they're already dry and hard, and need very little extra processing (~45 seconds with a mortar and pestle per mortar volume) I expect you'd have your 5 cups of breadcrumbs ready within 45 minutes of starting your recipe.
You might also get away with a simple bannock or flatbread, with the dough rolled very thin and pan toasted until crisp and dry. It depends on whether toasting them singly on the pan is quicker than all at once in the oven. These will tend to be softer, usually with a bit more fat (oil or butter) and may include more breadlike flavors (including yeast). The better flavor profile may be worth the extra time drying, depending on the recipe.
A couple of years ago I started an apprenticeship and studied at Tafe.
One of the first things I learnt was how to crumb a chicken schnitzel with Panko bread crumbs. I am frustrated with myself for loosing my recipe but you can make them without a loaf of bread. Not sure of the ingredients exactly but we used flour and seasoning of choice and and added butter while rubbing the mix gently between the fingers until we had a soft dry mix.
Interesting, it sounds like a savory streusel? I will have to try this...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.563425
| 2011-08-23T19:42:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17074",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Dimitri Lovsky",
"Erica",
"Fatima khan",
"Katey HW",
"Midknight",
"Mołot",
"Ramiro",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tara R",
"dennis97519",
"gruentee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"lazoDev",
"rackandboneman",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
87324
|
How should I pick a flour volume to weight conversion for an arbitrary recipe?
There are a variety of weight-to-volume conversions online for flour, with considerable variation even among reputable sources:
King Arthur Flour says 4.25oz/cup but in their measuring tips article says it's 4oz/cup when sifted, up to 5.5oz/cup when scooped, and yet that somehow 4.25oz/cup is "closer to what bakers actually measure volume-wise".
The Kitchn says 4.5oz/cup.
Cook's Illustrated says 5oz/cup, based on real testing: "...had dozens of volunteers measure out 1 cup, weighed the results, and took the average..."
Serious Eats sort of agrees, with J. Kenji Lopez-Alt finding a 4-6oz/cup range from tests, and ultimately deciding on 5oz/cup as an average but with Stella Parks deciding to use 4.5oz/cup, with the cup measured by spooning flour into the measuring cup.
The full explanations with varying volume measurement methods and big ranges all seem pretty realistic, but of course leaves the issue of what number to actually use when confronted with a recipe that just has a volume, and no mention of a measurement method.
Of course, after testing a recipe we can just note weights and forget about volume, but if I'm starting from an arbitrary recipe and I want to measure by weight, how can I decide what initial guess to use?
It can vary so much according to how you fill the cup and even the shape of the cup, but I would tend toward the King Arthur numbers in part to their caveats on how the got them. It is striking though just how much difference there is between sifted and scooped and yet many of us tend to just slop it and wonder why we get inconsistent results when using volume.
PS, I remember one of the first cooking demos I saw as a kid. The Demonstrator started by pointing out that flour should always be measured by sifting first, spooning, leveling with a knife. They then started the recipe, dipped a cup of floor, did not level it, and sifted it into the bowl with no remeasure.
@dlb I think it's more why many of us refuse to use volume at all. I honestly will avoid recipes that don't offer a conversion. I have a difficult time accepting that they can be repeatably good if they don't give me a weight measurement.
@dlb The King Arthur caveats are really weird, though - they claim their choice is realistic but then say that scooping (the most common method from home cooks I suspect) results in much more, and CI and Serious Eats confirm that.
When I was first learning, many of the recipes did also address it a little, by saying "sifted flour" or "flour sifted", but even that the wording difference was so subtle that it was often missed. And as an old coot that learned with volume, I hate when I have a recipe by weight. But I sure wish I had learned that way instead. If our grandmothers were still around we could have them measure it out for us and correctly translate those old recipes.
What to do
I think you have to forget the idea of a guess being somehow "better" in the sense of giving you the "least error" and treat all the values within some interval (which seems to be the 4 to 5 ounce interval) as equally likely to give you "the least error"*. So simply choose a value from the interval based on some other criteria (convenience for you, aversion to different types of error, suspicion that your own measurement errors might not be symmetrically distributed, throwing a dice, whatever) and stick with it as the best guess.
My personal preference is 4.23 ounces, but I don't claim that this is the best choice for everyone, and certainly not that it more frequently hits what the recipe author uses.
A sampling of what established authors use
This is what Shirley O'Corriher has to say on the topic:
I used to measure as I was trained: by placing the measuring cup on the counter, spooning flour into it, and levelling it off with a straightedge. Through years of teaching, I observed that my students measured by dipping the measuring cup into the flour and leveling it by pressing it against the inside of the bag. This is actually 1 to 2 tablespoons more flour per cup than I was getting.
[... T]his is the way most home cooks measure [...]. If you prefer to work by weight, a cup of bread flour when I measure this way weighs 5.6 ounces.
Peter Reinhart gives both weight and volume for each recipe in Bread baker's apprentice and uses 4.5 ounces per cup.
Rose Levi Beranbaum gives both weight and volume for each recipe in The cake bible, and uses 3.5 ounces per cup of "sifted cake flour".
America's test kitchen has a conversion table in The new best recipe: 1 cup AP flour is 5 ounces.
Jeff Potter, in Cooking for geeks (not as influential as the other authors, but somebody who is obsessive about basing everything on solid data) uses 4.5 ounces per cup.
Simple statistics on that sample
We have an interval between 3.5 and 5.6 ounces, with a mean of (rounded) 4 ounces and median of 4.5 ounces. This is quite close to your own sampling of sources.
My recommendations
First, if you really want to go towards good guesses, you may want to start treating recipes from different sources differently. It seems that home cooks tend to use more flour per cup than professionals - the two high numbers in the range are from a book made with the explicit purpose to have as many home cooks as possible achieve consistently good results, and from an author who adjusted her measurements to suit home cooks' habits. So, you may want to settle on one number for recipes created by classically trained cooks and another one for recipes from those coming from a history of home cooking (even if they have turned into professional recipe authors).
Second, even though statistically, your best bet is to assume a normal distribution*, I would advise to not use the middle of the sampled range, but a lower number. Why? Tender baked goods such as cakes, crepes, etc. tend to taste richer with less flour, so erring on the side of little flour is going to give you a result which most eaters prefer, unless it is so reduced that it gives you structural problems (in which case, you simply have to redo the recipe with more flour - if you are too averse to such surprises, it is probably best to stop using volumetric recipes at all). Breads on the other hand are highly dependent on a number of parameters of the exact flour used which are never accessible for the home cook, so the ratio given in a recipe is just a starting point, you are meant to adjust it a bit if the dough texture is wrong. And adjusting towards more flour is always easier than adjusting towards more liquid.
So these numbers suggest that you should go for something between 4 to 4.5 ounces per cup. I personally like using 120 g because it is easy to do gram-based math in my head with that number, and it makes for easy round ratios with liquids converted to 240 grams per cup. These 120 g happen to be 4.23 ounces. I don't think I have had too many recipes fail from bad flour amounts.
* Technically, what I am saying is that apparently our measurement error (of authors' intents and home cooks' measuring results, not of ounces of flour per cup) is so large that there is not enough information in the world to give you a sensible point estimate, and what you have to work with is an informal confidence interval. Which goes against many of our expectations, but is actually quite a common occurrence. And it is not somehow less scientific than working with "the right number".
* There probably are several such distributions, one for e.g. home cooks scooping bread flour and leveling it against the bag, another for pastry professionals scooping sifted flour and leveling it with a straightedge, etc., and then the sum of those should be normally distributed. And I see no reasons to assume a skewed distribution for any of the one-context distributions.
But including 3.5 oz seems wrong - if a recipe calls for sifted flour, it's specifically aerated, so you should expect it to be low... but if the recipe specifically calls for unsifted flour (which most do), you wouldn't use a conversion of 3.5 oz. Also worth noting that Cooks' Illustrated measures cake flour at 4 oz/cup instead of 5 oz/cup, though King Arthur measures them out the same (4-1/2)... so I'm not convinced that comparing cake flour to AP flour is correct, either. Can you explain why this shouldn't matter?
It shouldn't matter because, if there were a starting point which is obviously superior over all others, the cited sources would have found it and would agree. It seems that our uncertainty in this kind of calculation is so high, that using different models for calculation puts the optimal point anywhere in the range of 4-5 oz. Since we cannot know which model is more correct, I am saying drop the hope that we will have a perfect mathematical point estimate and just pick a point by other criteria.
I really think there's some letting perfect be the enemy of good going on here. Of course there's no perfect answer, no obviously superior answer, but that doesn't mean it's best to use "whatever you personally feel is best from 4-5oz" as the "other criteria."
This may seem to be an overly simplistic response, but if it's in a decent cookbook that deals with baking, the book often has an introduction or appendix or chapter that describes how to measure flour. If it does, I measure the flour according to their directions, which can give a weight estimate. Older cookbooks tend to advocate a lot of sifting before weighing (in my experience). Newer ones sometimes mention spooning then leveling. And I've seen at least a couple which just admit they scoop and sweep.
If the recipe is from a book without such instructions or an internet resource without such instructions, I generally avoid it unless it's a type of recipe where I know exact flour measurement is unlikely to have a big impact. If I end up using such a recipe with no guidance on flour measurement, I sometimes try to take the era of the source into account if I know. Otherwise, I'm not sure my personal practice matters, because I'm just guessing -- like anyone else who answers this question will likely be. (Frankly, I worry this question is likely to turn into a poll.)
Thanks for the answer! Looking for more information in a cookbook is definitely a good way to approach this guesswork. Maybe along with that you could sneak in a quick note, e.g. "if spooning, 4.5oz, if scoop, 5oz" or similar? Similar for the second paragraph - how is it you're guessing based on era? (I know it's best to just avoid this if possible, but a lot of people are gonna make volume-only recipes at some point, might as well give them a head start on the guessing.)
@Jefromi - I'm not sure my guesses as what constitutes scooping vs. sifted or whatever converted to weight are any more accurate than what you cited in the question. They can vary from person to person too. Type of flour, how much moisture the flour absorbed during storage, etc. can make a difference here too. Honestly, if I'm really trying a recipe like this the first time, I generally just give in and measure by volume myself, using a specified method if available. If the recipe actually works and I want to reuse it, I'll try to quantify it by weight next time based on my experience.
Yeah, I know it varies, so there's no perfect solution, but I expect that these things are all distributions with more probability near the middle (i.e. if everyone gets 4-6oz/cup, average 5oz/cup, I suspect that more people get closer to 5oz than 4oz or 6oz) so there are probably guesses that will be better than others. And if you're one of those people who somehow gets 6oz you're probably better off not starting with a volume measurement :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.564045
| 2018-01-26T19:36:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87324",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40835
|
Can I really put frozen ramekins in a preheated oven?
I found a make-ahead chocolate souffle recipe that calls for freezing prepared ramekins and then pulling them out (without thawing) and baking in a preheated 400F oven. Isn't that a bad idea, risking cracking the ramekins from the thermal stress?
The recipe is originally from America's Test Kitchen (paywalled, sorry), so I'd expect it to be pretty trustworthy, but this seems a bit scary!
It's going to depend on the material your ramekins are made from. If you have glass ones, maybe they'll break.
But the typical porcelain ones should be fine. Keep in mind they're used for crème brûlée, which is prepared by chilling to set, followed by topping with some sugar, then caramelizing by either a torch or placing right under a broiler.
Cold to broiler or torch is a much bigger thermal shock than cold to cold to oven.
I wouldn't worry about it too much -- those cold ramekins are still going to heat up relatively slowly over minutes.
Dunking super hot ramekins into cold water, on the other hand, will cool them down in a matter of seconds which is where you're more likely to experience catastrophic thermal shock.
I came in to say this. I'd also be wary of the opposite. Dunking frozen ramekins into boiling water.
The oven rack that the ramekin is sitting on is going to conduct heat into the ramekin far more quickly than the surrounding air. The points where the ramekin is touching the oven rack are going to heat up very quickly indeed. I suspect that the only way to know the answer for sure is to risk the lives of a few good ramekins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.565211
| 2014-01-04T01:13:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40835",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Soliz-Sisson",
"Clemrick",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Matty",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95091",
"user32273"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45279
|
How do I adapt to grilling without a lid?
If a recipe explicitly asks to grill with the lid on (for example this jerk chicken), but I'll be grilling on a grill without a lid on one of those ubiquitous rectangular park grills, how should I adapt?
I know I'll need more turning to get more even heat, but is there anything else I should do?
You could probably try covering it in a double-layer of aluminium foil :)
While if you have the opportunity to improvise a lid I recommend you do so as per the other answers, however it isn't always possible. I have unexpectedly been thrust into the "grill master" role when I've shown up to parties and the charcoal is hot, food expensive, and nobody but me knows how. In situations like this you have to do the best you can with what you have, and sometimes you won't have a lid or anything you can use as one.
The reasons you want a lid are that it evens the heat out, and reduces the oxygen supply to the fire which cools things down a bit and reduces flare-ups. Without a lid you will get a hotter temperature at the base of the grill and much cooler temperatures above, with fat having a much greater tendency to flare. You can still get good results through making good choices of what to cook, and good technique. Bad technique will lead to food that is burnt to a crisp on the outside and raw in the middle.
There are some foods that you don't need a lid for, in fact you shouldn't use one, like thin to medium cut steaks. Other foods like burgers you can use a lid or not and still get a good result. So part of your success will come from choosing the right things to cook. Thinner is better, as is picking foods that don't necessarily have to be cooked through.
Some food you just can't grill without a lid. Avoid anything that requires long, indirect heat like legs of lamb or roasting joints.
Some food is best cooked with a lid, but you can get good results without one, like chicken and sausages. Your main problem is heat control, and flaring. Chicken and sausages need longer cooking temperatures, so the goal is to cook them through without burning the outside, you can do this by keeping them around the edge of the charcoal where they get enough heat, and dripping fat won't hit the coals and flare up. Turn them often, like once a minute to keep them from burning. If they are getting close to done and they don't have enough char then you can move them to the center of the grill for a bit. It also helps to have some sort of baste to coat them with to keep them moist like bbq sauce or a marinade. With sausages you can cheat a bit by slicing them down the long way and cooking them flat a few minutes over high heat.
If you are cooking different foods at the same time, like burgers, sausages, and chicken then separate your grill into zones. Burgers get high heat, sausages medium, and chicken low. If you want to cook mostly food that needs a medium to low heat then you will get a lot of mileage from arranging your charcoal intelligently, like in a long strip down the middle of the wide part of the grill, or in a square grill in a torus shape. This will give you much more area of your grill with the temperature you need.
Really important for lidless grilling is a spray bottle full of water to put out flare-ups, a mist sprayed on the base of the flare works magic and it won't kick up ash all over your food.
GdG gives a lot of good information, but one other thing to consider about lidded vs. lidless grilling is the humidity -- with the lid down, you'll have more moist air than with the lid up.
For sausages, you can start the cooking in a bath (disposable aluminum pans work well); either water, or cook 'em in beer or other flavorful liquid. Once they're cooked through, you can get some grill marks on them.
For chicken, You can add some humidity by placing the pan down in the coals, and then cook the chicken above it. This can also help to prevent flare ups for fattier pieces, as the fat drips into the water, rather than onto the coals.
There is no good reason to adapt to going lidless, make a lid! If you've got a lid to a roasting pan or whatever, use that. Otherwise, just use a big stainless steel mixing bowl. It'll be fine, just be sure to have good oven mitts/gloves. A cast iron skillet or Dutch oven would work well too.
The shape of the grill hardly matters. Just make sure that your "lid" is over the hot portions of the grill. Heat travels up, not so much sideways.
The shape does matter if it makes it hard to actually cover the food (or the whole thing) with something round. http://www.outdoorchaise.com/uploads/standard_park_grill.jpg
Because it is an open air grill, you'll just have to be mindful of the oxygen supply that gets to your charcoal. On a kettle grill, for example, the lid helps control flare-ups, because you are limiting the oxygen supply to the cooking chamber, which keeps the coals more at a smoldering level than a flaming one. When cooking in open air, however, there is plenty of oxygen available. So adding fuel (drippings from your meat) to the fire will cause the flame to surge and singe your meat. On that note, you should also be aware that your fire will be hotter over the coals than it would be when using a lid, if the amount of charcoal used is constant between the two scenarios. You can resolve these potential issues by either putting the food further than normal from the heat source, or by using less fuel (or some combination of both).
I use a big terra cotta flower pot, turned upside down. Buy an unused one at the hardware store for less than 20 bucks. Excellent heat regulation. Also great for doing roasts in the oven at home, smoked meats, etc.
I cover whatever I’m cooking with aluminum foil when cooking without a lid. I shape it into a tent and place it over lets say a chicken. A Disposable aluminum roasting pan works too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.565415
| 2014-07-03T00:24:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45279",
"authors": [
"Amaze ",
"Cascabel",
"Dee Davis",
"Donna",
"Jacqueline Blades",
"January Greeting",
"Jason",
"Ming",
"River Saxton",
"Spammer",
"gulf fab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"shim",
"snakecharmerb"
],
"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
}
|
51664
|
Is this extremely soft "French raclette" cheese actually meant for raclette?
I bought some cheese labeled "French raclette" that's quite soft even when refrigerated. (In the store it seemed almost gooey, losing it shape, and in my home fridge it's still soft but a bit springy - maybe like a very very soft havarti, maybe way on the soft side of semi-soft.) It seems like you'd just make a giant mess by melting it, and it looks impossible to slice cleanly, so it seems like it'd be impossible to use as raclette cheese in typical ways (slicing and melting over things, or melting a layer and scraping).
Is this cheese really intended to be used as raclette cheese, or is the label a misnomer, or is there perhaps something besides melting meant by raclette here?
(In case it's relevant, I have the tabletop variety of raclette grill, where you put the cheese, or things with cheese on top in trays underneath, not the original kind where you melt half a wheel of cheese and scrape it.)
@Jefromi, sorry I definitely misunderstood the original version of the question (Deleting my other comments now). Now I've read the edits I don't really know what to say. I would hazard at maybe it's intended to be used as though you had warmed it the 'traditional' way, where really they expect you to warm it in a pot, in true 21st century laziness. Maybe for dipping vegetables into like a fondue.
@Doug Well, you'd definitely have to heat it to really dip like fondue, but yes, that's one of the things I thought of (along with just scraping a bit onto things in a tray and melting), but I was hoping to hear from someone with more direct knowledge than me! (And no worries, I definitely don't want to post a question that even unintentionally invites recipes.)
I don't know whether it's meant to be melted but it's not how raclette cheese in France or Switzerland is usually like. Livradois is not a region I would spontaneously associate with raclette either. Having grown up in the Alps, I would personally consider raw milk raclette cheese from Savoie or Valais as the most authentic and those cheeses definitely hold their shape, even at room temperature.
That said, raclette is not a protected name in either Switzerland or France so it's produced all over the place and it's increasingly common to find flavored variants (with black pepper, mustard seeds, etc.) I also know people who like to melt blue cheese or reblochon (a soft cheese from the Savoie area) under a table-top raclette grill so why not some other soft cheese?
Finally, note that what passes as the ‘traditional’ way to prepare raclette is neither a table-top grill nor melting the cheese in a pot and dipping bread in it, fondue-like, but actually exposing the whole piece of cheese to some heat source and scrapping the melted bits as you go, as shown on the Wikipedia article on the dish.
I know that's the original traditional raclette, but at the same time, the tabletop grill version is pretty common, especially in Quebec where I picked this up from.
@Cascabel In France too, I just added that for completeness!
Thanks! I think the point that nowadays at least some people put pretty much whatever they feel like under the grill is the best answer here - maybe the cheese I found is a bit softer than traditional ones but it's not really unreasonable to make a cheese like that and say it's for raclette given that the tabletop grills are common now.
Turns out it's not mislabeled: it's actually "spécial raclette livradoux". Embarrassingly enough, I just noticed that there's a fragment of the whole-wheel label wrapped up with it, with a "vradoi" that let me find it, and it's consistent with this picture:
Different pages describe it as semi-soft or semi-firm, which still seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. It's possible to make irregular slices, but definitely nothing super-clean, and I'm afraid if you tried to melt a layer you'd melt a lot more than that. But cutting off a hunk/slice and melting in the tray does work just fine despite my initial impressions; while it's pretty soft before heating, it doesn't melt that much more liquid than a firmer cheese. And the flavor is definitely similar to other raclette cheeses I've had!
So it seems quite plausible that it's intended for this version of raclette, but not the older traditional version. (Of course, I was wrong about "completely impossible to slice" so I could be wrong about that as well.)
The label says “spécial raclette”, which suggest it is not “raclette” at all.
@Relaxed Huh, my resident French Canadian thinks it sounds like they're saying they made a special batch of raclette cheese, along the lines of "a Christmas special".
I think it is mislabeled, at least as far as making raclette "the usual way" is concerned. I feel sure it could still be used as such, maybe spoon it into the tray and heat it up very quickly. Though probably much more difficult to get a nice "gratin" unless you can turn the heat up really high, or perhaps use an oven instead, on broil.
What you got sounds more like the kind of soft cheese you would put on a cracker or piece of baguette bread or some such. Odd labeling, if you ask me.
I looked up a few videos (in French, native language) and they all use a more firm cheese, so it sounds like it's just mis-marketing to me to label that cheese "raclette cheese".
It appears that most often the cheese is heated separately from the rest, and then topped on deli and potatoes (and other desired things) rather than being heated with the things. See this video, in French but images are obvious enough.
Sorry, yeah, I did know it's traditionally heated by itself. I just do things like melting it on top of potatoes instead of scraping because I'd rather have hot cheese on hot potatoes anyway! I'm certainly planning on trying it like you mention even if it's not actually meant for that.
Ostensibly, I think the assumption with raclette is that your potatoes are already hot ;-)
But they cool off at the table! (Fair enough, though.)
@Cascabel You can put the whole pot with the potatoes in it (and possibly a bit of water to prevent burning) on top of the grill under which you heat the cheese. Diners pick one potato at a time, possibly with a special fork, and peel it in their plate.
@Relaxed Huh, hadn't thought of that. But no good if you want to actually grill things!
@Cascabel It's common in Germany or the Netherlands but I don't know anybody in France who would do that at the same time. The device can obviously be used to do both (and sometimes comes with a stone grill as well) but you would typically either do a raclette or grill meat on it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.566050
| 2014-12-16T23:28:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51664",
"authors": [
"Amanda khan",
"Brian Rahilly",
"Cascabel",
"Clara Linkenbach",
"Doug",
"Industrial Painters Ltd",
"Kristen Carter",
"Laura Worrell",
"Lisa clark",
"Mike Buckner",
"PMG Paving",
"Pamela Hugill",
"Paul Rudolf",
"Phrancis",
"Relaxed",
"Sarah McAuslan",
"Scott Baker",
"Sonja Buntman",
"Spammer",
"Tim Davidson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873"
],
"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
}
|
59975
|
Should I be worried if my broth or stock has no foam to skim?
A lot of recipes tell you to skim the foam/scum. What if I'm making one of those recipes and there doesn't end up being any? Does that mean I did something wrong somehow? Or am I just lucky not to have to do that extra work?
Just a basic stock: simmering bones (or chicken carcasses) in a pot on the stove, along with whatever vegetables the recipe calls for.
What's your process? For example, I make stock in a pressure cooker, so no skimming for me.
Are you making a broth/stock from bones ? If so are they cooked / roasted before getting boiled ? WIthout this information I can't help you further. Provide more details and i'll be able to help you.
@maximegir I think you're drastically overthinking the question. Just give an answer for both roasted and not, if you think it matters. This is supposed to be a helpful question for future readers in general, not just one specific situation.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Brief answer: no, you shouldn't be worried.
Slightly longer answer: you only should be worried if your stock/broth displays characteristics of unskimmed stock (i.e., cloudiness, particles, or odd color) and that bothers you in your particular application for the stock/broth.
Long answer:
There are lots of things that can reduce the amount of apparent foam, including:
Roasting, poaching, or otherwise cooking meats or bones before making broth/stock
Boiling the liquid (which will sometimes break up the foam before it becomes noticeable enough to skim)
Putting lots of floating items into the stock at the outset, especially vegetables that may absorb or break up the foam on the surface
Starting with warmer water and/or heating the stock quickly initially
Different types of bones or cuts of meat will produce varying amounts of foam
With the exception of pre-cooking the meat, most of these won't actually result in less foam/scum in the final product. They just will cause the foam to break up more and be dissolved into the stock/broth so it isn't as noticeable during the initial cooking and can't be skimmed easily. (Boiling the liquid will in fact increase the amount of dissolved particulates, which is why many recipes insist on keeping the heat to a very low simmer.)
If you really want to skim the maximum amount of foam, then start with cold water, heat very slowly, wait to add vegetables and other floating items until after skimming is complete, and never have the temperature above a very slow simmer.
But ultimately the question is whether you should care about removing the foam. There's an old question that addresses this point. Very briefly, there are three main negatives when you don't skim:
Stock will appear cloudy and/or grayish. This isn't a problem when you're making a hearty soup in the end, but if you plan to serve the broth alone or with minimal ingredients, it may be nicer to have a clear stock with a nice color. (This can become more noticeable if you plan to refrigerate the broth/stock before using again. The particles will precipitate out and form some grayish stuff, some of which floats near the top at the boundary of the fat layer and some of which will sink to the bottom. These larger particles may not redissolve completely when reheated and may be more noticeable in a clear broth.)
If you plan on significant reduction of the stock to make a demiglace or something, the particles will be concentrated and may mar the texture and flavor of sauces made from it. Most home cooks don't do such extreme reductions, so this is unlikely to be relevant.
Unskimmed stocks/broths tend to spoil slightly faster, and the dissolved particles will acquire an "off taste" a bit faster. This is generally not a problem if you plan to use the liquid within a day or two. (And, generally speaking, this is best practice for food safety: broths and stocks are excellent growth media for bacteria, even in the fridge, and should optimally be used or frozen within 2-3 days.)
If you don't care about these, there's no reason to worry, whether your liquid foams or not. And if you do care about these, you can also clarify your stock afterward (e.g., with egg white).
Interesting question.
So I believe the answer is yes and no. :)
Boil at higher heat and more rapidly and you will quickly see larger molecules–impurities, alkaloids, large proteins, lectins, and other solids come to top.
Insert a piece of lettuce to celery and the vegetables will absorb most of the impurities.
Boil low and slow; slow cooker or never skim; and the solids will disperse back into broth and make it cloudier and change the taste quite a bit.
Have done it both ways in past; there is a definite different taste between the two; is one necessarily bad? Not really... Purist will say that not skimming is making bad broth; I disagree for most part.
Personally i would try boiling 1 at medium/high and skim and 1 at low; no skim and see which flavour profile you prefer.
More then likely; your vegetables may be absorbing most of the scum/proteins.
For best results when starting a stock you should roast the bones on some chopped vegetables like carrots onions leeks and celery to add flavour in a very low heated oven for at least an hour set at 210F or 100C to avoid burning the bones and giving you a bitter stock. Once roasted add the bones and roasted vegetables to the water and bring to the boil then turn the heat down to a simmer.To remove impurities you can crack a raw egg into the pot and this will absorb any impurities or scum in the stock to help give you a clear broth. Once you have finished remove the scum and egg that will have absorbed any impurities from the stock and drain the stock through a fine strainer. You should not worry if you have no foam on the top of the stock but in most cases if you have followed this method the proteins in the bones would have formed the foam on the water if not you are lucky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.566611
| 2015-08-17T02:52:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59975",
"authors": [
"Alan Perry",
"Cascabel",
"Hasheem Saeed",
"Holly Sailors",
"Ledys Pahuana",
"Richard Wilson",
"Robert James",
"Yvonne",
"aviva kon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24447",
"maximegir",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26098
|
Should I separate grape skins when making jam?
Recipes for grape jam (e.g. from Gourmet) commonly say to separate the skins, puree the skins for inclusion in the jam, cook them, cook the pulp, and remove the seeds with a food mill.
Is there any reason one couldn't instead just cook the entire grapes for long enough for everything to intermingle (i.e. long enough to fully cook the skins), then use a food mill to remove the seeds and skins?
I did actually do two batches with the two methods within a few weeks of asking the question.
Just cooking it all together, then removing the skins and seeds with a food mill, is definitely a lot faster. Removing the skins first then pureeing, so that you only remove the seeds later... well, though it is easy to remove the skin from each individual grape, time-consuming is an understatement unless you're making small quantities. It took me a few hours for (if I recall correctly) 10-15 pounds of grapes.
Including the skins has a moderate effect on the texture - it's slightly thicker and more opaque. You get the feeling there's just more stuff in it. As long as you're cooking it fairly long, though, there's not a very noticeable difference in flavor. On the other hand, if you're using a recipe with pectin instead of cooking it down until it sets, I definitely prefer having the skins in, for both flavor and texture.
So there's some personal preference involved; I do rather like the texture with the pureed skins. But if you're doing large quantities, and the grapes are on the small side, and you don't have help, you might want to skip it.
Most of the recipes I see that call for the skins to be pureed and added into the jam call for a longer time on the stove for the skins, so they probably need more time on the stove in order to achieve a proper texture and flavor. That Gourmet recipe also calls for maceration in order to develop more flavor.
The seeds are removed after the jam is cooked (not before as you imply in your question), because grape seeds are not something you want to crunch on while eating your jam and toast.
I assume you could mash all of the grapes, cook, and then mill, however - that might not cook the skins enough, and they would probably ultimately be removed from the final product, which would be different from the recipe above which includes them in the jam.
Removing concord grapes from the skin is incredibly easy, all you have to do is squeeze the grapes. Sure it's a bit time consuming, but it's not as bad as pitting cherries!
I was just trying to be concise in listing how the three parts of the grapes were separated; I understand the recipe. I'm asking why one can't cook the skins enough along with everything else so that even if they are mostly removed from the final product, the flavor is the same. (And yes, I know it's easy, but time-consuming is an understatement when the grapes are on the small side and you have 15 pounds.)
I imagine the maceration and extra cooking gives them a better texture and flavor. I'm sure you could try a small batch of jam where you simply mash the grapes at first, then process through a food mill afterward, and see if the taste and texture works for you.
I don't know if I'd call it maceration; they're just pureed, and there's no sitting/soaking time. And you immediately add everything else and cook, so they don't get extra cooking compared to the rest. I know there's a slight texture/volume effect from basically adding some solids, but I was mostly wondering if there was really significant flavor in the skins (that hasn't evened out into the rest) after cooking for an hour. I should have it all done later today to see though.
I saw a few recipes that do call for macerating the skins, my apology if this recipe didn't call for it and I just assumed it did.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.567097
| 2012-09-10T22:26:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26098",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"John",
"Mel",
"Spectra",
"claudia Funder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87864",
"ktnr",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78213
|
How do I fix grainy and chewy caramel corn?
I made caramel corn and it came out grainy & chewy. How do I fix it?
Welcome, however I notice that almost before getting a foot in the door you have been edited - don't let this put you off. In order to try to help you, perhaps if you could tell us how you made your caramel corn.
@dougal2.0.0 I appreciate you welcoming people, but do keep in mind that there's not really any "however" here. Yes, I edited the question, to make it clearer from the title what's being asked, and to fix an obvious mistake. It's all meant to be improvements, in the interests of helping the OP out, and making it clearer for future readers. The OP is quite welcome to edit further if they wish. This is just how the site works; see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit.
@Jefromi. This link might have been more useful to a new member - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
@dougal2.0.0 The link was for you too, since you made a comment about editing. And the OP asked a perfectly fine question, so while it's good to know about the site scope, let's focus on their current question for now.
Splitting your problem down to the two issues. Though they could be entirely related
1: Grainy
2: Chewy
Let's deal with the first - grainy. How are you melting your sugar (I am assuming you are using brown), are you adding corn syrup? Perhaps you have some granules of sugar that are 'un-melted'. It could be that your corn syrup (if used) is reacting in some way.
Now to the second - chewy. Try heating your sugar syrup for a little longer.
I hope that this helps. Below is a great recipe which might help.
Classic Caramel Corn
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.567424
| 2017-02-08T04:15:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78213",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78606
|
Chocolate flavour without the sediment?
Is there a chocolate flavour liquid without the sediment and no milk in it?
Seems pretty likely you meant "sediment", but yeah, clarifying like Stephie asked would be very helpful. (What are you using it for, do hot chocolate mix and chocolate syrup not work for you, etc?)
I guess my first question would be: have you tried just chocolate and water? For example, dissolving cocoa powder in warm water? I add water gradually, and depending on how much water I add, I get a pretty sediment-free liquid/paste/syrup that I can incorporate into recipes...
LorAnn makes a consumer-grade chocolate flavoring:
http://www.lorannoils.com/1-dram-size/chocolate-flavor-0170-dram
You'd use it in a fashion similar to vanilla extract, though it's more concentrated. It's available at candy supply stores, and online. It has a very strong color, so be careful about adding it to things that you want to be white.
I use creme de cacao (basically, chocolate liqueur) for making frosting. It's quite sweet and is much less concentrated than the chocolate flavoring. (It's also a nice addition to milk, kind of a grown-up chocolate milk.) It's available at any liquor store.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.567580
| 2017-02-21T18:48:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78606",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Owen S.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80941
|
Chocolate graham crust
Is there any way of making a regular graham cracker crust into a Chocolate graham cracker crust?
Chocolate teddy grahams?
Are you asking about whether you can substitute chocolate graham crackers for regular in a recipe? Or how to add chocolate/cocoa to a recipe (still using regular crackers)? Or modifying an already-made crust?
You can use chocolate graham crackers to replace the graham crackers as an easy way, though they're not that chocolate-y. There are also tons of recipes out there that add cocoa powder (just google "graham cracker crust cocoa powder"). Amounts vary wildly, from 2 tablespoons to 2/3 cup, though the ones on the higher end add more butter to make it work. You could do both if you want to get as much chocolate in as possible.
If you mean a pre-made crust, I don't see how you can really do anything. The best I can think of is lining the crust with a layer of chocolate or chocolate ganache - just melt chocolate, add cream if you want a ganache, and spread it inside the crust.
I think sone sugar would need to be added too, wouldn't it since cocoa powder is unsweetened?
@Jude Possibly, but I think it's optional - there's already sugar in a normal graham cracker crust recipe, so you can think of it as adding chocolate flavor to something that's already a reasonable sweetness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.567698
| 2017-04-15T01:21:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80941",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80944
|
Bread cracks in the oven
I'm having trouble with my hamburger buns cracking in the oven.
click to expand
In this photo you can see a a bun with the crust cap cracking, isolating the bottom portion and exposing the crumbs. I used to have Hamilton Beach mixer for kneading and never had any issues. I set the Hamilton Beach mixer on speed 4 for 10 minutes. But now I got a KitchenAid Artisan mixer, and am having trouble with the exact same recipe.
I first tried to follow the KitchenAid instructions to knead only for two minutes at speed 3 which didn't work out well and the dough failed the window pane test. I then searched and found some advice to knead at speed 4 for about 10 minutes. I did and my dough passed the window pane test but somehow after rising during the shaping the crust/surface of the buns show a non-smooth surface (happens a lot more on whole wheat). What are some of the reasons this happens? The same recipe works perfectly with the Hamilton Beach mixer. Any advice on the technicalities would be appreciated.
I've read What causes the crown of the bread to crack during baking? (and I appreciate people citing that). But that question is about a loaf, and it's normal for loaves to crack like that, and normal to score loaves. Hamburger buns, in contrast, are not generally scored, and the recipe I'm making is not supposed to require it. It's worked fine without scoring sometimes, so there's something else going wrong besides the lack of scoring.
@fahadash I appreciate you editing the question. I am still not entierly sure why the other question does not apply to your situation. Rolls are frequently scored too, and I doubt that the cracking has different reasons in a small bun than in a large loaf. I will not handle the flag myself, maybe other moderators will know more. The usual thing would be that you cast a reopen vote instead of a flag, so the community decides whether it should be reopened, not the moderators.
I agree that a lot of bun recipes should work without scoring or steam (plenty don't call for it and don't result in split tops), but did you see that one of the answers on that previous question also mentions getting the proofing right? Does that not cover it either?
@fahadash I think I might be able to explain why (though not how to prevent it) but I need a photo or a link of your old Hamilton Beach mixer to be certain. I'm assuming it was a stand mixer.
I've reopened this with some clarification - seems like a no-scoring bun recipe that worked before is different enough from an often-cracking loaf recipe. It is still a little unclear in another regard, though. You say the exact same recipe, but you also mention different kneading times, and using whole wheat flour. I think you mean that you did actually try exactly the same recipe with both mixers at some point, but it'd be nice to clarify that.
I've moved some obsolete/tangential comments to chat. Nothing key to the question, don't worry!
Your picture makes me want to say that it's a classic case of underproofing, but... You also mixed that dough at a pretty high speed. I think you may have over-developed the gluten. Sometimes if the gluten is too tight, it won't be stretchy enough to accommodate proofing and oven spring, which can lead to a rough surface during proofing and ripping while baking. This is more frequently a problem for buns since their shape requires them to be molded tighter than a loaf would normally be, and their small size means that they rise faster than the gluten can relax. You might have better luck only mixing for the recommended time on the lower speed, and then folding it once or twice during the rising time.
KitchenAid instructions recommend to knead at speed 2 and only for 2 minutes which hardly makes a dough pass the window pane test. Do you have a speed and time recommendations? With Hamilton Beach one I used to knead at speed 4 (which is significantly slower than KitchenAid speed 4) for 10 minutes.
@fahadash I wouldn't go above speed 2 on a Kitchenaid, it can burn out the motor. I've kneaded for around 20 minutes for something like a brioche, but frequently I'll knead it for 5-10 (which won't pass the windowpane test), but then I'll give it one or two folds spaced out about 20 minutes. Even with only one fold, you can see that the dough will be dramatically smoothed out.
Using slower speeds and longer kneading times (speed-2 for 10-12 min), and proofing the yeast faster by getting the milk/water temperature to 120 instead of just 100 worked for me along with what's in your answer. If you want to incorporate what worked for me into your answer so I can accept it
I think the reason why the bread crown start to crack its because of high heat and moisture during baking, remember that there is high moisture in the centre of a bread(interior) than exterior. the crown of the bread receive heat firstly and rise while the centre of the bread take some time to rise because of the moisture content in the centre of a bread, as the centre of the bread start to rise it cracks the crown of the bread because the crown of the bread is already risen.Check the heat and moisture
Possibly three reasons that I can think of:
If the water content was less in the dough and because of less moisture the bread cracked.
Over prooving of the dough during the second rise.
If you baked the bread at less temperature for a longer time.
I tried all 3 you told me. My dough was so watery, it was a slime not a dough, I did not second-rise at all, and I baked at 20 more degrees for 5 less minutes than usual. Please note that I have absolutely no problem when I hand-knead or use other old mixer I have.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.567927
| 2017-04-15T04:29:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80944",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jude",
"SourDoh",
"fahadash",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57150",
"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
}
|
76775
|
Residue from boiling pork sausage
When boiling sausage, I notice a gray, foamy residue that floats on top of the water. I was told that this is unhealthy to eat and should be removed. Is this true? Does anyone know what this foam is?
See this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20390/why-skim-scum-from-the-surface-of-a-simmering-stock
the foam is made of water soluble proteins from when you have cooked the sausages. It may not look nice, or even taste nice, but wont kill you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.568370
| 2016-12-23T17:34:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76775",
"authors": [
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77612
|
Does oven size affect baking?
My bread sometimes burn and I've checked my thermometer and it works fine. Does the oven size affect the baking?
Temperature can vary through the oven, especially with baking pans in there to disrupt air flow. Have you checked the temperature in the position where the bread is? Better yet, have you checked the temperature while you're baking bread?
@Jefromi the temperature of the bread? i didn't
No, the temperature of the air in the oven next to the bread.
Never checked it before.
First off, try and check the temperature more carefully. By far the most common reason people have trouble with their oven is that the temperature isn't what they think it is, and burning is a really good sign of that. It's very likely that when you set your oven to 350°F, it's actually hotter than that.
Ideally, you should check the temperature the bread is actually experiencing: put your oven thermometer next to bread while baking it (or an empty bread pan in that same position). The pan can disrupt the air flow, so the temperature the bread experiences might not be quite the same as the temperature in an empty oven set to the same temperature. You should also check more than once, in case it's just unreliable.
And yes, smaller ovens can exacerbate this. Baking sheets/pans will take up more of the oven, so they'll disrupt air flow more. The other thing that can happen in small ovens is getting too close to the top or bottom of the oven, so that the edges burn even if the temperature in the middle is okay.
If none of that is an issue, then I'd look elsewhere:
You might've changed something in the recipe. For example, a different pan size will result in a different baking time.
The recipes might be bad, suggesting too long a baking time, because the author's oven was too cool. Try more recipes!
You might be relying too much on time. Even if you've followed everything carefully and the recipe is good, maybe your pan is a different material that tends to bake a little faster. Be sure to check periodically for doneness.
To answer the question in general: yes, oven size can affect baking significantly. Jefromi's points about checking temperature, etc. are important too and more likely to cause problems.
But I just wanted to highlight two things he mentioned that are relevant specifically to oven size:
A smaller oven means you may be forced to place your baking items closer to the walls of the oven (whether top, bottom, or sides). This is more likely to cause burning on the surface of food, sometimes while leaving the interior underdone. If this is a problem, you may need to lower the baking temperature a bit from what you would use in a large oven or try to alter the position of the food to get it as far away from heating elements and reflective surfaces as possible.
Even baking often depends on air circulation within the oven. If you are trying to bake a large item in a small oven, hot air may sometimes get more "trapped" around any heating elements, exacerbating the problem I mentioned above.
Lastly, one other significant impact of oven size:
Many baked goods will cook differently depending on the amount of humidity in the oven. Bread, for example, often depends on a relatively moist, steamy oven for an effective oven spring in the first few minutes of baking. Sometimes a small oven -- particularly electric ovens, which are often less vented than gas ones -- can trap the dough's own moisture more effectively, which may increase oven spring. On the other hand, too much steam can inhibit browning. (In the latter case, you may need to "vent" the oven by opening it slightly to let out steam during the browning phase of baking.)
This last point probably won't help the specific problem of burned bread mentioned in the question, but it's another issue to consider when baking in different sized ovens.
Yes Ive noticed recipes temps are sometimes very high...like 400F and I reduce temp to 350 or 375..depends what Im baking..also it burns on the top first so 3 quarter way thru baking I lower the rack....also you csn insert a flat rack pan above or below helps block the excessive heat from an element...I have a tiny oven...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.568447
| 2017-01-19T23:01:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77612",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ruben",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53676"
],
"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
}
|
77438
|
My bread always burns
I'm using a recipe from a video (see below), at the right temperature (350°F). I don't know what the problem is, but the edges are always burnt. Should I try putting the pan over a container with water?
Carrot bread recipe:
2 cups of flour
2 cups of sugar
2 tsp of cinnamon
2 tsp of baking soda
1/2 tsp of salt
1 1/2 cups of oil
4 eggs
3 carrots
1/2 cup of nuts
Method:
Preheat @ 180°C or 356°F
Bake 1 hour
More:
my pan is 26x29
I have this problem when making brownies (following the box recipe).
From what video? Can you give us a bit more of an explanation? What is the recipe and method? How closely are you following them?
i'll edit my question
@Catija updated! :)
Is that the size of pan the video calls for? If you're using a bigger pan, then it'll be thinner and cook faster.
Bake 1 hour
It seems that you are baking by the clock. This doesn't usually produce good results, you should bake until it is done. The time suggested in the recipe is a rough guideline, not the time when you should take it out of the oven.
Start testing for doneness when it starts looking good, and take it out when it tests ready. It doesn't matter how long it was in the oven.
You only have to start changing things if the edges burn while the inside is still raw, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Wow, really helpful, yesterday when i was making the cake, i take it out from the oven before the hour, and it was already done. I will make brownies today and i will follow your advice
It's possible your oven thermometer is not calibrated. It's easy and cheap to buy a replacement thermometer instead of replacing the one internal to your oven. The Rubbermaid Commercial Stainless Steel Oven Monitoring Thermometer can be purchased on Amazon for $6-7.
I spoke with a friend recently who had a similar problem when they moved to an older home with a really old oven. He bought two different thermometers to test, and they both said the oven was at 525 F when the oven was set to 450 F. A temperature difference that large will substantially impact your cooking/baking times, and could easily lead to burnt bread and brownies.
Well, proably that can be the problem since my thermometer is not electric. But i think its fine, i mean, when i do cupcakes is not the same problem!
The oven size is a factor?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.568780
| 2017-01-14T01:24:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77438",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ruben",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84521
|
When making Vegan Carnitas, BBQ, & etc., is canned green jackfruit superior to fresh green jackfruit? What about frozen?
weI have seen a lot of debate regarding the use of green/young jackfruit as a meat substitute in vegan cooking, but the opinions i find on the subject are all simply reading copy, or incorporating third and fourth party quotes or talking points into their article.
Which one renders the best texture? Why does that form have a better texture?
Are there any other pros and cons of each option?
Are you interested in general pros and cons, or really just texture? I think there are some practical difficulties with fresh green jackfruit too.
i was hoping for some discussion regarding the pros and cons of each form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.568987
| 2017-09-20T17:42:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84521",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Rachelle Greene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61696"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85036
|
How can I test if I've added baking soda to my cake batter?
I have prepared some cake mix and while I know I added baking powder, I don't remember whether I have added baking soda in it! Is there anyway to check this (of course without baking the mix ;-). )
This is wheat-based eggless cake. The mix contains wheat, all-purpose flour, sugar and baking powder.
@Smita The fact that there's already baking powder in there is pretty relevant, so I edited it into the question. The most obvious things would involve somehow seeing if there's any effects from that leavening, but you wouldn't be able to easily tell the difference between having both baking soda and baking powder, and having only baking powder.
How much baking soda? If it's 3/4 teaspoon (10g) or less, I'd just risk adding it again to be sure it's in there. -Shouldn't hurt the cake too badly.
I'm pretty sure there's no way without a chemlab. Even cooking a sample wouldn't work because of the baking soda.
If there wasn't baking powder in there, you could pull a little bit out and add some vinegar to see if it would bubble. But it's a liquid, so the baking powder would bubble, not just the baking soda.
Oh .. and a trick my mother taught me : pull out all of the ingredients, then put them away as you add them. If there's anything left on the counter, you forgot to add it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.569079
| 2017-10-16T17:51:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85036",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85104
|
bleach cleaning on chopping board.... dangerous?
I had used bleach on a sponge to clean a floor of paint. My boyfriend, then used said sponge to clean our wooden chopping boards. I remembered this today and decided to clean the board with soap and water.
I understand that cleaning a chopping board with watered down bleach is a thing. but how much bleach in this process is toxic levels. The chopping board had plenty of time to dry. I then washed it with soap and water, But I don't want to risk poisoning myself or him as i imagine the aubergine I just sliced sucking in the bleach!
If i now cook the vegetables I prepared on the chopping board harm us? I'd appreciate an answer before I have to cook this food or explain my neuroses to him embarrassing!
Clarification:
It was cream bleach (i think, something similar to 'cif') used to de grease sinks/hobs, although to add to the total ridiculousness of the situation, I'm in Italy and cant read Italian, it was just what was available with a picture of hob/sink on the cover and a texture similar to 'cif'. The paint was oil paint, I can recommend cream bleach to remove this from tiles and sinks based on frequent past usage.
I have swilled the vegetables in water they don't smell of chemicals. The aubergine, I have washed it, but I'm worried it's still not okay because it's porous.
If is dried I seriously doubt you have toxic levels. Even wet I think it is safe. Cooking will boil off bleach.
Bleach, of controlled dilution, is actually legal and used as a produce wash in some localities...
I would think getting an off taste is a much bigger hazard than safety in this case. If you cannot smell bleach, wash with soap and water one more time and let air dry. If you can still smell, repeat until you cannot, then one more time. I seldom run risks with food and contamination, but this one should not be a big deal, you should not be approaching close to toxic levels.
i told the boyfriend, he replied to say we should be totally fine (he is ordinarily more wary of contaminated food than myself). all veg was washed and a few hours later, we seem to be fine. thanks for all the advice everyone, googling bleach toxity on the internet is NOT pleasant, so i apretiate it :)
@abbc Bleach on your wood chopping board is definitely something probably do not want to do on a regular basis, but remember that most of us drink bleach on a regular basis. Most municipal water has a form of chlorine bleach at low levels, and pool at higher levels, as well as many bottled waters. Household bleaches often have additional stuff, like fragrances. As long as the smells have cleared, should be fine, but if you/he repeat it, things can start to build up. It should still not be toxic levels one hope, but might well taint tastes.
I think the bigger issue here is how a sponge used to clean paint off a floor was subsequently used on something needing to be food-safe; the issue could have been much worse than diluted bleach. You should find a way to make sure that doesn't happen again, probably physically separating and distinguishing the non-food sponges.
I am surprised by your description, because cif has nothing to do with bleach. Does your chopping board whiff of chlorine now?
The ever lovely cleanipedia actually reccomend using chlorine bleach solution to sanitise chopping boards
https://www.cleanipedia.com/gb/kitchen-cleaning/kitchen-cleaning-how-to-clean-your-chopping-boards
The comments under the question also offer some very good advice.
My personal thoughts are that it should be perfectly safe. When on survival training we used bleach to purify water to drink (in small quantities!)
I would suggest that you could now wash the boards in plain boiling water just to ensure no residue remains.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.569223
| 2017-10-19T17:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85104",
"authors": [
"Kevin",
"abbc",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7848",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86354
|
adding peanut butter to a recipe
Ok, so I saw another question answered here that said:
Natural Peanut butter is about 50% fat, butter is about 80% fat. If you want to maintain the original amount of fat in the recipe, you would decrease the butter by 60% of the amount of peanut butter you used.
I however have a recipe for oatmeal cookies that calls for 3/4 C of butter and I'd like to use a full cup of peanut butter, How do I adapt this correctly? I'm really bad at math and don't want to mess it up, haha.
Also if I'm adding that much peanut butter do I need to adjust any of the other ingredients like the flour or oats quantity?
Thanks in advance for your answers!
The reason I didn't quote the other post exactly is because I'm not using natural peanut butter, I'm going to use regular and I'm not sure of the fat % difference between the two.
Can you add a link to the other question? That can help people answer this one (just to have context, or to make sure they're not telling you something you already have read)
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62055/how-to-adjust-oil-in-recipe-when-adding-peanut-butter?newreg=71dbaeacd4dd4a7c87fae19e6c5bf957
I think I'd like to see the entire recipe @DivinusOculus.
The answer to this is that you use a conversion equation. If you did even the most basic chemistry in school, this is one you hopefully learned and is one of the most useful equations you can use in a lab or when cooking - very useful for dilutions and working out final concentrations in solutions.
V1 * C1 = V2 * C2
Where V = volumes and C = concentrations, 1 and 2 refer to before and after. Some people use i (initial) and f (final) or something along those lines instead of 1 and 2
It works on the fact that if you take an amount from one side of the equation and put it into the other side, you have the same amount. Again if you did any chemistry, you might remember the equation N = V * C, where N = number of what you want - but notice the similarity to the first equation and that if you take both sides you have N = N.
So, onto your calculation:
Butter fat concentration (C1) = 80%, volume (V1) = 0.75 (3/4) cups. Fat concentration in PB (C2) = 50%:
80% * 0.75 cups = 50% * V2 cups
60 = 50 * V2 - divide both sides by 50 and cancel appropriately to get V2 alone.
V2 = 60 / 50
V2 = 1.2 cups of peanut butter.
Therefore, assuming that your PB is 50% fat, you would need to use 1.2 (1 and 1/5th) cups of PB to equal butter in total.
However, as you only wanted to use 1 cup (in 2017, so I guess you made the cookies by now...) you have 0.2 cups worth of 50% fat left over to compensate for. So... you use the equation again to work it out. This time V1 = 0.2, C1 = 50% and C2 = 80%
0.2 * 50 = 80 * V2
10 = 80 * V2
V2 = 0.125 (1/12th) cups of butter.
As there are 16 tablespoons in a cup, 1/12th of a cup = 16 * 1/12 = 1.3 tablespoons of additional butter needed.
That's a loaded question. Your recipe calls for 3/4 cup butter, which is 80% fat, so 3/5 or (6/10) of a cup total fat. A cup of regular peanut butter is 70% fat so is 7/10 of a cup of fat. So since your recipe is calling for 6/10 cup of total fat,
you would completely omit the butter and cut that cup of peanut butter down by a couple of tablespoons (an exact measurement gets wonky). However, since butter is 15% water and regular peanut butter is only 1% water and has salt and sugar. If the recipe calls for unsalted butter and adds salt separately you would cut the salt by about 1/4 tsp, you might also want to adjust the sugar down slightly. And you would want to add an additional approximately 1.5 tbls. water since you are omitting the water in the butter.
I think your math is out there - something with 80% fat can't have less than something with 70% fat. 80% = 4/5 or 8/10... The question also suggests that PB is about 50% fat rather than 70%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.569527
| 2017-12-13T22:05:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86354",
"authors": [
"Divinus Oculus ",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"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
}
|
79699
|
Why did a jar of vinegar destroy this metal lid and turn it black (see pic)?
About a month ago, I filled a thoroughly-cleaned-out glass salsa jar with vinegar and hand-tightened the lid. Specifically, I filled the jar with generic white distilled vinegar ("diluted with water to 5% acidity"). I did not open the jar between now and then.
Today, I opened the jar, and I couldn't believe what I saw. The inside of the metal lid has been destroyed, filled with clumps of abrasive, black particles that are firmly attached to the lid.
The inside of the lid also has some rust, which is even more odd, because I thought that vinegar removes rust.
The jar was not even all-the-way full. This is the vinegar jar in question:
This is what the lid looked like a month ago, when the jar was empty:
This is what it looks like today:
I have two questions.
How on Earth was this metal lid destroyed by the presence of vinegar?
What container material is best to store vinegar for long periods of time, without deterioration?
I purchase vinegar in a gigantic plastic carboy, because it is cheaper in bulk. I would like to have the vinegar available in a smaller container. I prefer to use a type of container that's recycled from a common item (like salsa).
Note: Not that it matters in the context of my questions, but I'm not actually using this vinegar for cooking. I use it as a safe disinfectant for items such as a retainer. Given that vinegar is typically viewed as a food, I thought that it would be appropriate to pose this question to Seasoned Advice.
Please don't use images that large in your post - even on a giant 30" monitor, I could only see half your post at a time. With the medium size I can at least see most of it. I was careful to link them all to the full-size images, so anyone who needs a closer look can click through.
Okay, but originally you linked them to the low-quality images.
Ah, didn't realize. That was a careless mistake, sorry.
Because acid. Vinegar is rough stuff. That's why it tastes so... vinegary, irritates your mouth, and is good for cleaning and disenfecting stuff.
Would the pickles still be ok to store and later eat if rejared?
The used lid had already somewhat degraded when you put vinegar on the jar. These coated self-sealing lids are used in bottling salsa - obviously :) - jams, pickles, condiments, etc all which vary from mild to medium acidity. They work well for the purpose and for the length of time before the contents are used up.
But they were never meant for long term use and when there's even a minor break (not noticeable) between the rubber seal and the inner white coating, it'll start corroding. The 5% acetic acid will corrode the aluminum and other metals in the lid while the combination of 95% water and oxygen will rust any iron that's present. Even home-canning lids will end up corroded by vinegar. It won't happen with first use as in making pickles but people are cautioned not to reuse the flat lid with rubber seal, and not just because it may not seal.
Commercial vnegar comes in plastic bottles with the recycle code 2 inside a triangle. It's high-density polyethylene (HDPE), completely foodsafe and highly resistant to acid. If you can find a small container of the same plastic (such as a 1 L milk jug), that would be a good choice. You're not worried about looks since you're using the vinegar as a disinfectant. It's perfectly safe and would be even if you did use it for food.
I use vinegar to rinse certain dishes and stainless steel in my kitchen after washing. I find it convenient to fill an empty clear plastic dish detergent bottle with it. (I mention this for a reason.) I'm not worried about leaching of the plastic since it's not for food, but it's better not to put vinegar in it if it's to be used for food. It's a code 1 clear plastic, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), that's used for food and soft drinks. Obviously, people aren't dropping over dead from its use but there's concern that phthalates (which are endocrine-disruptors) leach into the liquid contents, even water, when stored in the plastic for long. Better to be safe.
I don't know if your retainer has any metal parts to it. If it does, I have no idea how resistant it is to acids. Your dentist or denturist would be able to tell you. If you wish, you could use hydrogen peroxide and water, ratio 1:1 to both disinfect and whiten your retainer safely. It's actually a more effective disinfectant than vinegar. You probably could buy it in bulk from the same place you get your vinegar from if you choose.
On the last point, my retainer is all plastic. I don't actually use vinegar primarily to "disinfect" the retainer exactly (like I wrote originally), but to remove the calcified white gunk that builds up on the retainer. This stuff is very difficult to remove, and won't even come off with a powered toothbrush. Vinegar is the only thing (that I have found) that breaks it down and can remove it! Anyway, great answer!
*The 5% acetic acid will corrode the aluminum and other metals in the lid * Metal lids are almost invariably steel, but acetic acid corrodes bare steel pretty well
Vinegar is an acid and acids are not stored in metal, it eats them. Some are less reactive, like stainless steel, but still not a good idea. Normally plastic is fine, that is what vinegar is often marketed in, but glass is usually best as the main container, but lid should either not be metal or should be fully and well coated, and I would tend to avoid that as well unless I knew it was non-reactive.
An option for ready use would be a glass decanter, as used for oil and vinegar dressing. These often include a glass stopper, so they make a good but spill prone option. For longer term storage, my choice is a wine bottle and cork. The corks (including the synthetic ones and even the twist on) should all be designed for a similar environment to vinegar. Lower acid but longer term so the same general effect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.569831
| 2017-04-06T21:05:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79699",
"authors": [
"Artonde",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Ilya Grushevskiy",
"Jason C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55814"
],
"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
}
|
71739
|
What does it mean if my chicken tastes like fish?
I got the chicken fresh from Smith's, rinsed it, seasoned it, and it didn't smell at all. I put it in my mother-in-law's baking dish, baked it, and it smelled sooo good in the house while baking. I served it only for my husband to spit it out. It tastes 100 percent like fish. Not smell, taste. What could this be from? Does it indicate the chicken was unsafe to eat?
Actually, I doubt fish tastes like fish - it actually smells like fish. There is no taste receptor for fishyness known :)
Fishmeal :( Some farmers feed chickens fishmeal. I assume it provides a better nutrient base, blah, blah. It's gross. I can only buy one brand of chicken now, because most of the local grocery stores sell "fishy" chicken.
From the chicken's point of view it's probably not gross at all. It's just that they usually aren't able to catch fish and that we (very much including me) don't like the resulting taste. But chickens are naturally omnivores. They feed on worms, snails, slugs, insects (which are easier for them to catch than, say, fish) and the occasional mouse (if they get it).
In the UK, in the post-war era of the 50's and early 60's, a whole roast chicken was an expensive luxury food. For many British families it offered a rare alternative to the regular Sunday roast "dinner" (lunch) in place of roast beef, pork or lamb, far less expensive to buy for the so called working classes of the time. This was still the age of free-range chickens so quality and taste were excellent. Egg-yolks were rich in color and taste. This all changed from the mid-60's when economies of scale turned the raising of chickens into an unregulated industry, the so called "battery" chicken "produced" on a vast, industrial scale. Millions of chickens flooded the market and the retail cost to the family dropped well below that of meat. But these chickens were raised in appalling conditions and fed the "waste" byproducts of the UK's fishing industry, a dried fish powder or mini fish pellet. The chicken of the late 60's, 70's and early 80's tasted fishy unless bought from upscale poulterers or sourced from known free range outlets. The battery chicken of today has improved with High Street supermarkets using their clout to reject suppliers of fish-fed chucks. Maybe the OP has stumbled on a supplier of foul-tasting fish-fed-fowl.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.570407
| 2016-07-29T02:25:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71739",
"authors": [
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"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
}
|
58193
|
How can I test if a dehydrator is getting to the proper temperature?
I'm trying to sell an Aroma 5 tray dehydrator and want to make sure it's working correctly. What temperature should it be getting to and how do I test for it?
The manual for the Aroma 5-tray dehydrator says that the drying temperature is about 150°F (65°C). So all you need to do is find a thermometer that you can fit inside it, turn it on, wait 5-10 minutes for it to heat up, and check the temperature.
You could also simply test it by drying a quick test batch of something; if it gets nicely dehydrated in roughly the expected amount of time, the temperature was probably fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.570611
| 2015-06-12T17:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58193",
"authors": [
"Annette Burdette",
"Claudia Sims",
"Lisa M",
"Peter Dunlop",
"Samantha Marie",
"Sharon Shepherd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138660"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58396
|
What temperature should I serve salami at?
I have recently found out that certain foods are meant to be served at certain temperatures. I really enjoy salami, but I normally eat it from the fridge.
Is it meant to be served chilled, at room temperature, or at a higher temperature?
Room temperature for sure!
Eating something like salami chilled detracts from its flavour. Obviously you want to be a bit careful about leaving it out for a really long time, but I usually take anything I want to eat out of the fridge well before consumption.
Always at ambient temperature.
Salami was always meant to be eaten "as is", and by that, I mean not cooked. It was originally designed as a method of preserving excess meat to be eaten later on in the year, when meat was scarce.
IF you decide to heat up or cook your salami, no harm will come to you, but you will lose all the textures and flavours that you pick out when you eat them "raw",and at room temperature.
Oh,and by the way, salamis can keep for years, if kept at a constant humidity and temperature, for example, in a cellar, or deep cave!
I make my own salamis, hams and bresoalas, and can confirm that a salami made back in '91 tasted surprisingly good, despite looking like biltong!
IF you currently keep your salami in the fridge, take it out to get to temperature about 2 hours before you intend to eat it. Only take out as much as you need though, as it doesn't respond well to constant temp change (being taken out of the fridge,then put back in again) etc.
If you have some salami left over,cover it loosely with cling-film (cling-wrap in the USA), and it's good for 24-36 hours.
HAPPY EATING.
Who on earth downvoted that one. Good answer Sir/Madam!
Warning, ambient/room temperature means different things for different people; there is a big difference between 20c and 30c (google to convert to F).
I will usually keep the salami in the fridge and take it out 1/2 hour before eating (depending on the actual room/ambient temperature).
If you decide to slice the salami in advance, remember that each slice will warm up faster than if you keep the salami whole and slice each slice on demand.
It depends on how you wish to cook it. If you're making a sandwich then, of course, room temperature is the best, even taste wise! However, sometimes I like to add salami or sausages to an omelette or pasta and I heat it up in the pan as I'm cooking the food. In general, I think the serving temperature of salami all depends on personal opinion and how you're serving the dish.
I'm pretty sure the OP is just talking about eating salami, not using it as an ingredient in a dish.
@Jefromi That's what I meant, it all depends on HOW you eat it. If it's just by itself then of course room temperature is best, but if you add it to a dish then heated is tastier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.570714
| 2015-06-21T00:45:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58396",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Roe",
"Cascabel",
"Dhirsha Selvaraj",
"Kim Page",
"Lschk",
"Mark Plunk",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Tom Schuler",
"daniel newton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35876",
"jennifer bono",
"lucym27able",
"sarah nunn",
"sash ramkissoon",
"shayne padgett"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56032
|
How do I avoid botulism formation when vacuum sealing and freezing raw chopped vegetables?
I want to chop onions and green peppers then freeze in a vacuum sealed bag without blanching the vegetables first.
I read the article on blanching after vacuum sealing and then blanching but to your point the heat transfer is dramatically reduced by the insulating value of the plastic and the bulk thickness of the vegetables in the bag. Any insight that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
A timely answer would be greatly appreciated as we need to start this process as soon as possible with the utmost safety in mind.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a way to store raw chopped vegetables long-term, except freezing. Is this just for storing them a few days until you need to use them?
No matter what you decide to do, you have to keep them out of the temperature danger zone (meaning freeze or refrigeration) no way around this, without removing all of the moisture or adding a preservative.
"Blanching" after sealing will not give you anything, not because of the insulating properties of the bag, but because the plastic bag will melt long before you have reached safe bacterial reduction. In fact, most vegetables cannot be safely canned without adding acid.
The vacuum sealed chopped onions and green peppers will be frozen and kept frozen for several weeks, not long term. Thank you.
What is the article you referred to?
I suppose dropping the bags in liquid nitrogen for a few minutes, and then storing in the freezer might suffice.
mostly fish, but not a bad read:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM252416.pdf
Edit post clarification of the question:
Liquid nitrogen is still fun if you can find an excuse, and highly effective.
In a less drastic direction, simply doing the processing on pre-cooled (below 38F, preferably 33F) vegetables (and preferably in a walk-in cooler held below 38F) should keep things out of the botulism growth zone, and putting them in a -20F freezer for long enough (do some test runs where you actually stick a thermometer in a test bag) to get the center of the mass down below 0F before transfer to a 0F freezer (assuming that's your standard freezer temperature) would likely suffice. A cold brine step might help freezing get started faster but would be messy as compared to just using a -20F freezer (perhaps with racks to separate bags and extra air circulation, so you don't have bags packed together until after they are frozen through.) Depending on scale, maybe just size the -20F unit for a days production and clear it out at the start of each day after holding product overnight.
If processing in a warmer environment, you'll want to minimize time between "being held pre-cooled" and "being packed and frozen" - and especially "time between being vacuum-packed and being frozen." But giving the workers warm coats and hot coffee (and breaks) while working in a cooler will be safest. You will also need to sanitize any equipment on a regular schedule, which will be more often if they are not cold (and you'll need to check the temperature of the food contact parts of any machines when they have been running for a while.)
The OP clarified that he intends to freeze them - so the issue is basically just the time between sealing and when it actually freezes and gets out of the danger zone.
Food preservatives such as nitrite, sorbic acid, phenolic antioxidants, polyphosphates, and ascorbates are all proven additives to help reduce the risk.
phenolic antioxidants in particular come from plant materials. If I were you, I would invest my time into researching such ingredients as bay leafs because you can buy them in bulk and because they're food (again this is what I would do, I have never done this and I don't know if this would work without further research).
Bay leaf's may although also change the flavor (but there is many more ingredients that are high in phenolic antioxidants that might not affect the flavor profile of the vacuum packed product).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.570979
| 2015-03-25T02:33:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56032",
"authors": [
"Antonio Infante",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Francis Kulbacki",
"Harpreet Kaur",
"Jan Pilotte",
"Joe",
"Joe Bushman",
"LUIS ROBERTO COACH RODRIGUEZ O",
"Michael Leahy",
"Nick Viney",
"Quintan Quigley",
"Riley Iwamoto",
"Rita Gorley",
"Robbiedog Canine",
"Rosalie Robinson",
"Sidney Blackwell II",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"thomas bartle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71217
|
Can I pasteurize milk in a jam jar?
The InstantPot manual says that I can use a bottle or container to make yogurt. It says to first pasteurize the milk (using the steam function to heat it to at least 180F/83C) then cool to 115F/46C and add starter. Can I use a jam jar for this?
I'm a bit afraid of breaking the glass - but on the other hand the jam jar should be prepared to handle some heat difference (namely between heated jam and room).
pasteurizing kills microbes such as bacteria in raw milk, Depending on where you live, you may not even be able to buy raw milk,. Making yogurt involves encouraging good bacteria to grow. So this is the very opposite of pasteurizing. What are you trying to do, specifically, and what temperatures are involved?
@KateGregory Kill the bad bacteria before I introduce the ones I want. The receipy calls for boiling to >72 C and then cooling to 45 C before introducing culture.
Any jar sold for home canning will work for what you want. They are designed to handle temperatures higher than 212°F/100°C.
What you want to avoid is thermal shock - a large and rapid change of temperature. Don't put cool/cold jar(s) in boiling water, don't put hot jar(s) directly on cool counter or in refrigerator/freezer. Don't fill cold jar(s) with hot contents and vice-versa.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.571329
| 2016-07-05T05:36:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71217",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Maja Piechotka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59357
|
How do I bake cakes in a gas oven without a temperature knob?
I want to bake a cake in my gas cooking range, but I can't find any option to set the temperature. I just have the time setting knob and flame adjustable knob. How do I preheat my gas oven and long should I?
possible duplicate of Cooking in a Gas Oven?
I don't find the question to be a true duplicate but I do think the answers to the question linked by @ChingChong may be of help here.
Also related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37470/can-i-test-my-oven-temperature-without-an-oven-thermometer (but that's not going to help you an awful lot, because I'm guessing your flame adjustment knob isn't terribly precise, so even if you manage to measure the temperature of a given position without using a thermometer, you'll have a hard time reproducing it)
I agree with Jefromi that the easiest solution is just to get a cheap oven thermometer that you can put into the oven. I'm not sure where you're from or the availability of them, but they are generally quite cheap.
Before such things existed, people had methods for testing oven temperatures for baking. The most common one was to put your hand into the oven and count how long it takes until it's too hot and you need to take it out. Depending on the number of seconds, you could tell the difference between a "hot" or "moderate" or "low" oven or whatever. Such distinctions are sufficient to determine oven temperature to bake a passable cake, but they require experience to achieve even basic precision. If you already knew how to do this, you could estimate the oven settings pretty quickly (though only in a general sense, but good enough for basic baking).
But without that sort of previous experience, I'd again just recommend buying an oven thermometer.
That might make a decent answer to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37470/can-i-test-my-oven-temperature-without-an-oven-thermometer too. I guess there's no way to add much detail about how to learn to do this, though, you just have to calibrate your hands over time?
@Jefromi - Yes, I thought about whether to add "x seconds = hot oven", etc. but the reality is this varies a bit from person to person. I think the only way to learn it is either to have someone show you ("This is a moderate oven; put your hand in and you try") or by trial and error ("Last time my cakes browned too fast, so I need to be able to count longer..."). Either way, I think it just takes experience.
I'm afraid you're going to have to use a thermometer if you want to have any reliability. Hopefully your oven holds a reasonably steady temperature so you'll be able to match what recipes call for. Oven thermometers are really cheap; if you tried to do without it you'll probably waste more money on ingredients for failed cakes (not to mention the time) than you would have spent on the thermometer in the first place.
The thermometer will end up telling you how long it takes to preheat as well; once you see the temperature stabilizing you'll know it's preheated enough. The actual amount of time will vary a lot; it could be 5 minutes for a powerful oven aiming for a low temperature, or 20 minutes for a less powerful oven aiming for a high temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.571712
| 2015-07-26T05:15:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59357",
"authors": [
"Aline S Davies",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Cindy",
"Elite care",
"Ishimwe Yabesi",
"Martin Gander",
"Rory Gould",
"Rosemary Thompstone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"lorraine williams"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57595
|
What causes dutch oven flavor?
I love the added flavor that comes from cooking in a cast iron dutch oven like the one shown below:
What is it that causes this? Is it from the charcoal or from the seasoning?
If I season a legless dutch oven (the cast iron kind, not enamel) and use it in my electric oven will it still add that same flavor?
What charcoal? Do you mean you're using a cast iron dutch oven on a charcoal grill?
@Jefromi The OP also mentions legs... maybe they mean something like this?
@Catija : very likely. it's often called a 'camp stove' to differentiate it, but a lot of people also call them a 'dutch oven'.
@Joe That's what I'm referring to. I've never heard it called by that name. This is what I call a camp stove.
@saltface : oops ... I meant to say 'camp oven', not 'camp stove' ... but it seems that name's been usurped as well by new propane appliances.
Are you South African by any chance? What we consider a dutch oven is different than in the US.
Can you be more specific/descriptive about the flavor you are interested in? Do you taste it in all types of food cooked in your dutch oven? Do you taste it in foods baked in the dutch oven?
Yes, it's in everything made in a dutch oven and it's so unique it's hard to describe. It's similar to smoky but definitely distinct.
How tightly sealed is it? Dutch ovens are usually pretty well-sealed due to their heavy lids, so I'd not think the charcoal smoke would get in at all... but your flavor description seems to make it sound like there is smoke getting in.
It seals as well as any other dutch oven. I wouldn't call it airtight but it definitely doesn't smell like the charcoal fire that's heating it.
It is not good to use a dutch oven in a... conventional oven. It hurts the pot way too much.
I think what the OP may be mentioning is a 'potjie' Which has legs and is usually used in South African cuisine outside on a charcoal fire.
The common notion is that the smoke from the fire does not penetrate the pot to flavour the food but rather it is the cast iron pot and the very slow cooking that give this type of cooking its distinct flavour.
I'm not South African and potjies are new to me. (But I can see the similarities.) An American dutch oven is flatter with a large lip around the top and charcoal is placed on both the top and bottom. These bake at up to 450° F (232° C). I don't see how a conventional oven could harm them.
The item in the picture you have posted is called a cauldron in the US and would be used mostly for stewing. In addition to the differences noted by @saltface, a dutch oven/camp oven has a flat bottom which makes it a little more versatile, useful for braising, stewing, frying, and baking.
The confusion is probably due to enameled Dutch Ovens (which are fine for oven use at reasonable temperatures and with an appropriate lid knob) - these are kitchen equipment rather than camping equipment. We also use the term "Dutch Oven" for a metal pot (aluminum or cast iron) designed to be placed upon the coals of a campfire.
Most cast iron pots designed for the fire have lids that fit well enough to keep ash and embers out, but not the smoke
After sitting in embers for an 30 minutes, even a loaf of bread has a very smokey flavour
It's more subtle than hanging something in a smoke house, but it is definitively a smokey flavour
Also, since most dutch oven recipes are for slow cooking over hot embers, you get quite a long cook time in fresh hot smoke
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.571990
| 2015-05-18T16:55:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57595",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cheryl Gittens",
"Didgeridrew",
"Joe",
"Johnnie",
"Kelly Morris",
"Mark Davinson",
"Neil Meyer",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Vironica Valentine",
"Yiru Wang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"saltface",
"travour nyagweta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58957
|
What can I use as a substitute for hoisin sauce?
Is there anything I can use as a substitute for hoisin sauce that's less salty or even salt-free? This is for a sauce to go with pork steaks.
For what are you using hoi sin sauce? Is it for dipping? If yes: You can use the concentrated hoi sin sauce from the jar to make a milder sauce.
It is for a sauce to go with pork steaks
There are lots of good recipes for hoisin online like this one from Serious Eats. Just by using lower sodium or less soy sauce, you would be reducing the saltiness of the sauce. I would start there instead of thinking substitution for hoisin. Bean paste too comes in a range of sodium levels.
Hoisin has a few primary flavors: salt, sweetness, and umami. If it's a significant part of a recipe, leaving it out isn't really an option; you'll notice the lack of all three of those.
If you can find a fermented soybean paste that has less salt, that'd be the closest substitute, possibly with some added sugar. Otherwise, you'll have to look for other umami-rich seasonings, and again likely add sugar. See What is a good vegetarian source of umami flavour? for some ideas. You could also use things like bacon or anchovies since your case doesn't have to be vegetarian. Of course, anything with a distinctive flavor of its own isn't going to be an exact substitute (anchovies don't taste quite like fermented soybeans), but at least you'll have a sauce in a similar direction.
Unfortunately, Hoisin sauce is one of these Asian ingredients that is always salty, whether you choose brands like Lee Kum Kee (more processed) or Koon Chun (more raw).
If it is included into a sauce which has many more ingredients, where Hoisin doesn't bring too much character into it, and I've seen a lot of those, I would just skip it. If not, you can always grab a recipe of the sauce on the internet, there are quiet a few, and see if you can lower the salt factor from the ingredients it is made of. Bean paste and soy sauce are there, but I also have seen molasses, miso paste, and even peanut butter.
I think i will just leave it out Thx
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.572296
| 2015-07-10T11:51:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58957",
"authors": [
"Ching Chong",
"Dave Mason",
"Izzy Padgett",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judy Borsellino",
"Mike Sullivan",
"Mumtaz Malik",
"Oluchi Amarh",
"Tarence Dickerson",
"Vidar Bentestuen",
"Wendy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36728"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58754
|
Mixing condensed and evaporated milk for fudge?
Before anybody says this is a duplicate, I'm not asking about the difference between the two milks; I already know that. What I'm looking for is a way to lessen the sugar content of sweetened condensed milk without changing the texture of the final product too much.
Nestle makes a 50% less sugar version of sweetened condensed milk, but that isn't available within 50 miles of my home, so I'm trying to find a different solution
If I use half sweetened condensed milk and half evaporated milk, will I end up with lower-sugar sweetened condensed milk or will I end up with a watery, useless product that can't become fudge?
This is the label information from the reduced sugar sweetened condensed milk made by Nestlé:
That suggests to me that there is more to creating a lower sugar sweetened condensed milk than simply reducing the sugar. I have made sweetened condensed milk from evaporated milk (goat's milk actually), and I found the experience a bit more advanced than simply slowly stirring simmering milk, and the sugar seemed very crucial to the operation. Cajeta with powdered goat's milk? Or evaporated? (Experiment Results)
For comparison sake I looked at the ingredient list for regular Nestlé sweetened condensed milk (La Lechera). The ingredients of that product are milk and sugar.
I won't go so far as to say that it can't be done as you hope, nor will I say that the fudge wouldn't be tasty, but I have serious doubts.
If you have normal milk and some time. Then you can cook the milk for a long duration of time, constantly stirring so that it doesn't burn. Keep the sweetness lower as compared to your need as the reduction in volume will normalize that. It will really take a long time but the taste will remain awesome.
Do you think that'll work for fudge, though? I can easily see all the sugar being an important part of the structure/texture of the fudge. Seems like it might take an incredibly long time (and a lot of stirring) to get it as thick as condensed milk without burning it, too.
It will for sure work for fudge. First heat the milk and let it condensed for a moment and at the end, when you feel that the thickness is ok, then add sugar as sugar melts right away and lead to burn the milk.
I'm still not at all convinced. The thickness added by the sugar is important to the texture of the fudge. I'm sure it's possible to reach the same thickness by reducing milk an awful lot, but that leads to a few issues. You'll have to use tons and tons of milk to start with (since there's not much in it to thicken it). The thickness will be provided partially by sugar (so there's not as much nutritional gain as you'd think) and partially by protein (so it won't lead to the same texture). Unless you've actually tried this, I don't think you can confidently say it'll work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.572606
| 2015-07-03T12:16:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58754",
"authors": [
"Butterfly Jules Butterfly Jule",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Gregg",
"Cole Wimbles",
"Katelynn Maher",
"Kelly Brearley",
"Nafeesa Khanum",
"Psi Lambda Delta",
"Robert Murphy",
"Sohndre' Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65412
|
Does soaking fries in vinegar before blanching work better than blanching in vinegar water?
Does soaking fries in vinegar before blanching work better than blanching in vinegar water?
Acidity de-activates pectinase, so it should toughen up the outside, while leaving the inside intact to gelitinise later. I have info and done some experiments with parboiling in vinegar water, and this works, but theoretically a cold vinegar soak should work better, because it leaves the inside alone. Does anyone have data or refs or thoughts?
why do you think that? Before I do the experiments and prepare hundreds of batches varying all I can think of to vary, it is nice to have some understanding of the theory behind it. That is what I am doing now, and THAT was my question.
Again, not even remotely an answer to my question. And you seem to underestimate permutation number in experimental conditions
Lets see how many batches:
type o f potato 3
soak no soak 2
Precook no precook 2
Salt levels 3
Vinager levels 3
First fry no first fry 2
Freeze no freeze 2
that is 3x2x2x3x3x2x2= yeah couple of hundred.
I have not come across this pectinase idea before.
Acidity only inhibits the enzyme activity. Would it not be better to denature the pectinase with heat (and acidity as insurance)? So, a short dip in a very hot acidic bath is better. I do not have the temperature for pectinase off the top of my head, but I imagine that it would be 70C or higher, very briefly. But bear in mind that acid will also inhibit maillard and caramelisation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.572846
| 2016-01-14T11:26:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65412",
"authors": [
"Ben Lau",
"Daryl Hall",
"Karen Kindle",
"Karl Wren",
"Marc Luxen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67976
|
What does it mean to sort beans?
I have some bags of dried beans. The instructions say, for overnight soaking:
OVERNIGHT SOAK: Rinse and sort beans in a large pot. To 1 lb. of beans (about 2 cups), add 6-8 cups cold water. Let stand overnight or at least 6 to 8 hours. Drain soak water and rinse beans.
What does it mean to sort beans, exactly?
A little late for April Fools, but let me point out that Stackoverflow already has over 1300 posts on this.
Bean-sorting tip: don't listen to those instructions. Sort the beans before rinsing them. And don't do it in a pot, it will be much harder to see any rocks or whatever. Do it on a white plate, or if you're dealing with a lot of beans, a baking sheet.
I don't think a "preparation" tag is going to be useful here. If you followed through with that, you'd pretty much just end up tagging half the site preparation and half of it cooking.
Sorting means a few things:
Remove foreign objects like small stones, other seeds, twigs.... that may have accidentally been packed with the beans.
Remove damaged (think insect damage, for example) or otherwise shrivelled, infected or moldy beans and loose skins. Hint: Hollow beans and skins float up.
Double-check for bug infections. Sometimes there are little hitchhikers, even if you have impeccable hygiene at home.
It boils down to making sure you have nothing in the pot that doesn't belong in your meal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.572997
| 2016-04-03T11:56:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67976",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan C",
"JDługosz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63563
|
Can I substitute peppercorn marinade for peppercorn sauce mix in a recipe?
The recipe is for crockpot turkey, with turkey breast, merlot, onions, cranberry sauce and 1 oz knorr peppercorn sauce mix. I used 1oz peppercorn marinade mix. Will it ruin it?
Since you already used it, you're in the best position of all to judge: Was it?
no I simply mixed it with cranberry sauce and Merlot for turkey crockpot recipe tomorrow.... I haven't done it yet
Define "OK". Also, what is "peppercorn sauce mix", and what is "peppercorn marinade"? These are not standard cooking terms.
I think you may have a legitimate question, but you need to give us more information. I guess what I think you're asking is "What will happen to my dish, given that I am using X instead of Y." You'll need to tell us what is in both X and Y as well as more information about what you're making and how.
Sandra lee crockpot recipe
Sandra lee crockpot recipe
Turkey breast, merlot, onions, cranberry sauce and knorr peppercorn sauce mix 1oz
I used 1oz peppercorn marinade mix
Will it ruin it? I'm cooking it now
That still doesn't really help us... what's in the marinade, what's in the mix? At very least can you send us a link to the products?
It won't be the exact same thing as the original recipe; you've essentially seasoned it differently. So I'd expect it won't be better or worse just different, but depending on your tastes it might well be better or worse. I can imagine it ending up under-salted since the marinade mix might be less salty than the sauce mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.573145
| 2015-11-17T20:37:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63563",
"authors": [
"Anthony Flynn",
"Hairy Sherrie",
"Lucia Buccieri",
"Marti",
"Maureen Phelps",
"PHILIP AUGUSTINE",
"Patricia Renfrey",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"William Humphreys",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40865",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56708
|
How should I choose my next step as a cook?
I'm a reasonably competent home cook: I can roast a chicken, bake bread, improvise a dinner with what's in the fridge, etc, but I'm looking to step up my game a bit. How do I look at a recipe and decide if it's a good next step in learning to cook?
I would like to make good use of my time and energy; for example some things might be too ambitious, or some things might not teach me much.
I'm editing further a bit to make it clearer what your actual question is now. Along with it being a little confusing to start with something that is just the old version, really, anything containing a question mark is something that people will answer, and it's not going to do you any good to have a stream of people just suggesting their favorite dishes in an attempt to answer the original question.
I'm reopening this and cleaning up comments, because I think it's no longer so obviously broad to warrant a unilateral close vote. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some people still wanted to voice concerns; please discuss on [meta] rather than in comments here since it's obviously not a trivial issue.
You want to "step up your game" by learning new techniques or by learning new recipes?
@Max Certainly reasonable to ask what the specific goals are, but I think a general "I want to learn" is enough to write some general answers?
I have no idea what this means: "How do I look at a recipe (and my current knowledge) and decide if it's a good next step?" How do you decide if the recipe is a good step? Or if your knowledge is a good step? What are you trying to evaluate?
This is a simplified version of the original question, in an attempt to conform to community guidelines. Basically, I want to advance my cooking skills, but don't really know where the best investment of time and energy is once you're proficient at the basics (which I am). Does that help?
I think Joe's question (and mine), is the phrase "decide if it's a good next step". Are you trying to say, "decide if this particular recipe will advance my cooking abilities" or "decide if this recipe will taste good to me" or "decide if I can make this recipe or not"? Or something else? The "good next step" part is ambiguous.
Tried to clarify further. (Sorry about the ambiguous pronoun.)
In learning piece by piece, or one step at a time, is the recipe to evaluate a step reachable (doable) or is it too advanced for the current skill of training. This is how i understand the question. Is it so?
Two things: 1) Learn to throw away the recipe book and wing it. 2) Buy a fuzzy logic rice cooker and use it.
In my view this is pretty simple: make things you want to eat.
As long as you cast your net wide enough as you look for recipe ideas, there will always be new things that you'd love to eat and will learn something from making. And as long as you want to eat the food, you'll be motivated enough to actually follow through and do it.
Most of the time, this will mean making things where you're mostly comfortable with the recipe, but there are some new parts you haven't tried before. It might be new combinations of ingredients and flavors, which will broaden the creative side of your cooking. It might be new techniques, which will enable you to make more things in the future. To oversimplify, when you look at a recipe, if practically every step sounds new or difficult, maybe save it for later; if most of it gives you an "I can do this" feeling, go for it!
It's fine to take on bigger projects too, of course, as long as you go into it with the understanding that you might want to try parts of it by themselves first (or that things might fail the first time).
Either way, be sure to cast a wide net: skim cookbooks, read food blogs, browse recipe database sites or food photography sites, and so on. There's always a lot out there that you'll surely want to try and just don't know it yet.
But above all, just seek out things that look good to you (or your friends/family). The rest will follow.
If you can I can roast a chicken, bake bread, improvise a dinner with what's in the fridge, etc...you've got some skills. So, the question becomes...what is your goal? You clearly can follow recipes, but want to get better. I would take several approaches to upping your game. First, search for techniques that you are less comfortable with. Find recipes that use these techniques if you like. Broaden your skill base. Second, venture into the cooking of dishes from cultures you are less familiar with. This will force you to use new techniques, but also new ingredients, which will improve your palate. Third, investigate flavors and think about ingredient combinations. This will allow you to create without recipes. Google "The Flavor Bible", for example. Finally, eat out as frequently as possible, vary the type of cuisine, pay attention to what you see on the plate and experience as a diner.
Don't worry if something appears too ambitious...you will learn more from failing...and you will likely to be able to eat the mistakes anyway.
This is a difficult question to answer.
I you can roast a chicken, try stewing... if you can fry, try poaching instead.
You want to "step up your game" by learning new techniques or by learning new recipes?
IMO, the penultimate are desserts and in particular pastries and confectioneries where techniques and measurements are really important.
I would learn to poach fishes.
I would learn to make pasta, and in particular stuffed pasta.
I would learn to make a proper sauce (french sauce bases)
I would learn to do a Italian ragu.
I would learn to make a beef consommé from scratch.
Try recipes with ingredients and spices you are not familiar with (asian, middle-east...)
If you really want to do this, you have to become a pedagogue first and train yourself in cooking second. This involves:
Decide which specific skill you want to work on. Example: judge the doneness of pie crusts.
Read the theory on the subject. Yes, there are books which explain how pie crusts work.
Assess how far you are in your current skill. How frequently are your pie crusts done well?
Seek for recipes which will require you to use that skill. Since you've read the theory, you are aware which set of recipes will need to cover in order to gain the skill. For pie crusts, you'll probably want to exercise simple flaky, simple shortbread, "wet" shortbreads (with egg, alcohol, and other liquids), crusts started from frozen, and crusts containing ingredients which change the browning behavior (soda, vinegar, sugar).
Make these recipes until you are getting consistently good results.
Document your cooking, noting what went wrong, and exercising that part more.
Of course, you will have a bit of trouble, because self-teaching does require some bootstrapping. As a novice, it is especially hard to properly decide what is a single skill and what is a combination of many skills, and also which situations are important to train for a skill. But it can be done, and done successfully.
This is known as "deliberate practice" and is the normal way to become an expert in a field, so that in 20 years, you will have 20 years of experience and not one year of experience, repeated 20 times.
If you are thinking "this is a lot of effort, I don't want to do it", I agree. Most people don't need to become cooking experts, and following the above regimen is quite superfluous for them. They do as Jefromi suggested, cooking whatever they like, and soaking up whatever nugget of cooking knowledge they notice along the way. So slowly, they become better cooks.
So why I am writing all this? Because this is what you asked for. Specifically, this is the way to avoid making recipes which are neither so easy that you teach you nothing, nor so hard that you fail to realize what they are teaching you, or even simply mess them up. You can either consciously organize an effective learning process for yourself and have an effective learning process, or simply cook with the side effect of learning now and then. It's your decision which you choose, the restriction is simply that, unless you pay a personal cooking coach, you can't have it both at once.
To be fair, "cook what you want to eat" can also thrust you into pretty high-effort areas - if you decide what you really want is some good barbecue brisket, you might find yourself spending an awful lot of iterations perfecting it. In any case, thanks for the contrasting answer!
This is really going to depend on where you're headed. What direction do you want your next step to be in? I think generally knowledge like this will flow pretty organically:
You know how to roast a chicken.
Decide you want your chicken to be more moist.
Learn how to braise a chicken.
Decide you want to add more flavor to your braise.
Learn how to make stock.
Decide you want to make better stock.
Learn how to break down chicken for bones, research different seasonings for stock.
Etc. Generally, find something you want to make, make sure you know how to perform most of the instructions, give it a shot. The most important factor in determining your next step is your interest in learning it. If you really want to make genoise but have no cake experience, you might make a couple of messed up cakes on the way, but you'll get there.
My suggestion and how my husband and I got started with cooking was Cooks Illustrated (and their various other outlets like Americas Test Kitchen).
By spending a year reading their articles and cooking their recipes, we learned a lot. We especially learned what to do and what not to do. Having those knowledge building blocks, we could take random recipes from the internet and make them with confidence knowing we only needed the ingredients list as well as feeling comfortable in taking on new food combinations we have never tried to make.
Finding recipes and following their directions isn't always the best way to cook something IMHO.
If the recipes on the internet get too tame you can step up to Modernist Cuisine at Home and Sous Vide cooking methods.
I agree that making one's own stocks are critical in stepping up the taste of your cooking. Learning how to pressure cook stocks is very time saving say 45 minutes instead of 3 or more hours. Cooking sous vide (water oven) has opened up a whole new world for me and delivers a moister chicken than is otherwise possible.
There is another possible scenario that hasn't been addressed: Everyone's abilities are different. Others may shine in areas you do not, and vice versa, so you should consider the possibility that the level of cooking expertise you have already attained may be your "pinnacle" in the cooking realm, and if so, no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER get any better, and accordingly, for all practical purposes your life as a cook is as good as over and rather than slog through your remaining years living a life of misery in a total depressed funk, you should probably entertain the possibility that there is little left to do other than to KILL YOURSELF NOW!!! :) :) :) Actually, that's my solution if you can't find your glasses... or car keys...or whatever... ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.573320
| 2015-04-15T17:35:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56708",
"authors": [
"Amy Hosford",
"Cascabel",
"Casketflower2",
"Colette Hughes",
"David Mendez",
"Deb",
"Donald Raysor",
"Duncan",
"Elsie Ryan",
"Emiel Janssen",
"Gaby Burse",
"Gloria winder",
"Irakli Makharashvili",
"Ivana Balog",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Matt Ellis",
"Max",
"Michelle Roache",
"Raja Sekhar Telagathoty",
"Sophie",
"Ssenyange Derek",
"Sympathy Flowers Brooklyn",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"crmdgn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sarah sherwood"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85952
|
What are the limits on baking at 400F/200C?
I recently saw this video and the accompanying article on the New York Times website, which describes cooking a Thanksgiving dinner (including turkey, a crumble, dressing, and a sweet potato gratin) in a 400 degree oven, plus some things on the stove. It made me wonder whether you could apply the same principle to, say, cooking for the whole week on a Sunday morning: set the oven to one temp and just move pans in and out as needed.
So here's the question: what are the limits of what you can do at 400F/200C? I know I can roast meats and veg at that heat. Can you do breads? desserts? casseroles? When is that heat too high to be practical?
Honestly, if your goal is to cook for a week in a short period, then trying to do everything in a constant-temperature oven is an unnecessary restriction. You can easily do a couple things at 400, then a couple things at 350, and so on. Also, the NYTimes thing does use the stove, too; I don't think the fixed temperature oven is really so much a principle/restriction as an eye-catching opening. In any case, given all that, you may wish to clarify: is your goal to learn about using just the oven, or are you trying to ask something about how to approach cooking a lot in a short period?
That temp will cook many, many things with no problems. You would simply have to adjust cooking time. Also, regarding your article and video, many Thanksgiving items are simply casseroles that need to be heated through (other than the turkey), so one temperature makes sense. Speaking more broadly, oven temperatures are wildly inaccurate. So, a setting of 400F is often meaningless, unless you are carefully monitoring your temperature with an oven thermometer placed inside. It would be fairly common for your oven temperature to be significantly (as much as 50 F or more) different from your oven setting. If you have the time and energy, an oven set at 400F could cook things that need a much lower temperature, provided you shuffle your items in and out of the oven with the correct timing. Perhaps not so convenient, if you needed to set a custard in a water bath at a low temperature. You may also be limited in cooking that requires very high heat. For example, while you could bake an edible Neapolitan pizza, on a stone, in a 400F oven, you would simply get a better result in an 550 degree oven (and in less time). So, practically speaking, I think the bottom line is that, with the exception of some specialty items, the limits here are mostly time and convenience, rather than temperature. You could eat well using an oven that only had a 400F setting. I would say 475 - 500F would be less practical, but then again, if you only had one setting, you would adjust your cooking to the heat source.
Preparations that will need very close attention, and probably covering (eg with tinfoil or strategically placed bakeware) from direct heat, at 200°C:
Any material (dough, thick sauce...) having a substantial amount (say, more than 5% by weight) of sugar and exposed directly to oven air or bakeware surfaces. Sugar can thoroughly burn and become rather bitter and hard at 200°C. High water content can mitigate this to some degree.
Anything with small aromatics (eg herbs, fine diced onions, garlic) in exposed spots. Especially garlic - it burns to something very, very unpalatable.
Anything exposed with already low water content - at 200°C, once you bake something dry, there is not much time before you start charring or hardening it.
Anything covered in oils or marinades that take badly to high heat (eg unrefined olive oils).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.574210
| 2017-11-27T00:07:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85952",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49213
|
Making Tamales using a corn meal alternative
What can I use to make tamales other than corn meal? My son is allergic to corn.
In some cuisines, the masa isn't usually corn at all. Sometimes it's rice, sometimes it's plantain and/or other starchy fruit. The tamale-like dish is actually called pasteles, but the difference between tamales and pasteles seems to be primarily the corn.
Check out this informational link and these recipes from Epicurious and The Polynesian Kitchen; and this video.
Making these wouldn't be like substituting a less than ideal ingredient for corn, because it isn't. Pasteles are a well loved dish in their own right. But once you know how to make the masa, you could certainly make a tamale recipe you like, but with the pasteles masa.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.574513
| 2014-10-24T01:51:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49213",
"authors": [
"007darren",
"Afroman9Freeman",
"Amanda Clemens",
"Dinah Saah",
"Garden Cabin Company LTD",
"Jess Kam",
"Vera Sweeney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154803",
"user117509"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64162
|
Can I store dry ingredients (flour, baking powder, baking soda, etc) together?
I am planning on making a bunch of gingerbread this year, the recipe I use takes both baking powder and baking soda. In order to cut down on dishes and time I thought I might mix all of the dry ingredients together in multiple batches and store it in the fridge for a week or two until I have time to actually bake it.
Can anyone tell me if it will cause problems to store baking powder and baking soda (and the rest of the ingredients) mixed together for couple of weeks in the fridge?
I would just note that baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) is actually part of most baking powder formulations already. There's absolutely no reason not to mix them together or store them together.
I don't want to edit your question too strongly but it seems like the question you're actually asking here is "can I store the dry ingredients together?" not just baking soda/powder.
Well, I really was only concerned about the baking soda/powder but for clarity felt like I should clarify that I'm storing it in with the other ingredients as well.
As long as they're all dry ingredients, then you should be just fine — after all, that's exactly what a box of packaged cake mix is.
Again, if it's just dry ingredients, I see no need to refrigerate it. I would put it in an airtight container — preferably a glass jar*. Placed in your pantry, it should have a shelf-life of a least a couple of months.
* Glass jars are my preference for storing dry ingredients — they're easy sanitize, and the twist-off cover makes an airtight seal:
Agreed about not refrigerating - if anything, that's asking for trouble, in the form of taking on odors from something else in the fridge, or possibly even collecting condensation.
I often pre-mix the dry ingredients for pancakes and store multiple jars worth in my pantry, so it is easy to just open a jar and dump into a bowl. I like your jar lid labels :)
@Jefromi : I'd be more worried about condensation in the fridge, thus activating the baking powder.
@Joe I said "possibly even" because in airtight containers full of dry ingredients you wouldn't really get condensation. But if you do, yes, it'd be very bad.
@Jefromi : you can still get condensation in airtight containers, with the amount being proportional to the volume of air & how humid it was when you sealed it. A bag with as much air squeezed out as possible is better than a few teaspoons at the bottom of a jar. As there's flour in there, it's possible that might absorb the moisture before the baking powder would ... but until someone tries it, I'd be concerned about storing it in the fridge. (especially when there's no need to refrigerate.)
I only refridgerate dry goods containing sugars and starches when I'm dealing with a serious bug infestation and want to ensure that nothing can get to tasty sugars and starches. From having dealt with that in the past, I can confirm that Jefromi's concern about uptake of other food odors is definitely a problem, especially with flour, not as much with sugar or rice. Baking soda is, of course, marketed and sold as a way to absorb odors inside a fridge.
Use a desiccant, dry ingredients are stored in non-airtight cardboard. The cardboard is self desiccating.
@Joe I know it's possible but I think the amounts are pretty small. I looked up some things and it looks like 1L of air at 30C (warmer air can hold more water vapor) fully saturated with water vapor only has 0.033 ml of water. Most condensation you get in the fridge is from water that's in the food itself. Of course no reason to risk it for this though!
@ElmerCat is almost completely correct (cake mix has a slightly shorter shelf life than the ingredients but still years), but in the specific case of baking soda and baking powder, there is additional assurance available: baking powder is made by grinding baking soda with cream of tartar, therefore mixing them is only making a modified ratio, and will not shorten shelf life at all. Other dry ingredients added to the mix may shorten the shelf life some (Not that you would notice in normal usage).
You're basically making self-raising flour this way (slightly different proportions). It will keep as long as the flour, at room temperature. And if kept clean and dry the date on flour is quite conservative. You've probably got months to use it, and the worst that would happen is slightly less rise. Damp of course is another matter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.574648
| 2015-12-06T20:06:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64162",
"authors": [
"Anna Autzen",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Colin HANSEN",
"Dana Sheerin",
"Doreen Wormald",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Linda Gray",
"Muriel Lyons",
"Nathan Irwin",
"P Payment",
"Richard Hemler",
"Shazma Tanveer",
"Todd Wilcox",
"binarylegit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"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
}
|
54162
|
Mix parmesan cheese & garlic into sourdough bread dough before or after first rising?
If I wanted to put parmesan cheese and garlic into sourdough bread dough (mixed into the dough, not just a filling), should I do it before or after first rising? Will it prevent a proper rise if I put it in with dough, water, and starter right away?
If you are making sourdough you are working with natural yeasts in an acidic dough, so I wouldn't think adding parmesan and garlic is going to be a problem as long as you leave extra time for proofing. Parmesan is salty, and salt inhibits yeast. You are probably adding salt already so reducing the amount to compensate would make sense.
As for adding garlic in my experience it doesn't work that well just chopped up and in the bread whether you add it at the beginning or knead it in later. The flavor doesn't get out and you get chunks of intense garlic rather than a nice hum in every bite, although maybe that's the effect you want. I have a garlic and rosemary infused olive oil I use rather than adding garlic directly, another option is to put chopped garlic in olive oil (or butter, or any other oil) on very low heat for 10-15 minutes, this will infuse the oil with the garlic flavor which you add to the break. I haven't had any issues with this inhibiting yeast.
I would add these ingredients in at first mix rather than kneading it in later as kneading after first proof as you will knock out most of your air and damage the structure. You may need a longer proof but the structure will be better. Alternatively if your dough is stretchy enough (like a pizza dough or focaccia) you can stretch it flat after first rise, put ingredients in as a layer, then fold it over, then do your final rise and bake. That only works when you have a stretchy dough though.
My initial reaction is that adding cheese and garlic could affect the rise, unless you are using a recipe calibrated for their presence. Cheese would probably affect the texture of the bread, interfering with an even rise. Garlic is fairly astringent and has some antimicrobial properties; this could very well mess with the health of your yeast.
If you're going to try adding these, it would probably be best to knead them in rather than trying to add them during the first rise.
I've stuck all manner of ingredients into my dough during the mixing stage and never had any issue with rise or texture. Especially parmesan as it barely melts at all so you just end up with tasty lumps of cheese scattered through your final product. Cheddar on the other hand has a slight tendency to sink to the bottom and create a layer of cheese, personally I love it that way but I bet purists would not. The only thing I would suggest is adding mustard powder and dried onions flakes to help enhance the cheesy flavour as without it the bread masks and mutes much of the flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.575159
| 2015-01-29T20:36:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54162",
"authors": [
"Aly Duncan",
"Arya Arya",
"Caitlyn Cao",
"Krista Livingston",
"Private Jet Charter Flights As",
"Rich",
"Sheila Clarke",
"Wodek Szemberg",
"Ying Gong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127438",
"sarah lenard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31974
|
What is the difference between corn flour and corn meal?
I have a recipe that calls for a mix of corn and wheat flours, but my local grocery stores (in the south east US) only carry corn meal.
What is the difference between corn flour and corn meal?
Can I safely use corn meal in the place of corn flour?
Note that there is another type of corn flour which consists of pre-cooked corn, which is then soaked in lime water, then ground into flour. It is traditionally used for making tortillas, as well as for Ultralight Joe's Moose Goo. Bob's Red Mill carry this kind as Golden Masa Harina Corn Flour.
To quote their site > It is made with hominy, or dried corn kernels that have been cooked
and soaked in limewater, which is ground into masa
The difference between the two can be seen below (the post it is from is an experiment comparing corn meal and flour used in anadema bread):
The corn flour is the white, finer ingredient on the right. The first obvious difference is that the texture will differ between the two. The second is that it would have different uses. Both would be effective at displacing gluten-containing flours (as in, neither would be helpful in gluten formation).
In terms of substitution, however, corn meal is likelier substituted by something like semolina flour and corn flour is likelier better substituted by quinoa or garbanzo bean flour.
Both are ground corn (maize, as they would have it in Europe). The difference is that corn flour is usually ground to a much finer texture than cornmeal.
While in some contexts (such as breading chicken), they can both be used, you will get different textural results. In general, you want to use the right product.
For example, corn muffins are normally made with corm meal, and if made with corn flour, would be much denser and without the mouthfeel the individual cornmeal granuals provide.
Update: in some places, polenta is another term for corn meal (as well as for the porridge or mush made from the corn meal).
Masa is dried lye-treated corn, which has been ground. It is used widely in southwestern, central, and south American cuisines, including for the iconic corn tortillas, and for tamales.
It's worth noting, international site that this is, that in the UK corn starch is called cornflour.
AFAIK, polenta is a coarser grind than corn meal.
Possible definitions are available in a recent publication of Annals of New York Academy of Sciences - look for table 4.
Corn meal is listed as particle size from 300 to 600µm, with fat content of 1.8%, while corn flour is listed as particle size less than 212 µm, with fat content of 2.7%.
They also mention various definitions in US CFR 137, which provide indirect particle size definitions in terms of how much of the product will pass through various types of sieves/cloth/gauze.
Corn flour could either be finely ground untreated (the alkaline process) corn or powdered starch (usually corn or sometime wheat based) depending where you live
The only way to tell is to check the recipe to which is required. If it is a bulk ingredient like flour for bread volumes, then is probably is finely ground untreated corn. If it is one or two spoons mixed into a liquid and then heated, then is probably is being used as a thickener and they are referring to the powdered starch
In many countries of the world you generally cannot purchase finely ground untreated corn, but can readily purchase corn derived starch
Please post a link to the recipe if you are unsure
In very simple words difference between Cornflour and Maize flour is Corn flour is the Starch part of Maize flour.. That means From Maize flour the starch and protein is separated and the fine smooth part is starch as itvis in Wheat flour when Starch and protein is separated...the starch part is called as Mayeda in Hindi and the protien part is called as Ravaa in Hindi.
By:Izzuddin Saify
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.575434
| 2013-02-16T17:01:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31974",
"authors": [
"Abdussamad",
"Christina",
"Dave Kaplan",
"David Frazier",
"Dominique Paul",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Emma",
"Kate Saïm",
"Patrick Lao",
"Paulus",
"Sharon Rucker",
"T.j. Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8864",
"mike"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59069
|
How do I add spice after cooking gravy?
I have made chicken gravy. It tastes good but I think adding a little more spice to my gravy will be fine. Can anyone say how to add more spice to it after cooking?
WHICH spices were you planning to add?
Carefully! You can always add more, but you can't really remove spices once they are added.
If your spices are ground, you can just add them to the gravy and stir them in. Salt, you can add any time.
If your spices are whole, you can simmer them for a while in the gravy and them remove them. You can also toast them in a separate dry pan, grind them (see here), and then add them to your gravy. Again, carefully!
If your gonna add spices after the fact put the gravy back in the pot heat it up add spices and if it gets to thick add more water. Most spices need to "bloom" so to speak in liquid to get to full potency so add some spices cook for about 5 mins then taste ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.575761
| 2015-07-14T07:40:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59069",
"authors": [
"Autumn Rhoads",
"Dylan Broome",
"Ellie Eastwood",
"Eva Koritsas",
"Judith GREEK",
"Laurie Skwerer",
"Lyn Ryan",
"baljit singh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"rjameson1950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56231
|
Can I bake in a convection microwave?
I have microwave oven, but I can't bake cakes and cookies in it. So I need an electric oven, but people are suggesting I buy a convection microwave to do both baking and normal microwaving. Will that work? Or do I really need to get an electric oven to bake?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've cleaned up your question a bit so you'll get more helpful answers. You might also look at this general question about convection microwaves.
There is a newer question which asks basically the same, maybe we should merge? See the discussion on http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2054/should-we-merge-these-two-microwave-convection-questions.
I've baked bread in a convection microwave with some succes. It's a far cry from what you can achieve with a good electric oven, but you can get some decent results. Certainly a poor to average microwave-sized electric oven will perform about the same as a decent convection microwave combination.
Just remember to turn the microwave funtion off entirely. I once accidentally microwaved a loaf instead of baking it, and I have never seen so much smoke in my apartment.
So if you're expecting to do a lot of baking, I'd ditch the microwave aspect and buy a good microwave-sized electric oven (the Rowenta OC7868 or the Breville BOV800XL are good options). Since your current microwave still works, I'd only go for a convection microwave if you absolutely only have room for a single microwave-sized appliance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.575890
| 2015-03-31T09:39:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56231",
"authors": [
"Adam Somerville",
"Carol LaFontaine",
"Cascabel",
"Emilie Woodhouse",
"Kat Freeman",
"Marta Koscielniak",
"MonkeyPuzzle Tree",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"justin heubel",
"nick kirwan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56993
|
Cakes cooked in same tin but come out different sizes
I have recently made a wedding cake with 3 layers of cake for each tier.
For each tier the same tin was used for each of the 3 layers but when putting them together they were all different in size and had to be trimmed so the outside of the cake was even before icing. They had all shrunk away from the sides of the pan by different amounts. How does this happen and how can it be prevented?
It is so frustrating that this should happen. The cake mixture was done in a single batch, and I also use collars round the outside of the cake tins for even baking.
Did you bake them at the same time in the same oven? Is your oven a convection or a standard oven? Please post your recipe and method as well.
The recipe was a normal victoria sponge, the mixture was made all in the same batch, the tins were new and all the same size and the mixture was weighed so we had the same in each tin. My oven is gas and all cakes were in different places but were moved around at intervals so all had same time on each shelf. Also wrap the outside of the tins so we get even cakes. When stacking one cake was smaller than the rest. The day after we repeated a chocolate cake but just 2 teirs this time and they ended up different sizes too. Had to trim sides so all was even, this has never happened before!!
There are a few things that can affect the rise of the layers.
If you're baking multiple layers at once, even if your oven heats evenly, the cake on top will rise less than the one of the bottom. The problem is that the top will crust, preventing the top layer from rising as high as the one underneath which is shielded from the radiant heat.
If you're mixing a large batch of batter, then dividing it between pans, the amount of batter in each pan might be slightly different from each other. If you're beating it individually, the amount of time that you mix it can affect the rise -- too much mixing will develop gluten which can impede the rise.
If you're baking the layers individually, you run into the problem that the oven might have been different temperatures, or at least have absorbed a different amount of heat if the oven wasn't preheated for a sufficiently long time. The result is that the later layers tend to rise a little bit less, as the top sets a little bit earlier.
If you're baking the layers individually, but mixed the batter in one batch, then the leavening might not have quite the same strength as in the first batch, and reduce how well it rises ... which has the top set even faster, further reducing the rise.
One other possibility that I haven't tested is if you take things out of the fridge and leave them out while you're baking the other layers. As the eggs and milk might now be between fridge temp and room temp, that slight change might affect the rise as well.
It is not the rising of the cake that was the problem it was the shrinking away from the sides which made the stacking a nightmare, they were all different in circumference.
Oh, sorry, I missed that part. For that, your best bet is 'baking strips', which are wet down and pinned around the outside of the pan to prevent the outside edge baking too quickly relative to the rest of the cake. You can also turn down the temperature slightly (25°F / 15°C) but cook it for longer, which will also help with any doming issues. And personally, I always just center them up, with the largest cake on top, upside-down (to get the best top corner), then use a medium cream to spackle and straighten up the edge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.576044
| 2015-04-27T14:49:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56993",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Fretz",
"Eddie Au",
"GdD",
"Irum Aasim",
"Joe",
"LES PREAM",
"Lin Zhuo",
"Sandra Shulman",
"Vinayak Seenivasan",
"Wendy Boyce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lynn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87648
|
Which seafood (excluding seaplants) contain no small bones and are high in Omega-3s?
I really, really hate fish with a lot of small bones - I know it's edible, but it's just disgusting to me, and the feeling of it getting stuck on my gums or throat... UGHHH (sprats, anyone? Haha)
However I want to get my Omega-3s (from eating fish, not another source, for medical reasons). I am also very low on the budget, so I would strongly prefer something that doesn't cost as much as for example salmon (which is available without any bones). I would be baking the fish or making some kind of fish soup (not frying it), and therefore I am only interested in raw or frozen fish (not canned, stored in oil or pickled).
Also, it doesn't have to be fish, but it also cannot be seaplants. And again, I prefer something on the cheaper side (so no crabs or anything). :-)
If it matters, I live in Europe, so most things would be imported (besides, lake fish often are really high in Mercury).
Goodness! There was some confusion in the comments about small bones vs no bones and so on. I've tried to edit to clarify, but if something is still unclear, please ask the OP what they mean, or edit further.
Jack, this also feels potentially a bit broad because really any large fish is going to avoid the tiny bones like sprat, and generally either be a boneless/deboned cut, or at worst have larger bones. Is there some reason that just buying whatever's available in your area won't work out? I guess you only want the absolute highest Omega 3 content, not just a decent amount like all fish have?
@Cascabel Sorry for a late reply - I had some computer trouble... Well, the reason is that the fish here are lake fish, and lake fish either have low levels of Omega-3 or contain high levels of mercury. My main reason, however, is Omega-3 as you suggested - lake fish simply do not have much of it...
Generally speaking large fish are often sold without bones and they are lare enough to be easy to avoid.
If you dislike fish maybe you could try fresh tuna steak. It is the closest in appearance and probably in consistency and taste too you will find easily. If served rare it really looks like rare beef.
It is often found clean and boneless in markets (depending on our region), and if any bones are present they will likely be big and easy to avoid. Probably not the cheapest of fish, but it is often server frozen in pre-packaged portions which are probably cheaper than the fresh alternative.
One other option is Blue Shark (Tintureira). I have only recently found out about it myself. Where I live (Portugal) it is only found in the frozen fish section of certain surpermarkets, but it is relatively cheap as far as fish goes (not very thought after), and sold in small portions too for individual servings.
It also has a firm consistency closer to meat, and very similar to swordfish which is very thought after and tends to be very expensive.
As far as bones go being a shark it is from the Cartilaginous fish family like all sharks, rays etc, so bones are actually flexible, and some times even edible if you enjoy the texture.
If you are just trying to avoid fish bones you could also try squid or cuttlefish wish have a firm rubbery texture, and no bones in the traditional sense. They do have some hard central parts that should be easily cleaned before cooking.
Thank you for your answer, but the fish you mentioned are one of the highest on the planet in mercury. I do love fish taste though, I am just trying to avoid bones because I find them unedible... Well, I have not seen cattlefish in the shops here, but I have seen squid - I tried it once and loved it. Unfortunately it costs a fair bit and has very little of Omega-3.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.576377
| 2018-02-10T04:06:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87648",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35476"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57744
|
Can basil flowers be substituted for basil leaves to make tea?
Can you use the basil flowers just like the leaves to make tea?
Ana, welcome to the site! Please note that health questions are off-topic here. I took the liberty to remove the part on effects on your body, otherwise we'd have to close this question.
Not really, but sort of.
See:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53953/how-can-one-use-thai-basil-stems-and-flowers/53971#53971
Yes, you can use them the same way you would use the leaves- note that flowers are often used in herbal tea blends (I see hibiscus used particularly often). Depending on the cultivar, however, the flavor may be noticeably different than what you would get with the leaves, probably a bit more bitter- that's what I noticed when using mint flowers for tea, and mint is very closely related to basil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.576646
| 2015-05-24T14:14:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57744",
"authors": [
"Amirah Ali",
"Anna Boopraj",
"Carol Tessler",
"Elman Armadi",
"Jolenealaska",
"Reagan Amponsah",
"Stephie",
"Susan Hursong",
"Valerie Newman",
"Wayne Prechtl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56426
|
Dry brining burger patties with onions
I tend to mix in some onions when making burger onions, before putting on a rack and letting it sit in the fridge for an hour before cooking. With that said, if I dry brine at the same time, will the salt interact with the onion already in the meat during that hour?
Salt mixed into hamburger results in patties that have the consistency of sausage instead of a good burger.
Brining is totally unnecessary for ground meat. It is a mechanism for conveying flavor into meat, helping reduce moisture loss, and increasing the illusion of tenderness. None of these are necessary with ground meat because it is ground! It will already be tender and flavorings can be mixed right in.
Don't mix salt into the beef. Apply it only on the surface when it is cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.576773
| 2015-04-06T13:54:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56426",
"authors": [
"Ann Norman",
"Boudoir Photographer Baltimore",
"George Georgiou",
"Kailisha Key",
"Peri Friend",
"Simon Brookman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134163"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60154
|
Do defrosting plates work in reverse?
Does heat transference go both ways? Can I use the defrosting plate to cool something more rapidly, say a hot pot or pan?
Does heat transfer go both ways? Generally yes, the conductivity of a material is the same if you reverse it and you could use a defrosting plate to cool hot food. The plate would require good contact with the hot food to allow the heat to be conducted into the plate. This heat would then be conducted through the whole plate area (larger than the contact area with the food) and dissipated by natural convection to the air. If you've ever cooled a hot drink by putting a spoon in it, you'll get the idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.576883
| 2015-08-22T23:42:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60154",
"authors": [
"Brandy Smith",
"Crystal Willingham",
"Deb Evans",
"Janice Cobbing",
"Judith Craven",
"Kim Newton",
"Marvin smith",
"Sylvia Stella",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144189",
"its rapscalion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87628
|
How much dried whole black pepper would fit into 1 cubic meter?
How much (weight in kilograms) dried whole black pepper would fit into 1 cubic meter at 12% maximum moisture?
This may not be the correct site for this question--this sounds like mathematics.
@mech "What is the density of pepper?" (which is basically the underlying question) wouldn't be on topic on a math-ish site. I think this is okay enough here. If it's off-topic it'd probably be because it's commercial/industrial scale, so it's maybe not exactly cooking, but eh, if we'd answer it if it asked about 1L instead of 1m^3, I'm inclined not to split hairs.
Good point, and fair enough.
It does sound like a homework question, though :)
USDA nutrition facts say it's 2.9 grams per teaspoon, which gives 588kg/m^3.
That's a lot of pepper...
no, that site is not accurate .. the non ground pepper (whole pepper) take much space than ground pepper because it's round. So, ground pepper may weigh that much, but dry whole pepper is clearly will not fit that much of weight of dry whole pepper.
@Pretty_Girl100 I also went and measured myself. I have a 14.1oz container of whole black pepper, and it's 700mL. That gives 2.8g/tsp, close enough to the USDA's number, so I am inclined to trust that it's approximately correct. (I also trust the USDA's actual measurements more than speculation. It's a government agency that uses multiple independent reports to compile that data. As for the ground vs whole things, it may well be less dense when ground because it ends up very irregular and packs badly.)
Further evidence for ground being less dense being correct (beyond the USDA being a trustworthy source): the brand that sells the whole pepper I have also sells ground, same container size, and it's 12.7 oz for their coarse ground and 12.3 oz for fine.
@Pretty_Girl100 Worst case, since unground peppercorns are pretty spherical, assume a packing fraction of 0.75. But ground pepper is light enough that it will retain a significant amount of air in the mix so it's not at all unreasonable for it to end up being roughly the same weight as unground unless effort is expended on compressing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.577096
| 2018-02-08T19:37:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87628",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Perkins",
"Pretty_Girl100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65018",
"mech"
],
"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
}
|
79155
|
What could hair-like protrusions from a banana's surface be?
I was peeling a banana, and noticed thin, hair-like protrusions coming from the stem-side top of the fruit. There were only 5 or 6, and they were sticking straight up, about an inch in height.
At first, I thought one of my own hairs had fallen onto it, until I looked closer, and noticed there were several of them. One, which was slightly thicker than the others, was moving back and forth within the fruit. The others appeared to be moving as well; however, this could have been due to a draft.
Could these have been worms? Most of the objects were as thin as a spider web, except for the thicker one, which was about the width of a human hair, and were quite obvious with a quick glance. I eat bananas often, and I have never seen the like before.
NOTE: I picked up three bananas of varying ripeness; two of them have been like this. The third is at home, so I have not checked it yet.
Welcome to SA - A picture would really help here, any chance it's not to late to get one?
I should have but I threw the banana in the trash. I tried to get it out but whatever "hair" things had gotten mushed down and are no longer visible. Sorry!
Was that banana part of a bunch or stored with other bananas? They may all have the same problem.
Did it look like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyg66ROeQX0
No, if they were worms it wasn't that obvious. These were thin strands (much thinner than the worm in that video) that stuck straight up like pins in a pin-cushion. Maybe some weird fibers of the banana that stuck up from static electricity? Except my coworkers and I agreed that one definitely was moving up and down which a draft wouldn't cause and makes me think something living. I will open the last one when I get home and if it has them, I will take pictures.
Third one did not. It was really green and I had trouble opening it. Unfortunately it remains an unsolved mystery. I will keep an eye out with future bananas and report back with pictures if I see it again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.577285
| 2017-03-15T14:39:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79155",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"EF0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55281"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80963
|
What is the difference between Pasta Sauce and Spaghetti Sauce?
I'm deciding to make spaghetti squash today but can't decide what sauce to use: a pasta sauce or spaghetti sauce. I'm sure those are just general terms for many types of sauces, but can anyone give me an idea of the difference between the two? And also, what is marinara sauce?
Why would you use pasta sauce on squash?
@GdD It's obviously not a perfect substitute, but some people do use spaghetti squash as a substitute for spaghetti.
@Axop51 Welcome! Unfortunately, "what goes with X?" is off topic here (what toppings you'd like is more about searching for recipes and suiting your preferences than a specific question), so I'm editing that out of your question. The rest is fine, though.
Marinara sauce is a specific sauce, made with tomatoes, and probably garlic, onions, and herbs.
Spaghetti sauce, in the US, means something tomato-based, possibly with meat. I suppose it's based roughly on marinara or bolognese, depending on what variety you have.
Pasta sauce means absolutely any sauce you can put on pasta. Maybe some people have specific things in mind, certain sauces they use more often, but it's not a specific enough term that you can say "I'm making pasta sauce" and have everyone know even roughly what you mean. In the US, certainly tomato-based ones are extremely common, probably followed by creamy things like alfredo, but there's plenty beyond that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.577465
| 2017-04-16T16:09:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80963",
"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
}
|
50066
|
Can I use sweetened condensed milk instead of evaporated milk for pumpkin pie?
The recipe calls for evaporated milk, but I only have sweetened condensed. Can I use it instead?
Sure, you just have to have an appropriate recipe. Google "sweetened condensed milk pumpkin pie", you will find several recipes, including one by a major maker of sweetened condensed milk.
it is important to switch recipes, not just replace evaporated with sweetened condensed - it's thicker and sweeter and will make a different pie (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3072/is-sweetened-condensed-milk-a-substitute-for-evaporated-milk ). The rest of the recipe has to be changed to deal with that.
Take the 14 oz. can of condensed milk and and add 10 oz. of water. Wisk until mixed thoroughly. Using a couple of tablespoons less of sugar will result in an almost identical final pie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.577589
| 2014-11-25T16:17:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50066",
"authors": [
"Caroline Dixon",
"Chris Au",
"Jan Courtepatte",
"Kate Gregory",
"Liz O'Donnell",
"NancyJean Amundson",
"Pascal Tanne",
"Shirley Gladstone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49519
|
What does butter do in cooking?
When cooks use butter in cooking for whatever recipe, what is its function? For example, if I add butter to a chocolate sauce which is made from heavy cream and milk chocolate, what do people expect the butter to do?
It's not used to sweeten the product. It's not used to make it thick because with the heavy cream and chocolate its already thick. It's not used for flavor, or is it? What does it do?
Is there a general rule as to what function butter is supposed to do in cooking?
And please don't tell me it's just for the obvious point of being salty or buttery in flavor, surely there is more to it, some chemical process and purpose?
You should ask about butter and sugar in separate questions, since they're not really related here. I'm going to prune this one down to just butter and let you post again about sugar - and on that one, please be more specific about what you're asking, since most of the time sugar is obviously used to make things sweet.
The butter is also too wide in my opinion, it does different things in different types of dish - sauces, sandwiches, steaks, Danish pastries, the list goes on.
Butter serves multiple purposes. Butter does = flavor, particularly when the milk solids are caramelized. Butter is also used as an emulsifier. Butter + water or stock, can easily become a delicious sauce. An emulsifier is also the role it plays in your example of a chocolate sauce. It contributes to the smoothness of the chocolate sauce. Butter plays many other roles as well. For example in laminated dough (the dough that a croissant is made from) the butter plays the role of keeping layers of dough separate and trapping steam during baking, making a flaky pastry.
Generally, butter is used to make a recipe taste richer.
Butter itself has a nice flavor - not a strong one, but one that goes well with a lot of other flavors. And generally, recipes taste good, they taste richer, with more added fats (good energy source, so biofeedback requests more of them), and adding butter is one way to do that.
Mechanically, fats also make things slippery - one reason they're used for greasing tins for baked goods or at the bottom of cooking pans, to keep food moving. Intermixed in recipes, they make ingredients slide past each other better - for example, in a bread dough fats, when used, let the starches slide past each other a little better during kneading, instead of snagging to make gluten, meaning more kneading for the same amount of gluten formation, or a more tender result for the same amount of kneading.
Butter has a bit of water mixed in, and some milk solids suspended - it makes it possible to use as an emulsifier. Your chocolate sauce likely uses it this way - chocolate itself has starches suspended in fats (cocoa butter) and the process of changing that to a water-based sauce can be tricky because of it (seizing is what happens when things go wrong). Both cream and butter help, since they have emulsions of fats and water, having more or less of one or the other can help even out the fat and water ratios in the recipe. It may make a sauce thicken as it cools, since butter is solid at room temperature, or it may be used to thin the sauce a bit (especially when warm) since fats make things slippery.
So, there are plenty of roles fats play in recipes. The choice of which fat to use often depends on a number of factors, including texture, temperature used at, and flavor. Butter isn't generally used at high temps or for deep frying and such (unless clarified) because of its low smoke point. It is, however, often used in other ways because it has a good flavor, because it is solid at room temperature and so can form layers, or trap air, better than oils, and because it has historically been relatively easy to produce (separate cream and shake for butter, versus mechanical presses for vegetable oils or butchering and rendering for animal ones) and it was generally available to end up in a lot of recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.577701
| 2014-11-04T20:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49519",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Ly",
"Elaine Radtke",
"Elsa Alderete",
"Joani Els",
"Paula Carmichael",
"Perry Foshie",
"Shaun Jersey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
}
|
80878
|
How can I cook an egg to win at egg tapping?
Easter is coming up, and I was wondering how I should prepare eggs to be as strong as possible for a game of egg tapping?
The egg should still look and feel like a regular egg (although it's probably painted, because, y'know... Easter).
This is a cooking question, so I'm looking for answers about the cooking process, not about modifying the egg afterwards (e.g. coating with something hard).
Bonus points if the egg is still edible after I've beaten all my in-laws!
Hello Marc, I have a bit of a tough time understanding how this is about cooking. Are you looking for methods to cook an egg so that it has a harder shell? You might not be aware, but we do not take qustions on anything connected to food, but only on how to cook the food. The list on https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic is a whitelist, and if you want to play with edible stuff, that's usually not covered. We can make an exception if it is both about cooking technique and playing at the same time.
@rumtscho one could argue that the right ingredient selection would be a good start.
It was a toss between biology.se, physics.se, cooking.se or other vaguely-related stacks for answering this question. I'm not an expert, but I reckoned that most of the egg's toughness probably come from the way it's being prepared. So hopefully the cooking process involved in creating egg tapping easter-eggs is enough for this question to stay open.
@Stephie yes, the question has the potential to be on topic or off topic, depending on which direction the answers take. If the OP is OK with us keeping the culinary answers only, it should work. I would remove unrelated answers though, on the lines of "use an wooden egg" or advice how to hold the egg.
@rumtscho I invite you to maybe reword the original question a little bit to emphasize culinary answers.
You could always inject your egg with cement!
I have never heard of "egg tapping". perhaps you should include in you question a description on what egg tapping is so those that do not know might understand why you need a strong egg.
@Alaskaman, the OP included a Wikipedia link right in the question. In short, it's a kind if game / easter tradition where two players each knock a hard-boiled egg against the opponent's. The player with the cracked egg loses. Hence the quest for especially "stable" eggs. Some make this into an art form, selecting the egg with the best geometry, origin, shell, hitting technique, ...
@Alaskaman I included a link to Wikipedia on the text "egg tapping", so I don't think it's really that ambiguous.
I tried to do the editing you asked rumtscho to try; hopefully it's okay. It's a bit restrictive, but I don't think the non-culinary aspect is on topic here either, and we're getting answers about it. (If by any chance, things like coating with epoxy are against the rules, that would also help avoid those answers.)
I see said the blind man. Thanks. that went right past me. Why do people do this. ?
@Alaskaman part religious symbolism (the cracking of the egg representing the empty grave of Christ and resurrection), part tradition and above all - it's fun! My kids tend to do it whenever I serve hard-boiled eggs during the year. Who doesn't like a friendly competition? ^_^
I've heard that in general, small eggs tend to have thicker eggs than larger ones (it was that they're all roughly the same volume & mass of shell no matter the size) ... the smaller, more curved edges might help, too.
So Marc, how did the contest go? Did you beat them all (pardon the pun)?
To keep this on topic, I'll focus on ingredient selection and preparation, any further hints are a physical aspect and have to do with where to hold and how to hit.
Your first goal is to find an egg with a very hard shell:
This means, find an egg from a rather young (max. 6 month old) chicken. The thickness of the shell decreases naturally during the 1-1.5 years a chicken is typically kept for egg production.
Chickens that have access to the outside and that pick up a lot of sand, grit and small stones and have a very diverse feed with a generous access to grains plus supplements like oyster shells, will produce the hardest shells.
And, little known, green eggs (from the so-called Easter Egger breeds) have a thicker and harder shell than white eggs. Bonus: you can skip the coloring step...
All eggs are harder when hard-boiled (compared to raw):
Just avoid anything that weakens the shell, so no vinegar in the cooking water or the colouring liquid. Use natural dyes (as opposed to the commercial products where you dip a cooked egg in a vinegar-water-dye solution). Likewise, do not wash the eggs unless absolutely necessary, the natural protective layer should also prevent weakening the shell.
I would also avoid mechanical stress, so bring your eggs to room temperature and use the cooking method where you put the eggs in cool water, bring them gently to a (near) boil and let stand in the covered pot off the heat for fifteen minutes or so. In this case, I'd probably rather have the green ring around the yolk than a semi-soft egg.
On egg selection: Can you get your hands on duck eggs? Much tougher shells that chicken. Most domestic duck eggs are also larger than chicken eggs though which might get you frowned at. But, if you can get mallard eggs from a farm, the size is back down to typical chicken egg size, and like Easter Eggers will be colored. Size is no problem, get a goose egg: win.
Also, air cells increase in size as the egg ages. Larger air cell will likely increase stress while heating, so use freshest egg you as an added stress reduction.
@dlb: the duck eggs I've met have all been much thinner-shelled than chicken eggs. (One year when we were in Hungary and wanted to decorate Easter eggs, the only white-shelled eggs we could find were duck eggs, because Hungarian consumers have all fallen for the fallacy that brown eggs are healthier.) I think duck egg shells are subject to exactly the same variation in hardness as chicken eggs: it depends on the bird's diet and age, not on its species.
@Marti I had a flock of about 800 birds. Chickens, ducks, geese, which I raised for egg cpnsumption and for a hatchery. In general, duck eggs should be considerably heavier shelled than chicken. If they are not, it is an indication of nutritional issues with the bird. This evolved due to differences in hatching, especially that duck eggs incubate for 28 days, chickens for 21 which requires a heavier shell. The mallard comment is on size as a mallard egg is roughly the size of a medium chicken egg, while most ducks regularly raised for eggs average larger than jumbo chicken eggs.
PS, different subject, but duck eggs are absolutely marvelous for baking. I knew a pastry chef who would beg me for all extras he could get from me.
Sourcing
To some extent, shell hardness is out of your control: it depends on the chicken's diet.
The chickens must be fed with calcium-rich food and have plenty of exercise. (1)
Free range or farm eggs have harder shells because of the better diet that the chickens have. (2)
Yard chickens lay ... harder eggs in the early spring compared with some other times of the year.... Supermarket eggs are always less hard than the smaller, brown, country eggs and the citizens of Marksville would not be caught dead on the courthouse steps with anything but yard eggs.... regardless of the breed, the hardest eggs are produced by well fed, active chickens. It is particularly important that the hens get adequate calcium. (3)
If you have the option to buy your own egg, that is likely to give you a leg up before you even start preparing.
Selection
In addition to finding a well-fed chicken's eggs, or even if you're stuck with supermarket eggs, you may be able to select a hardest specimen out of a carton. This is something that probably takes a lot of practice, though!
The method generally used by the serious knockers for finding those hard eggs is to lightly tap them on their front teeth. According to [one serious egg tapper], the harder eggs will make a light high pitched ping, while the softer eggs will make a blunt, dull sound. (3)
Preparation
The shell is naturally thicker at the narrower pointy end, so use that end for tapping -- and try to make sure you've got good support behind it. Boil the egg very well, and keep the air pocket at the wide end of the egg.
Proper boiling of the contest eggs is also a serious issue. Some rules are well known, such as eggs must be boiled tip down, so that the air pocket is on the butt end. (1)
They are boiled slowly, so that they will not jump around and hit the sides of the pan or other eggs.... the eggs must also be boiled point down. This is to insure that the air pocket ... will not be at the small end. There must be something solid behind the hard shell in order to keep it from cracking quickly.... [to keep the eggs oriented during boiling] both Brent and Mike actually boil their best eggs inside a cardboard carton. (3)
There's also a tradition of boiling in coffee grounds, but I have no idea how this would possibly work -- it may just be that somebody did it once, and also happened to have naturally harder eggshells, and so an old wive's tale was born. But I guess it can't hurt.
The old-timers believed that boiling the eggs in coffee grounds made them stronger. Some people still do it. As Judy Bordelon, Mike's wife said, "We boil our best eggs in coffee grounds, just in case...." (3)
Possibly cheating, and certainly not culinary, ideas
While the following suggestions will probably keep the egg edible, they are a little more likely to be visibly apparent -- Hey, why is Marc's egg so shiny?!? -- and also may result in resentment among the competitors, or outright disqualification, depending on the seriousness of your family. (Or, they may be delighted by your creativity!)
Dipping the egg in sodium silicate (4)
Apply a thin coating of epoxy or glue (e.g. ModPodge) to the outside
Further Reading:
Wikipedia
How to Win at Greek Egg Tapping
If Your Eggs Are Cracked, Please Step Down: Easter Egg Knocking in Marksville
Hardening the shell of an egg
The egg may be painted. You avoid painting processes the weaken the shell, in particular acid etching dyes. So use a technique that strengthens the shell, by soaking into it and hardening. It could also be a strong coating that helps distribute stress.
That is, exploit the rules but don’t cheat. The modification should be part of the coloring process, not a separate step just for strengthening—if you can leace out that step or ingredient and still look the same, it's a hardening step.
Cover it with Line-X then paint it.
Check out this YouTube video: Egg Survives 45m Drop Test With Line-X! | How Ridiculous
I wouldn't know if it's still edible, if you could even open it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.578273
| 2017-04-13T13:11:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80878",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Marc Dingena",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"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
}
|
47270
|
Binder, thickener, emulsifier for parmesan?
I want to make a paste for coating out of parmesan. With softer cheeses that's not so hard, but how do I blend a hard cheese like parmesan into a paste or colloid-like form? Any suggestions most appreciated!
I've gone ahead and edited the part about why you want this out so there won't be any further confusion - firepig, if you feel it's important, feel free to edit back in, but just try to make it clear that you're not asking whether or not it's good for dogs.
Also, if you want to ask anything specifically about pets, please see http://pets.stackexchange.com.
Melt hard cheese with a little sodium citrate to make "processed cheese", which is pourable and moldable while hot
You can make sodium citrate by heating the juice of a small lemon (2 to 3 tsp) in the microwave, and then adding one tsp of baking soda, and heating until it stops reacting (bubbling). Then add 1 cup (~100 g) of grated/shaved/powdered cheese and gently heat until is forms smooth paste. Use a little milk if the cheese is too dry
Awesome! Can you estimate how much juice that is? Hard to say if your small lemons are the same as everyone else's, and I imagine it's not great if you end up with way too much juice or soda. Also, how much cheese will that help you smooth out?
Edited. Extra lemon juice enhances the cheese flavour. Not a problem if a bit too lemon juice much as you usually need a little extra liquid as well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.579080
| 2014-09-20T15:17:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47270",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charles Davidson",
"Gerry Limbert",
"John Gulick",
"Marianne Thursky",
"Richard Tait",
"TFD",
"Teea kelley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"tommy cox",
"user64897"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79280
|
Does a bread box requires holes for ventilation?
I am trying to figure out whether a breadbox should have ventilation holes or not. There are many for sale with and without. When I look at most breadbox pictures, going from vintage to modern, I don't see holes, but some contemporary ones have holes. I understand bread produces moisture and it's important to let it out?
There is no one true answer to it - otherwise you would see only one style of bread box. The better the ventilation, the faster the bread becomes hard and the less likely it is for the bread to develop mold - and vice versa, the less ventilation, the longer the bread does stay soft, the more likely it is to develop mold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.579233
| 2017-03-20T16:23:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79280",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51727
|
How do I make bread with LOTS of seeds?
A local bread shop cooks a loaf of bread that is packed with seeds, much more than a couple tablespoons. The seeds are mixed within the matrix of the bread, plus sprinkled on top and in the baking pan.
I wanted to make a wholemeal loaf at home and add in the large amount of seeds.
Are there any modifications to the standard bread recipe I should make, or changes to cooking times?
Shouldn't be any issue any bread recipe will work. Times wise it's cooked when it's cooked. Recipe requests are against the rules here because they are opinionated not fact.
More specifically, recipe requests are off-topic because there are too many recipes for any given thing (e.g. a zillion different combinations of nuts and seeds), and deciding among them is primarily opinion-based. If there were only two different ways to make something and beyond that it was subjective, we could handle that.
Thanks for the feedback, I modified the question. I am a relative novice on this site.
@boberdorf Yup, I saw, thanks very much - always really glad to see people taking care of their questions :) (and welcome!)
Welcome from me too. We know that our rules are confusing for new people, and when a question is against the rules, we try to edit it instead of closing outright. But we frequently don't know what the intent of the author was, so it is always better when you do the edit yourself, then you can formulate it in a way which works best for you.
I bet you'll like this, it's from this season of of Cook's Country, so it shouldn't go behind paywall until summer of '15. http://www.cookscountry.com/recipes/7354-dakota-bread?extcode=MASKZ00L0
Wow, thanks for thinking of me. It does look interesting. Do you know what seven-grain hot cereal mix actually is? It isn't a common term or product in Australia.
@boberdorf Sorry I missed your question. Specifically they're looking for this or this
Using a large amounts of seeds will significantly influence the humidity of your dough and bread. Dry seeds will soak up quite a bit of water - either during resting time or afterwards. This is especially bad when this soaking happens after baking, as your bread will get very dry... Wholemeal tends to have the same effect.
The best way to counteract this effect is to
add more water and
add more time
This can be done either by
pre-soaking the seeds, which will then "bring" the required extra water to the dough or
letting a rather wet dough rest for a long time, preferably over night.
The first approach is easier, because the seeds take up the required water "automatically", the latter preferable taste-wise. Longer resting times allow for the development of complex flavors and need very little yeast or sourdough.
As for recipes, you should be able to find plenty on the internet.
I have been experimenting with adding intact grains and nuts to my bread for a little while and have learned some things.
Good gluten development is crucial.
If my whole wheat bread is already dry or underdeveloped then additional grains will make it fall apart when I try and slice it.
A tiny amount of xanthan gum also helps give sandwich bread extra elasticity to improve the texture in general and especially with larger grains. Gums don't work with artisan breads.
Some grains need to be rehydrated.
Quicker grains such as oats or quinoa can be added directly to the dough and will steam nicely when the bread bakes. More substantial grains like whole wheat berries should be precooked (I steam mine) because the steam from baking isn't enough and they will come out too hard.
Use additions that taste good with minimal cooking.
This is kind of obvious but some things like legumes just don't get enough cooking time to remove strange flavors.
Be gentle with artisan breads.
Breads with open textures that rely on robust sheets of gluten need to be handled gently. Sharp seeds can tear through the gluten and create a denser loaf. Minimizing sharp seeds and folding the dough gently help with this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.579333
| 2014-12-18T19:48:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51727",
"authors": [
"Carelina Florio",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Fran Pinard",
"Gulshan Akhtar",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonahtan",
"Robert Wai",
"Susan Weatherley",
"baffo",
"boberdorf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jan michael Estrella",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77476
|
Allergic to the whole pepper family - what can I use in its place?
I am allergic to the whole pepper family including black pepper. I don't know what to use as a substitute. I don't eat salt, so that's out. I am having to check every item that I buy to make sure it doesn't have pepper any it. Can anybody give me some suggestions? I would greatly appreciate it.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64382/other-hot-spices
Galangal root packs a pretty good kick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galangal Ginger root is quite a bit milder, although you can overdo it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger Asian (Vietnamese) stores will have galangal.
Grains of paradise are peppery but don't seem to be too closely related to black pepper, so perhaps you won't be allergic to them. They're a bit smaller than peppercorns but can still be ground in pepper grinders.
Grains of paradise have an ... interesting... flavor. Yes, it's peppery, but there's this other flavor to it, too. I just can't explain it. (and my container is currently over at my neighbors, so I can't go taste it right now)
This is getting too long for a comment:
When you say 'in its place', are you looking for something to sprinkle on finished food, or do you have a specific recipe in mind?
True 'peppercorns' (Piper nigrum) are from vines in the Piperaceae family and get their heat from piperine. This includes white, black & green peppercorns.
You might try things from other botanical families, but without knowing exactly what causes your reaction, I'd recommend using allergy testing techniques from survival guides before using it in your food.
Other things sold as 'pepper' include:
Pink peppercorns (Schinus molle) are in the Anacardiaceae family (which includes cashews, pistachios, sumac and poison ivy). They may cause a reaction in people with nut allergies). They have a peppery note, but with a floral quality to it.
Be warned that Brazilian pepper (aka baies roses de Bourbon; aka Christmas Berry, aka Red peppercorn (variety terebinthifolius), aka Florida holly; Schinus terebinthifolius, family Anacardiaceae) can also be sold as 'pink peppercorns' (variety acutifolius), but had previously been banned in the US (still is in Florida) as it's both an invasive species in many areas can cause poison-ivy like reactions if you touch the sap, and the berries are believed to cause vomiting and other adverse effects in some people if ingested. The US FDA does not designated it 'GRAS' (Generally Regarded As Safe).
Sichuan (Szechuan) pepper (aka. Chinese pepper; typically Zanthoxylum bungeanum, but could be anything in Zanthoxylum, including Japanese pepper (sanshō; Z. piperitum), Korean sansho (Z. schinifolium), Wild peppercorn (Z. simulans), etc.). It isn't 'peppery', but it's citrusy and causes your lips and tongue to go numb in larger amounts.
Crushed Red Pepper are dried and crushed chili peppers (capsicums), which get their heat from capsaicin. Although most people are familiar with the stuff at pizzerias, it can be made with other varieties of chilis with more interesting flavor profiles, such as Aleppo pepper
You can also consider some ground capsicums like hot paprika, or specific ground chilies (jalapeño powder)
Alligator pepper (aka. Grains of Paradise) See Jefromi's answer. It's peppery with an interesting background to it. (some folks say citrus & cloves)
Not sold as 'pepper', but another sice to sprinkle onto food to wake it up:
Sumac (genus Rhus, in family Anacardiaceae) has a sour, citrusy flavor. It's part of the spice mix za'atar.
Hi Joe, thanks for all of the information. I have been tested for my allergies and I was told by my doctor that I can't have any kind of pepper or capsicums. I am looking for a substitute for pepper. I was putting pepper in anything that I cooked. I have tried Grains of Paradise and it is working well. No reactions. Thanks again
I'm not sure what property of the pepper you want to replace. If it is the spiciness may I suggest ginger. It is quite spicy and goes on everything much like pepper does. Mustard seeds have an earthy flavor suitable for most dishes, you might want to consider it as well. For some smoky flavor try sesame oil.
Hope this helps :)
Watercress has an amazing peppery flavor and is a great addition to salads!
like the ginger answer above, horseradish and raw nasturtiums (the entire fresh nasturtium plant...leaves, petals, seeds) are spicy, so they might be worth your time to analyze what is in them to determine if you may have an allergic reaction to them or not.
Please clarify: "Nasturtium" as in the genus that includes watercress or as the garden plant with the Latin name Tropaeolum majus?
Sadly, horseradish flavor disappears when you boil it. It has to be added last.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.579789
| 2017-01-15T20:31:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77476",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"puff10"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.