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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13537
|
How do I make Pad See Ew with Fresh Rice Noodles
Really, that's all I want to know. Whenever I try to make it with the store bought "dry" noodles and soak my dish comes out terribly.
What are the best sauces to use? Best way to keep the egg from clumping? etc?
Thanks!
I live in Thailand so I feel I'm qualified to answer this question.
The key sauce for pad see ew (ผัดซีอิ๊ว) is figured out from the dish's name. See ew (ซีอิ๊ว) is a Thai soy sauce that is either dark or light and sweet or salty (yes, four versions in total). The dish also contains fish sauce.
In my opinion, pad see ew tastes best using the dark sweet sauce, which has a deep molasses flavour.
Use only sauce made in Thailand and there are no substitutions. Look for this on the label: ซีอิ๊วดำหวาน (dark sweet) or ซีอิ๊วดำ (dark not sweet). Since you probably can't read Thai I suggest you play a spot-the-difference game.
My personal favourite is this sauce but it's hard to get outside Thailand.
If you do substitute using normal soy sauce you pretty much end up with pad khii mao (ผัดขี้เมา).
Your link is dead, but I think you mean this sauce: http://topsshoponline.tops.co.th/p/Healthy-Boy-Black-Sweet-Soy-Sauce-400g
And I think this is the same stuff, but available on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Boy-Sweet-Sauce-14-bottle/dp/B000EISPHI
In my experience fresh rice noodles are ready to go and can be added to a stir fry without any perparation aside from cutting them into properly sized noodles (if they are purchased in a 'slab').
Any sauce you favour can be used on the noodles (adding additional liquid to the stir fry aside from the fat helps them to 'unroll'), an old favourite of mine for hangovers called "drunkard's noodles" involved frying onions and chili peppers in oil, adding the fresh noodles, then finishing off with soya sauce, lime juice, basil leaves, chopped tomatoes and chili sauce.
He said he was soaking dry noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.852686
| 2011-03-28T23:23:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13537",
"authors": [
"Colin K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"kevins"
],
"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
}
|
27528
|
What is the purpose of sugar in baking plain bread?
My recipe says 1 tablespoon of sugar per loaf.
This seems like too small an amount for flavor.
The recipe is as follows:
3 cups flour
1 teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons active-dry yeast
1 tablespoon sugar
2 tablespoons oil
1 cup water
knead, wait 1 hr, knead again, wait 1.25 hr, bake for 30min @ 350
Is this for flavor, or is there another purpose?
Simple test. Make a loaf with, and without. And see what happens. It's mainly there as feed for the yeast so you don't have to wait all day for it to rise
@TFD You do realize OP is most likely asking so he doesn't have to test both, right?
FWIW, I've tried many different amounts. I've settled on 2 tablespoons of sugar per loaf as a good balance between rise, flavor, and health
I actually use acacia honey instead of sugar. Unlike sugar, honey is not an empty calorie, and it makes even the simplest boring bread taste nice(white plain french bread). lukewarm water, 20-50g yeast, honey, add flour, oil and coarse sea salt, knead, rise, shape it, rise, oven.
Another thing about honey is that it's hygroscopic and will help bread stay moist.
@user50726 and even salt isn't needed :)
Sugar has a few effects in bread:
It helps make it soft and tender by absorbing some of the water and slowing down the formation of gluten strands.
It feeds the yeast, resulting in a faster rise.
Via caramelisation, it aids in the browning of the crust.
It acts as a preservative, keeping the bread fresher for longer (though 1tbsp probably doesn't make a lot of difference).
It does have some effect on the flavour.
Probably not a preservative because molds adore sugar and will happily reproduce in a sugary environment, unless it is too sugary (in which case osmotic pressure will kill the mold). +1 for the rest.
@MischaArefiev It certainly won't stop bacterial or mold growth in these amounts. But I think that a sugared dough will keep moisture for a longer time, which will really keep the bread fresh (as opposed to stale, not mouldy) a bit longer.
See the amount of sugar in the average fast food bun. Combined with vacuum packing, they're virtually indestructible.
@ElendilTheTall- Very correct and succinct answer. But you'll never get ahead this way. You need to ramble on in impressive paragraphs so people will be convinced of your knowledge but won't actually read your answer. Kind of like this comment.
Dammit, you're right. And you need to bold what you think is important too.
The main reason is yeast food. You may not actually need it if you're using instant yeast; either that, or you can bump it up a little for a slightly sweeter bread.
Sugar is indeed a microbial like salt is but only for certain microbes. The use in bread is it keeps it moist by pulling humidity from the surrounding air. Honey is nature made sugar and a much better choice. If you want a more savory loaf then use 1 tsp. per cup of flour. For pastries then use more sugar or sprinkle it atop the pastry. If you really need food for the yeast then make a water roux by cooking up a portion of the flour and some water on a 1 to 5 ratio(1 part flour to 5 parts water) and keep stirring until the flour becomes really thick and sticky. Allow that to cool and incorporate into your dough. What happens is the starch in the flour is cooked up into carbohydrates which feeds the yeast instead of using sugar. Hope this helps...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.852870
| 2012-10-02T07:38:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27528",
"authors": [
"Anon21",
"Brian Webster",
"CELESTE ",
"Catherine Roberts",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kareen",
"Krystal Miller",
"Larry G.",
"Michael Nielsen",
"MirPanda",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"auujay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"rumtscho",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
}
|
15450
|
Why should one always use the same kind of coffee for an Espresso machine?
I recently got a new espresso machine, a Gaggia Classic, and I sometimes hear statements like the following:
"Always use the same kind of coffee for this machine!"
"If you've found one that tastes good, stick with this!"
Is there any truth behind these statements?
More concretely:
Are there any mechanical issues that stem from using different kinds of espresso in the same machine over the course of many years of usage?
Or is it only a matter of taste?
Is a machine somehow "branded" with a kind of coffee after some time of use? (Bad comparison: Like string instruments that sound better if they are played long enough, some are actually treated with sound)
If you always use the same kind of coffee, how will you figure out which one is the best for your new machine? I think this expression is a poor attempt to reduce the complexity of the subject at hand.
What kind of machine is it? Manual? Semi-auto? Super-auto?
@ESultanik I updated my question.
@Sebastian You are absolutely right. But imagine I'd be at the point where I say, "okay, this Espresso tastes very good". Should I now stick with it?
I've never heard of this claim before. The only thing I could think of was that a super-auto (i.e., the machines that automatically "do everything" at the push of a button, including grinding the beans) might be sensitive to different kinds of beans, which is why I asked for the type of machine. I have a similar machine to your Gaggia Classic and I've never had a problem varying the types of coffee I use.
@ESultanik Yeah, my guessing would have been the same, at least for grinders. Anyway, feel free to properly answer!
There are a lot of good detailed answers on this page already, but I guess I could add my own $0.02 to the conversation and maybe a different angle to the answer..
I have been home roasting and brewing for about 2 years now and I think the #1 thing I've learned about pulling espresso shots is that it is all about consistency.
In order to effect consistency you have to control your variables, and the more variables you get control of, the better chance you have of maintaining consistency.
Over the past two years I have continuously refined my process by modifying the entire chain of coffee production, whether it meant ordering a new piece of hardware or changing how I did something.
For instance, I installed a PID on my Racilio Silvia in order to control brew temperature, I bought a naked portafilter to get better feedback on the quality of my shots, and bought a pressure gauge to make sure I was getting proper brew pressure at the group head, the list goes on and on.
So when I saw your question about "always using the same coffee" I interpreted it as just another one of those variables that you can get control of and that will effect the quality of the shots you pull.
In the beginning I stuck with the same coffee and roast to try to minimize the number of variables I was working with. Once I was more familiar with how each variable effected my shot and how I could manipulate them to get what I wanted, I began to experiment.
So I guess for me keeping the coffee the same boils down to removing some noise from the system to make it easier to manage...
I think this really is the answer; if you're experimenting to try to get the best possible shot then you want to control your variables, and the blend/grind is just another variable to control.
I liked that answer a lot. I'm also going through the process of (at least now) trying to get everything consistent so that later on I can modify some variables. Thanks for the insight.
Thanks.. It really is just worth pulling shots every day for months without making huge changes until you understand the nuances of the equipment you are working with, then you can make small changes and note how it effects the experience you are looking for. I'm at a pretty good place now where I can make farther reaching changes with some confidence, but I still overstep at times and have to pull back to a known good set of variables and start over, the important thing is to enjoy the process and not to give up
Are there any mechanical issues that stem from using different kinds of espresso in the same machine over the course of many years of usage?
No, the quality of the grind will be much more important to the machine than the type of beans. And even then, not so important at all. Coffee is coffee with regard to this piece of machinery.
Or is it only a matter of taste?
Is a machine somehow "branded" with a kind of coffee after some time of use?
No. I suppose in theory over time one could begin to see some form of flavour buildup on their machine however there shouldn't be porous materials to absorb oils and if you keep it clean that should make little to no difference.
My guess is it's either a matter of taste or laziness on the part of the people who said those things. There is no logical nor apparent reason for any of it to be true.
I agree with everything in your answer, except "coffee is coffee".
@Neil -- I agree entirely, the question has been edited.
There is no technical reason for sticking to one kind of coffee only. In contrast, you should really try different brands (the fresher the better) to find out what you like best.
However, there's a small truth behind the statements for the portafilter type of coffee machines. It's not related to the machine itself but to the user, because usually it takes some time to adjust the grinder properly for one sort of coffee. Especially unexperienced users of portafilters need more time to get the perfect cup out of beans, so switching the beans to often is not a good idea at the beginning.
Many of the small roasting facilites offer test packages with 250g of beans. These are definitely too small for a beginner. Try to find the optimal dosage and grind with at least 1000g before you try a different bean/roast.
Are there any mechanical issues that stem from using different kinds of espresso in the same machine over the course of many years of usage?
Or is it only a matter of taste?
The answer is no. There are no mechanical issues, ever, that stems from using different kinds of coffee bean on the same machine over many years. The only thing that touches the coffee ground is the portafilter (and the water source above the portafilter, and the cup for the matter). The portafilter should be cleaned regularly. If anything build up there it would be rancid coffee oil which are NOT tasty I suppose.
See above. For beginners of coffee making, take the following advice:
the fresher the coffee, the better (that is, short time from harvest to roast, short time from roast to ground, and short time from ground to pulling the espresso.
Fill the portafilter well first, then tamp it well. No amount of tamping will save an uneven powder filling of a portafilter.
Clean your machine well. Nothing will save you from rancid oil.
Use high quality water. Poor quality water will make coffee taste worse. Invest in a filter or use distilled water.
If you are really into it, you can consider using a bottomless filter to troubleshoot coffee making similar to a debugger to a programmer...
Good luck!
Thanks for the insight! I'm actually very satisfied with my coffee so far, I've read a fair amount on the subject before even turning on the machine. Why would a bottomless filter help?
A bottomless filter would show if there is problem with the filling/tamping of the portafilter. See http://www.ineedcoffee.com/07/naked-portafilter/ & http://www.coffeeparts.com/domestic-parts/machines/gaggia-classic.html (for the actual part)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.853203
| 2011-06-14T12:24:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15450",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"C.Trauma",
"Dee",
"ESultanik",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"John Sonderson",
"Kazfa",
"Sebastian",
"bubu",
"dgundersen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6479",
"slhck",
"tonextone",
"user32810",
"zellio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29067
|
Big Chicken vs Small Chicken: weight and stuffing volume ratios
I need to adjust a recipe for a stuffed chicken. The recipe calls for a 2kg chicken, and say W grams of stuffing. Now I plan on buying a smaller chicken because it's for less people, how can I estimate the amount of stuffing I'd need for the smaller chicken? Is the ratio the same as for the weight ration?
As an example, suppose I buy a 1kg chicken instead of a 2kg one. The ratio is now ½. For the small chicken, do I need ½ x W grams of stuffing, or more, or less?
Are you cooking the stuffing separately, or are you actually stuffing it into the chicken?
Stuffing it into the chicken, in this particular case.
I think you are over thinking this...
One one hand, the size of the cavity in the chicken is approximately proportional to the width or height of the chicken, and the width is approximately proportional to the cube root of the weight. However, for small values, the because of the cube law, the volume of the cavity is not going to change by huge amounts--a 2.5 kg chicken will take almost as much stuffing as a 3 kg chicken.
From 2 to 3 kg, you are looking at a ratio of approximately 1.4 versus 1.7, or very approximately 80 percent as much stuffing. For most cooks, this is in the noise, I would suspect.
However, speaking culinary:
You can simply look at your chicken and estimate the volume of the cavity, or stuff it until it is full--see item 2.
You can bake any excess stuffing separately in a casserole dish. Or you can bake all of the stuffing (technically, now dressing) in a casserole, which is my preferred method--then the amount you want is directly proportional to the number of guests you have.*
Many folks, including myself, believe roasting the chicken (or turkey) without stuffing leads to better meat, is easier, and the chicken will certainly cook more quickly.
Lots of folks like the stuffing the best, so your guests might want lots.
Leftover stuffing is delicious, and can be frozen.
*Geeks may point out that the guests may have to be weighted by a hunger factor...
This is all balderdash. To see why, assume a spherical chicken...
Yes, darn it, I assumed a spherical chicken to get orders of magnititude. Even with a 20% error factor, I think it is definitely in the ball park for the reasoning :-) It would work the same with a cubic chicken :-)
The chicken's cavity should actually be considered to be a tesseract which can be filled with more stuffing than its 3-dimensional volume. That's the only way to get the ratio right.
All animals are spheres of uniform density—sometimes even points—we all learned this in physics, it makes the math so much easier! While we're at it, collisions with them are fully elastic. This is important, it makes it easier to pick up your chicken when you drop it, it just bounces back into your hands. Imagine how much work that would have saved Julia Child (hey, it has as much truthiness as the uniform chicken)
@JoshCaswell I was thinking of the one that goes: in theory, all horses are spherical :-) I just want to know where to get the 4-dimensional stuffing to fill the tesseract.
@derobert I thought it was a fish that Julia dropped so famously.... All the French Chef episodes are free if you have amazon prime. Some parts hold up amazingly well--others, not so much. I cannot endorse Julia's 1970's method to roast a turkey any more. Still, Julia stands like a giant across the 'merican culinary landscape.
@SAJ14SAJ Well, Snopes says she once dropped a pancake, but onto the table, not the floor. And nothing else. But of course, when we're talking about truthiness, who knows what she dropped! Possibly the entire kitchen.
Thanks for your answer. You're right: I was overthinking this, semi-intentionally. I blame curiosity. I'll sleep on it a night or two, but I think I'll go with the "80% more stuffing" conclusion (little less than 2:1 ratio, then).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.853871
| 2012-12-10T17:19:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29067",
"authors": [
"Brent S.",
"Candy Man",
"Cynthia",
"Jeroen",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"jscs",
"user67357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84255
|
Why does hot food placed in a picnic cooler keep cooking?
A modern picnic cool box is used to keep food cool inside it during the day. However, when you place a hot stew inside the box and close the box, the stew carries on cooking slowly. Why does this happen?
What you call a "modern picnic cool box", I assume, is also known as a "cooler" in other parts of the world. This is generally a well-insulated, most often plastic, container. It could be hard-sided or made of soft material. The container and insulation is designed to maintain a consistent temperature. So, cold things remain colder longer, but also hot things remain hotter longer. It's the same principle at play in an insulated drink container (Thermos is a common brand). Also at play in your question is a phenomenon called "carry over cooking". Food retains heat and continues to cook, even after it is removed from the heat. Usually not a concern with a stew, which slowly cools when you are finished cooking. However, when you place your stew into a cooler, fairly soon after it is removed from the heat, it will take much longer to cool. Carry over cooking will be impacting your final product.
The real question is, how does it know whether to keep the thing hot or cold?
That sound you heard was my palm hitting my forehead....shakes head...
The sides of the cooler are insulated, which means they reduce the heat transfer through them. If you put something hot on one side, and something cold on the other, their temperatures will stay different longer than if the cooler were not there. So if you have something cold inside and hot air outside, the cooler keeps the stuff inside cold. If the stuff you have inside is hotter than the air outside, then the cooler is effectively keeping the air cool; it's keeping the stuff inside from heating up the colder air outside. The physics are the same whether it's keeping stuff outside from heating up the stuff inside, or keeping the stuff inside from heating up the stuff outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.854196
| 2017-09-09T10:59:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84255",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88760
|
What protease is in avocado?
What protease in particular does avocado contain? I've been searching everywhere for it on the internet and still couldn't find any answers.
Is your interest biological, or does the question relate to cooking somehow? As written this is probably off-topic for the site.
@logophobe actually, proteases in fruit have culinary aspects, so the question is fine.
From what I can find, the protease is cysteine, a thiol protease. While they are generally known to have meat tenderizing properties from some fruits such as pineapple of papaya, like @Sobachatina I can't find any reference to the use of avocado.
@Cindy Cysteine by itself is an amino acid. "Cysteine proteases", though, are a general class of proteases identical to "thiol proteases" (because the active portion of the enzyme is the thiol bit of a cysteine amino acid). All cells contain cysteine proteases, as they're used for general housekeeping, but normally at such low levels that they don't have a culinary impact.
@ZohaibHafiz If you're wondering about the browning of avocados, that's not a protease, but a different enzyme.
@R.M. Cystine is an amino acid.
@Cindy Cysteine is an amino acid. Cystine is two cysteines linked together. (Also arguably an amino acid itself, but normally thought of as two amino acid molecules linked together.)
The culinary impact of proteases are to tenderize meat and that, if uncooked, they will prevent gelatin from setting.
I have not heard of, and was unable to find, any recipe using avocados for meat tenderization.
I was easily able to find many recipes that use fresh avocado with gelatin.
Therefore, I don't believe avocados contain any proteases that are of culinary concern.
As further evidence, this paper showed that avocado juice had no detectable gelatinolytic activity at pH 5.6.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.854374
| 2018-03-30T18:02:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88760",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"R.M.",
"canadianer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63173",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86659
|
If doubling a chocolate mousse, should gelatin be doubled as well?
I am making a chocolate mousse that includes gelatin, and I want to double the recipe. Do I need to double both the gelatin and the amount of water it’s dissolved in?
There is no gelatin in a mousse, just eggses. Perhaps it is pudding you are making?
@bmargulies While a classic mousse au chocolat doesn't use gelatin, there are many recipes that do.
You need to double the gelatin, as it’s responsible for the texture and “stiffness” of your mousse.
You don’t have to double the water, but you can, of course. The water is no essential ingredient, it’s just a means to dissolve the gelatin. But of course the gelatin will dissolve easier, if enough water is present, so I personally would use perhaps 1.5 times instead of double the water amount.
Please note that this answer is only valid for the kind of recipes where gelatin is dissolved in a small amount of water and used to thicken a larger amount of cream / mousse / cream cheese or similar. For recipes that dissolve the gelatin directly in the liquid, e.g. a gelatin dessert or jello, this liquid is an essential ingredient and must also be doubled.
Related: Why do we soak and squeeze gelatine?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.854547
| 2017-12-24T00:18:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86659",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87305
|
Is it okay to measure flour by weight by converting from volume?
I don't have a big jar to put my flour in so it's hard to measure by volume (you have to fluff the flour, pour it into a cup and then remove the excess - which cant be done outside of the original bag).
It it okay to just look up the conversion (for example, 1 cup of flour is 120 grams) and use that?
I've tried to ask a more specific variation of this question, about what conversion to actually use, not just whether it's okay to weigh: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87324/how-should-i-pick-an-initial-guess-for-converting-flour-volume-to-weight
Short answer: YES. Measuring by weight is actually the better way to measure flour.
In fact, measuring flour by weight is the preferred method of measuring it in most places. This is because while measuring by volume is more convenient*, measuring by weight is more accurate. If you weigh your flour, however, you will always know you are using the same amount, whereas two individually measured cups of flour (done by volume) can have wildly different weights. This makes recipes where you measure by volume much harder to repeat reliably and perfect with small tweaks.
For a more detailed reference on converting cups of flour to grams, see this answer. As noted in the answers to that question and in the comments below, the average weight of a cup of flour can vary greatly, between 4 and 5 ounces (about 110 to 140 grams), though a heavily packed cup could weigh much more. I personally use 1 cup = 4.5 ounces (125 grams) when I need to convert from volume to weight, but your results may vary depending on the recipe you're using
*There seems to be some contention here. I'm from the US, where most people don't have kitchen scales (I'm the only one I know who does, despite being friends with lots of foodies). For us, measuring by volume is practically mandatory, and if I want to measure something by weight, I have to convert the measures myself since they're usually given as volume only. In other parts of the world, the situation is exactly the opposite -- everyone has scales, cups are nowhere to be found. Convenience is obviously relative.
I agree with all you say, except I think it's more convenient to measure by weight. There's really no downside.
@GdD Out of curiosity, where are you from? I'm from the US, and measuring by volume here isn't just convenient, its practically mandatory.
Most people don't have kitchen scales, so they couldn't measure by weight if they wanted to.
I live in the UK now, but even before I moved here from the US I converted to grams because it's precision and easier. I've converted all my US recipe volume measurements to weight, writing the values in with a pencil.
@senschen At least in German kitchen, kitchen scales seem almost mandantory.. what we often lack is, actually, measuring cups!
@Layna That's true. I remember when I studied there I had to buy some, and I had a really hard time finding them. Its just different in different parts of the world-- some places measure by weight, some by volume.
Edited to address the conversation about convenience.
Well, to be precise, you need to know the required weight in the recipe . Otherwise, converting from a measured mass to the recipe's required volume only works if the person who wrote the recipe used properly sifted & shaken flour to begin with.
@CarlWitthoft That's a problem with measuring flour by volume in general. If I don't sift and level my flour exactly like they guy who wrote the recipe I can still wind up with a different result. Different flours also measure differently, so there are all kinds of issues with converting flour volume to weight. OP didn't ask about those, though I did include a link to a pretty good overview.
When I was growing up (in the US) no one had a kitchen scale and there were two cookbooks that were pretty much the only ones people who cooked in the home used: The Joy Of Cooking and The Betty Crocker Cookbook. Both only had ingredients measured by volume, except meats. Things have changed a lot, but measuring flour by volume is still more common in a typical American recipe and kitchen than by weight. I do know a lot of home bakers (including my whole family) who do have kitchen scales, but I only in December started measuring flour by weight.
@CarlWitthoft I suspect that an awful lot of recipes don't use sifted/shaken flour. King Arthur Flour suggests 4.5oz/cup (and I believe does sift) while a lot of other sources say 5oz/cup, and I've had a lot of luck using the latter as my initial guess. senschen, especially since this is the top/accepted answer, you could perhaps add a quick note about the fact that there's some uncertainty in the initial conversion?
@Jefromi note added, but feel free to edit if you think it needs more detail.
In general, yes, you can absolutely weigh your flour (and other baking ingredients), and indeed should whenever possible.
There's an important caveat, however.
Weighing your ingredients produces more consistent results when reproducing a recipe. This is because measuring cups are not precision tools; there is variation in size from model to model. Bakers' techniques for filling them also vary. Indeed, the amount of flour can vary from scoop to scoop even for the same person.
When you weigh the ingredient, you eliminate two key variables: (primarily) the amount of air that ends up in the scoop, and the variations in size of measuring cups (grams don't change unless you change planets or your scale is broken). You also avoid simple differences in judgement of how full the scoop is.
Now, the caveat that emerges from this: when you make a recipe whose ingredients are measured by volume, you have to contend with this imprecision. The recipe writer's "1 cup" might be a cup minus a tablespoon by your measure. You've probably had the experience of a recipe coming out poorly the first time, and tweaking the ingredients next time. This is you compensating for the difference between the recipe author's equipment and technique and your own.
This problem does not go away if you switch directly to using weight. (In fact it might be exacerbated.) Since the recipe author did not give you weight, what was written down as "1 cup" might not be that standard 120g. It might be 128g, or 108g. While you are on the road to better reproducibility of the recipe, you likely still face a few rounds of trial and error.
I can not emphasize your last point enough... I use several websites that quote measurements both in cups and in ounces/grams and even they often disagree on what the equivalents are. One may say 4 oz and the other 4.5 oz per cup... there's no "standard" weight for a "cup" of anything. For example, King Arthur lists 4.25 oz = 1 cup and The Kitchn says 4.5 while Cook's Illustrated says 5 oz!
Except, perhaps, for a cup of water, at a specified temperature and pressure...
I have never in my life heard of the idea that a measuring cup varies in size from model to model! That's why they have demarcations in ounces. Recipes that specify volume in cups always mean a measure that can exactly hold 8 fluid ounces.
Except for the countries where the metric system is used, of course, and "1 cup" is likely to mean 250 cubic centimetres.
@tchrist From a quick check on amazon.com I found measurement cups using both legal and customary units as well as metric. And that was only on the handful that actually listed the weight, most were silent on the topic. And that's only the US, for extra fun just add Canadian cups to the mix. Ah imperial so much easier than SI units.
It's not intentional, and it's not a question of different units, it's simple imprecision in manufacture.
You must measure the flour by weight to have any repeatable result. The more "technical" bakers (e.g., professionals, or also hobbyists who are into baking bread, where this really matters a lot) do this anyways. Also, using "cups" (i.e., volume) for everything seems to be a predominantly american thing, anyways, as far as I can tell.
Experiment: put flour in a jar, and ram it down with a big spoon. This will show you how much of its volume you can reduce, just by packing the grains of flour more tightly. I did this once when I had to store the amount contained in standard flour packages in a too-small container, and while I did not measure it, I'd say I got up to 25% less volume by ramming it down really hard.
Instead of using a spoon, you may also try hitting the jar on the table a few times; the fill height will drop significantly (though not by 25%). See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausner_ratio (which is of even grater importance when "cooking" medicine)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.854691
| 2018-01-26T12:16:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87305",
"authors": [
"Carl Witthoft",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dan Henderson",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"GdD",
"Hagen von Eitzen",
"Layna",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Voo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"senschen",
"tchrist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66399
|
Will the bean salad dressing that I made ahead of time still work?
I have been making bean salad for a long time. Recently I mixed together the vinegar, oil, sugar and black pepper for the dressing, and put it in a pint sized canning jar with 2-pc lid and refrigerated it, intending on making in the next day or so, but it never happened.
I still have this nice dressing in the refrigerator, and am wondering about food safety - all the ingredients are fine for long periods unrefrigerated, so there should not be a food safety issue, right? I'm also wondering about staleness. I don't want to use it to make bean salad, and have a less-than-wonderful salad. I hate to throw out perfectly good food. Can anyone help me?
Just checking... those are all of the ingredients? No Garlic or anything else?
It's fine. Vinaigrettes last pretty much indefinitely in the fridge.
If the oil was exposed to too much light or air it might have become a little rancid. Smelling and tasting it before using it on the salad is a good idea. I wouldn't expect anything like that after just a couple months.
Catija alluded to garlic above. Garlic in oil is dangerous because it has an elevated risk of developing botulism- however in a separated vinaigrette all the particulate matter is submerged in the vinegar portion. More than acidic enough to prevent any botulism.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.855336
| 2016-02-10T17:59:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66399",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Deserie Jimenez",
"Dottie Givens",
"Ginger Harrington",
"Kim Roach",
"Louis Forseide",
"Nicole Bilap Nsegbe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
}
|
64190
|
Preventing my toast from becoming wet when I put it on the plate
Since I moved to my new flat, I have a problem when heating bread in any way. What happens is that if I put it on a plate, it gets very wet on the plate side. This is so acute that drops appear on the plate. If I put paper around the bread, both get wet. The only way I found to get dry heated bread is leaving it in the toaster/grill until it is cold... but then it is obviously cold!
What can I do in order to get warm and dry bread?
Question: why toast bread on a plate? Surely one toasts on a grill rack.
Not only toasts, also bikinis for example
Use wooden plates.
An old classic option is the "Toast Rack":
By maintaining air gaps between the slices, the toast rack allows water vapor to escape from hot toast instead of condensing into adjacent slices and making them soggy. However, this increased air flow can also mean that the toast becomes cold more quickly.
My personal preference is to simply not heat up the toast until I actually want to eat it... and then pop it directly from my toaster into my mouth... with a quick stop for butter and jam on the way.
In my case it's usually, butter, a fried egg, frizzled ham, catsoup and then another piece of toast on top. ;-)
Is it possible to pre-heat --> dry --> final heat the bread in order to have it hot and dry? Or each time you heat it you'll have to dry it again? Well, I guess I could try it, one slice isn't that expensive to experiment with it XD
@Krotanix you could probably leave it in the toaster and then turn it on again for 20-30 seconds to reheat the cold toast before you eat it.
@Escoce - I did a double-take at "cat soup."
@Catija but you and I both know it won't be the same as fresh toast. Letting the toast sit lets it dry out.
Warm your plate.
The moisture in your toast is coming off the toast and then is getting condensed into the cold plate just like a glass of ice water attracts the moisture from the warm air around it.
If you heat the plate, the moisture will not condense on top the plate.
That's true - and it's better than a toast rack because the toast doesn't get cold. As long as your plate is above the Murray Temperature, experimentally determined to be approximately 53C (or 127F), the moisture will not condense. :)
Thanks both for the idea and for the Murray Temp! :) The only problem is that at 53° you'll burn your hands if you touch it! Anyway, thanks
@Krotanix - I was joking a bit about the "Murray Temperature," which just seems to come from some guy's blog. The actual temperature will vary a bit depending on the toast, the type of surface, and room conditions. And even if you don't go that hot, it will still decrease condensation. Also, if you want an overly convoluted way to make it work, moisten a paper towel, fold it to the size of the toast, put it on the plate, microwave it until that section of the plate is hot, remove towel, dry quickly, and now you have a perfect spot for your toast, with the plate edges cool enough to touch!
Q: why the change from previous flat to this? Possible A: higher humidity, and colder cabinets.
I was thinking where the plates are kept.
No, everything is ""new"". It's in an old flat and the windows don't close 100% it's kind of humid...
i always put the plate on top of the toaster using the toasters addition for buns.
The only problem is that at 53° you'll burn your hands if you touch it! Not at 53 degrees you shouldn't. I was always taught a rule of thumb for guessing temperature that 70 degrees is when things get too hot to hold.
@Eborbob The temperature at which you can hold hot things is greatly dependent on what they're made of. You can hold wooden items at a much higher temperature than metal or ceramic ones.
Another option you could try is to "pinwheel" the toast... but this only works if you're planning to cut it anyway. I've seen a lot of restaurants do this and I think it helps with the moisture/sogginess by limiting the amount of toast touching the plate.
It might take some practice to get them interleaved correctly but it may help. This has the added benefit of allowing the toast to keep itself warm but lifts the toast away from the plate
The reason your toast is getting moist is that the cold plate is causing the water in the air trapped in the bread to condense into a liquid, you need to keep the toast off the plate and let the air circulate.
The method I use is to lean 2 pieces of toast against each other in a T shape before buttering. After buttering I put the toast on the edge of a plate with a raised lip, the raised lip will keep the toast off the plate and keep it from getting soggy.
Hotels frequently serve toast atop a paper napkin (a paper towel would do). This presumably absorbs the moisture that would otherwise condense on a cold plate. Expensive places occasionally wrap toast in linen napkins which has the advantage that the toast does not get stuck to paper.
Unfortunately, as i said in my question, if i use paper both get wet
@Krotanix hence my suggestion of linen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.855514
| 2015-12-07T20:13:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64190",
"authors": [
"Abhiraj Karmale",
"Amanda Peterson",
"Athanasius",
"Boris the Spider",
"Catija",
"DEELEY",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Eborbob",
"Elizabeth Jellum",
"Escoce",
"Felix L.",
"Ian Cowan",
"Joe Renaud",
"Marla Vinton",
"Michelle Kruger",
"Mike Scott",
"Minzkraut",
"Motorized Window shades",
"Raphael",
"Robert Moore",
"Sophia Dee Nicholson",
"abligh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"mskfisher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29155
|
Storing and re-using rendered duck fat
I recently made duck confit in my slow cooker. I purchased a 2 lb container of rendered duck fat for that purpose, which I'd like to save. Is it possible to re-use the fat? If so, how should I store it?
It's absolutely possible to re-use it, although you will want to keep an eye on how salty it gets as you use it for successive batches. It will also, like any fat, degrade as you repeatedly heat it up, so you can't keep it forever. It should be good for at least three rounds of duck confit, though.
Just strain it through some cheesecloth into a clean and dry container and store it anywhere it will stay solid, i.e., preferably the fridge (if you need the space in there a nice cool (< 45˚F (7˚C)) and clean basement/larder will do).
Also, hang on to the jelly that ends up in the bottom -- it's like a salty aspic and makes a nice snack spread on toast, or diced up and tossed in a salad. You can also throw it into stews or make a sauce from it.
Wow Thank You for the comment. That really was helpful. I am going to use some of the duck fat tonight to make potato galette, with duck breast on top....mmmm
With the jelly do you add anything else?
Depends on what you want to do with it, but generally no. If you're making a sauce it might be too salty on its own and need to be mixed with some chicken stock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.856070
| 2012-12-13T18:45:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29155",
"authors": [
"Digital Innovator",
"Jordan Johnson",
"Ka Kaja",
"Newbie Anon",
"Preeti",
"Research Queen",
"Steph",
"cool_php",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67662",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86497
|
Why would a cookie recipe start producing puffier, slightly oily cookies over the past few years?
I have a recipe for some chocolate chip cookies, and it's near and dear to my heart. I watched my mom making these when I was little, and it's older than I am, being from her mom too. They're both gone now though, and I have no idea what's wrong. I have not changed anything.
The ingredients are:
1 cup sugar
1 cup brown sugar
2/3 cup butter
2/3 butter flavored Crisco
3 eggs
2 tsp vanilla
3 cups flour
1 tsp salt
1 tsp baking soda
2 cups chocolate chips
I've been making these for the past 10 years, since my mom couldn't anymore, and only the past few years I've noticed the changes. The cookies themselves are much puffier than they're supposed to be, and though they mostly taste the same, there's a weird bit of aftertaste to them that I can't place. I also just now realized that the dough is kind of oily almost, and not sticking together like I remember it doing before, but again, haven't changed anything. I'd post a picture, but for some reason it won't let me...
I'd really like some ideas as to what I can do to fix these. They were something I loved helping my mom make when I was little, and it breaks my heart that I can't figure out what''s wrong with them.
One thing that has changed (within the past few years, as far as I know) is that nearly all chocolate chips (in the US market, anyway) now seem to contain butterfat, and that was not the case some years ago. Presumably it's cheaper than cocoa butter...WRT the after taste, you're not swapping baking soda for baking powder?
Crisco also changed in 2007, it was changed to eliminate tran-fats. Many bakers noticed that recipes they used Crisco in were not producing the same results after the change.
I'm not doing any swaps, just using baking soda as the recipe calls for. I'll have to take a look at those changes though and see if I can figure anything out to work with that, thank you.
Seems a lot of egg. Egg whites can definitely make a puffier cookie. Did you change the size of eggs?
I agree with Daniel. It might be that something has changed outside of your control and you have to change to compensate. Using two eggs instead of three will shorten the cookies, as will switching to all butter instead of part butter part shortening. I would make sure there is no salt in the butter or shortening. And make sure you're buying what I'm confident should be large eggs and not extra large or jumbo eggs.
Also I hope you will come back and update us (and even accept an answer if one helps) as to whether you're able to fix the issue and get back to making the cookies you love in the way you love them.
Short answer:
I suggest you try all butter
...and make sure you don't make it too soft before creaming it.
By comparison, here is a famous and popular chocolate chip cookie recipe (just the ingredients, not the process):
2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened
3/4 cup granulated sugar
3/4 cup packed brown sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 large eggs
2 cups chocolate chips
Yours is very similar, and basically is the same except many of the ingredients have been scaled up about 30% (flour, butter/shortening, sugar, eggs).
I would say there are a few ways your results could change. First, if you accidentally buy a different size egg. Your recipe doesn't list the egg size, but it's almost certainly meant for large eggs. As Daniel commented, more egg will lead to a puffier cookie.
Second, if the formulation of the shortening has changed. The oiliness and the bitter aftertaste make me want to blame the shortening. Also, I personally dislike shortening. I suggest you at least try your recipe with all butter, by using 1 and 1/3 cups of fresh, high-quality unsalted butter. I would avoid cultured butter. If you can only find salted butter, you might cut the salt amount in half or omit it. Or you might like the extra saltiness. All-butter cookies come out a bit shorter and denser, but they should still be chewy and crispy and IMHO the flavor can't be beat. Notice that this famous recipe uses all butter. I think shortening actually entered these recipes back in the 1950s when butter might have been more expensive or harder to come by, not because shortening in any way improves the cookie.
Third, there may be something in your process that has changed slightly. The oiliness makes me wonder if the butter and/or shortening is becoming too soft or melted before you cream it with the sugar. It does matter the order in which you add the ingredients and the consistency of the butter and shortening when you cream it with the sugar can matter. Instead of using a microwave, just let the butter sit at room temperature for a little while before creaming it. If you use a stand mixer, you don't even need the butter that soft, just cut it into tablespoon sized pieces and let the mixer beat at it for a minute to soften it up and warm it a little.
Upon further thought:
I'm not sure about all the chemistry that might be going on, but I think Steve has a good thought in his answer when it comes to the flour. I don't agree that you're adding the "wrong" amount of flour, but normal changes in your kitchen environment can have a big change in how flour behaves.
If your problems persist, it could be that your kitchen and/or flour is too damp (Steve mentions temperature, but temperature and relative humidity are closely linked). Normally in cold weather our kitchens are dry, but many things can affect the humidity in a kitchen, such as unusual weather outside or other cooking going on (boiling water can put a lot of moisture into the air). Also, if you've kept your flour for a long time, it may have absorbed moisture and be retaining it even after the kitchen dries out.
Some ways to deal with environmental affects on flour:
Buy fresh flour and don't buy too much of it. Avoid having flour sitting around in your pantry or cupboard for months on end.
Transfer flour as soon as possible after you buy it to an airtight container (this is also a good idea for sugar - both often come in paper bags). Keep the container in a cool, dry place. Not the refrigerator, but a cabinet or cupboard that is not near any heat sources like the stove, oven, or back of the refrigerator.
Measure flour by weight, not volume. Get a good kitchen scale and determine the weight of a cup of your favorite flour. Convert your recipes to weight and then measure using the scale for future baking. If you need to make an adjustment, edit the recipe to show the new weight. If the flour gets too wet or too dry, you will automatically add more or less of it since the weight will change, but not the volume.
This problem is happening to me. Got a recipe, used it successfully for a year or two, then suddenly they just stopped coming out amazing.
I put it down to me remembering the recipe wrong, the change of oven over that time and other factors.
Also, I notice that one batch can come out differently depending on what temperature I put them in at... If I refrigerate the batter for later cooking, they turn out much worse too. They're the same, but they are flakey. Flakey cookies? No thanks.
Try to forget the recipe, then do it all again adhering to the recipe written down as it is.
Your recipe looks fine to me. Sometimes the butter warming too much or melting creates an oily texture. I think you're like me, and you've forgot the timing and preparations BEFORE the cooking begins... it comes with a rushed life.
It's weird though, I DO look at the recipe. I don't have the original, as the paper was falling apart, but I wrote it down to the letter, and yet it just gets worse every time... I think this batch was the worst I've had yet, and didn't do anything different from before. :(
Then it's time to start changing. I'm sure your relatives did!
If it's too hard, make ingredients for a softer batch. Etc. It could be a change of environment like mine.
They're the same, but they are flakey. Flakey cookies? No thanks. That's because when you refrigerate them, the little pockets of fat in the dough solidify when the dough hardens, so when you cook them, you get the little pockets of fat in the dough. It's why flaky pastry dough is prepared the way it is.
Interesting! @nick012000
This has been mentioned already, but it's kind of hidden in among a bunch of other advice: I'm almost certain your problems are due to changes in the formulation of Crisco. Puffier than they used to be, almost oily in texture, and weird aftertaste all point to the shortening being the culprit.
One test to try might be to make the recipe with unflavored Crisco: if you still get the texture issues but without the weird aftertaste, I'd take that as proof.
The solution is probably to switch to an all-butter recipe, but if you want to stick to this recipe out of sentimental reasons, try replacing the shortening with lard: just from an ingredients standpoint, lard is closer to (unflavored) shortening than butter would be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.856229
| 2017-12-18T01:38:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86497",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Vyj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"insidesin",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77839
|
Chewed artichoke turned blue
I ate some cooked artichoke stems; some of the outermost skin is tough, so I just chewed it and then spit out the inedible bits. I left those bits in a container on my kitchen counter near the sink, still sealed. A day later, when I dumped the contents, the leftover bits were a bright blue color. What does this mean? Something with saliva enzymes?
We most certainly want to see a picture! If only out of curiosity.
Artichokes can have a bit of a purple tinge .. and there are purple-ish food items that will go blue in the presence of alkali. I wouldn't be surprised if that was it. see http://kitchenpantryscientist.com/science-meets-art-red-cabbage-litmus-paper/
Do you salt the artichoke stems at all? Is your salt iodized? Perhaps chewing the stems breaks the outer coating and releases starches, that interact with iodized salt. Just a stab in the dark.....
related? : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40616/67
We eat artichoke often. We pressure cook them in an old one quart aluminum pot. I have seen the cut stem (not chewed) butt turn and ooze blue from the cut stem when left in the fridge too long. In that condition the stem has a sour fermentation, but no obvious mold. I have eaten it like this thinking, I am getting extra. I like artichoke stem a lot and have bought them with long stem in Oregon, USA. The blue appears to be in the nature inherent with the thistle flower that it is.
I was a chemistry major in college and I suspect this happened because the copper in the artichoke reacted with oxygen in the air creating copper oxide, which is a really pretty blue color in low concentrations. You chewing it may have broken it up, allowing the oxygen easier "access" to react with the copper when you left it out.
It should be a reaction to certain metals, typically iron or aluminum. Not sure why artichoke + iron = blue, but that seems to be how it works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.857174
| 2017-01-27T17:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77839",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
69145
|
Determining cooking time for ribs in the Texas Crutch
Pork back ribs are one of my favorite meals. However, depending on which butcher I go to I get different sized ribs.
My method is a simple one for when I'm making a quick at-home meal. I rub the ribs overnight, remove from the fridge for an hour, then wrap tightly in foil with a little liquid.
I'll then put them on the grill under indirect heat at 250˚F for 3 hours for smaller ribs or 4 hours for larger ones.
I then follow up with 15 minutes on medium direct heat while saucing to caramelize and build up a little bark, but I'm always guessing at the right time to cook them due to variable sizing.
What is the best method to determine the doneness of ribs while using the Texas Crutch method?
I've never crutched ribs before, but wouldn't the bend test work on ribs even if they are crutched?
It's hard to do the bend test when the ribs are wrapped in foil. I'm wondering if there is a way to test doneness while they are still wrapped.
While I do not believe it is necessary to "crutch" ribs, it can be done, and the most popular method is called the "3-2-1 Method." (see the writeup on Steven Raichlen's Barbecue Bible site here: http://barbecuebible.com/2015/01/20/3-2-1-method-ribs/ )
The prescribed method is to cook unwrapped for three hours, two hours in foil, and one additional hour unwrapped. The method and times are merely a guideline, and are based on cooking St. Louis ribs at 225F. If you cook at a higher temperature, then adjust the times at each stage downward. If you are cooking baby back ribs, then adjust those times significantly downward. Use indirect heat the entire time, and apply sauce in the last 15 minutes of the cooking process.
Again, please be aware that these are merely guidelines. The ribs are done when they pass the tests for doneness, not at prescribed times.
Meathead says not to use 3-2-1 -- it seems like way too much time ("I'd like to kill the man who came up with the 3-2-1 concept." - Sterling Ball).
I'm not a big fan of 3-2-1 myself. I prefer to cook the ribs uncovered, and at a higher temperature (250-275* F usually). Even then it doesn't take 6 hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.857373
| 2016-05-21T05:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69145",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Jonathan Eustace",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45754"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86651
|
What results can I expect from egg and sugar variations in spritz cookies?
Some Spritz cookie recipes call for powdered sugar vs granulated sugar, and some recipes use egg yolk only vs whole egg. Without trying every recipe, what differences might result from these differences?
Powdered sugar would produce a smoother textured dough than granulated sugar, I think, as it would more easily be incorporated with the other ingredients than the larger grained, sandy texture created by granulated sugar.
Egg yolk only would have a higher fat content than whole egg, and the lack of egg white might produce more rich taste, but likely more tender cookies than those with the egg white, as protein in the egg white would hold crumbs together better.
Additionally, you'll generally beat in more air creaming butter with granulated than with powdered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.857581
| 2017-12-23T18:06:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86651",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53710
|
Is there any advantage of applying dry rub overnight for baby back ribs for smoking?
Is there any advantage of adding dry rubs to ribs overnight? I'm looking to improve the texture and moistness of the ribs.
Some forums are saying that applying a rub overnight may risk removing moisture from the baby back ribs. Is this true?
I plan on smoking these ribs in an electric smoker.
Many people have strong opinions on when to apply a rub -- some say to allow at least a few hours and preferably overnight. Others literally apply it as they are putting them in the smoker/oven. Since people do it both ways and both claim to end up with terrific, moist ribs, whatever effect this might have is probably small.
It may change aspects of the "glazing" effect that a rub might give, depending on what is in the rub. A rub left on for a longer period will become more mushy and more like a paste or a glaze/sauce, while a rub put on fresh before cooking won't have time to become as moist. You will get slightly more flavor penetration with a longer rest, but there are diminishing returns there too after the first hour or two.
I don't have experimental evidence to back this up, but I think the "early rub will dry things out" argument is pretty flimsy from a food science perspective. It is true that rubs which contain significant amounts of salt, sugar, or other hydrophilic substances will cause some moisture to come out of the meat. On the other hand, most people tend to cook ribs for quite a few hours anyway (and some smoke them for many hours), so the rub will have plenty of time to draw out that moisture regardless of whether you put it on ahead or time or right before cooking.
It's not like you're salt-curing the meat and leaving the salt on it for months. Once the salt (and/or sugar) draws out the moisture from the outermost thin layer of meat, it generally takes much longer for moisture to migrate from inner parts of the meat. That surface layer of meat will release most of its moisture within an hour or so after you put salt or sugar or whatever on. So, even if you put your rub on immediately before putting it in the smoker, that moisture will tend to be drawn out in the first part of the cooking time. Adding a few more hours or even overnight to the rub shouldn't result in significantly more moisture loss from the meat's interior -- and the exterior will always dry out a bit as it cooks anyway.
Moreover, you aren't generally draining away moisture from the surface. With ribs, you often have them wrapped up to rest, which means the meat sits in that moisture. And guess what? About 10-15 minutes in, the brine produced by the moisture combined with the salt in the rub will begin to break down the outer muscle structure of the meat and cause it to absorb more moisture than usual, so much of that liquid lost will be reabsorbed back into the meat within an hour or so. (Note that the salt and water are carried back into the meat with some of the other spice compounds which are in the rub, so there is perhaps some flavor advantage to applying the rub at least a little in advance. On the other hand, again this mostly affects only the outermost layer of meat, so more than an hour or two probably won't make more significant changes in the flavor.)
If you're talking about searing a steak, when you salt it might have some impact, since you generally don't want to time your sear at the point at which moisture is being released at the maximum rate. But for ribs or anything with a long slow cooking time? It's really not a big issue.
As mentioned above, the larger effect will generally be what happens to the rub as it sits on the meat for many hours. You may find that the change in texture there may change the final appearance or texture of the outer surface. But the idea that the interior will dry out significantly? It doesn't seem likely.
That is super interesting. Thank you for the detailed analysis and the citations are helpful!
From many years of experience, I can tell you the whole idea of allowing pork ribs with dry rub to sit over night is for FLAVOR. Pork, unlike beef, will take longer to absorb the salt and sugar rubbed on the exterior of the meat, thus the extended period.
Much of the this will return into the water that exits the meat as the heat begins to break down the muscle and push out the moisture from the meat. If the cooking container is sealed with aluminum foil the steam within the container will begin penetrating the meat during the second to third hour of cooking and also bring some of the moisture back to the meat. This is also the point where the remainder of the dry rub ingredients will begin penetrating the meat. Unfortunately, it will only penetrate a thin layer on the exterior of the meat.
One caution should be extended here. Be careful not to overcook the meat before grilling, smoking or broiling as it will at longer periods begin to actually lose that nice pork flavor.
When the initial cooking is completed, the final step of adding either a layer of liquid BBQ sauce or another layer of dry BBQ rub is used to further enhance the meat flavor. Usually, this is where the magic happens. Baste or rub just enough of the sauce or rub to enhance the flavor.
A dry rub overnight will allow it to have a stronger taste of the rub the next day. What you use as a rub has a lot to do with it. Any salts will affect the meat overnight.
Your just going to have to try it both ways and see which you like better. I enjoy overnight rubs and their stronger flavor on my meat.
Wet rubs penetrate a lot better especially with an acidic base like Apple Cider or balsamic vinegar. Those penetrate really well and might be too strong over night. Maybe a 4-8 hour marinade time.
Either way, remember to rest your meat before cutting and it should come out flawless.
Texture and moisture have a lot to do with how you cook your ribs, and very little to do with using rub. Leaving rub on your ribs overnight can allow for more penetration of flavors into the meat, but it may not even be noticeable. You do run one risk, though, if your rub contains salt. It can begin to cure your ribs, to a small degree, which gives them a bit of a "hammy" flavor. You may actually find this preferable. I do.
Overnight with rub will draw out a LOT of moisture from the meat. So you have the option of allowing the rub to penetrate the meat overnight and having a slightly dryer finished product or putting the rub on right before cooking and have a more moist tenderloin or ribs or pork butt. With the latter you only get the flavor of the rub on the outside. Either way is good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.857685
| 2015-01-17T06:34:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53710",
"authors": [
"Charles Mason",
"Cynthia Rodriguez",
"Karen Field",
"Ladonna Thomas",
"Liz Nigh",
"Virginia Fischer",
"chrisjlee",
"david robinson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"rj jensen"
],
"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
}
|
36004
|
hollandaise cooked all the way
I've never made hollandaise sauce.
So when making hollandaise sauce i'm concerned that the hollandaise sauce is not cooked through; since it calls for egg yolks.
How can you tell that the hollandaise sauce is cooked completely? What can you do to test that it's cooked completely?
Many recipes call for uncooked egg yolks, as long as you use pasteurized shell eggs there shouldn't be any issues.
You can even used non-pasteurized eggs, but I guess there is a very small risk then.
Depends which country you live in. Check you local government health guidelines. Most In most countries it's fine to eat raw eggs, and in those countries, it is probably impossible to get pasteuri(s/z)ed eggs. Probably more risk in getting killed by a car going to the shop to get eggs anyway :-)
You do not want hollandaise to cook completely.
"Cooked all the way" means that you cook food to a temperature where proteins (of which bacteria walls are made) completely lose their shape. When this happens to a bacteria, it stops functioning and the bacteria dies. When this happens to a protein we want to eat (meat, egg) it gets a certain stiff texture; it curdles. And this curdling process happens at a similar temperature for bacterial cell walls and for food proteins, which means that killing all the bacteria for certain automatically gives your food a certain texture.
Hollandaise is a food whose texture depends on not curdling. You are creating an emulsion between the liquid and the butter, using the egg yolk as emulsifier. It only works when its proteins are in a certain state, and they reach this state at temperatures between roughly 50 and 80 degrees Celsius, with best texture at (IIRC, don't have the source here) 72 degrees. If you were to cook it above that range, it would not work, and you would end up with tiny grains of cooked egg suspended in melted butter, which is not a hollandaise (even though it has been served to me under that name by well-meaning amateur cooks).
If you have heated your eggs to that temperature and held them at it for long enough to beat the emulsion, you have more or less pasteurized them. They are not as safe as cooked eggs, but this state is considered acceptable for consumption. Still, there are restaurants which choose to not serve yolk-emulsion based sauces because they fear that a single case of food poisoning can have large impact on their business. If you are afraid to eat eggs which are pasteurized but not cooked through, you have to stop eating hollandaise.
If you do not mind the risk of eating pasteurized eggs (which is much lower than the risk from eating raw eggs), then the fact that the hollandaise succeeded is enough by itself to indicate that the eggs are pasteurized to some degree. This is because your hollandaise won't emulsify well if your eggs are too cold. This is only true if you are using no additional emulsifiers; some cooks prefer to add a pinch of xanthan to ensure that their sauce will give a perfect emulsion in only a few seconds, and then you no longer have the guarantee that your eggs were heated to the optimal temperature range.
As the hollandaise process can partly succeed at temperatures too low to be considered a good pasteurization, the safer option would be to just use a thermometer (which has the side effect of also allowing you to make better hollandaise if you are not experienced enough to recognize eggs in the optimal temp range based on their whisking behavior). Aim for 72 degrees of your mixture while whipping. Hold the sauce at that temperature for longer for added security, but do not let it climb over 80 or thereabouts. Remember that prepared hollandaise has a certain thermal inertia because of the air beaten into it, so you cannot cool it quickly if you get it too hot. Also do not let it cool under 60, because then you are actually increasing the danger, not pasteurizing.
@rumtscho is right (per usual). The trick with Hollandaise from scratch is to make sure it is always no older than 90 minutes. Best is to make it and serve it.
Many jurisdictions require restaurants to make a fresh batch if their egg based hollandaise is 90 minutes or older. That's why many places laze-out and use the powdered stuff in the name of safety.
If you need to convince yourself that the somewhat runny hollandaise is ok, consider that the temperatures at which hollandaise sets are similar to the temperatures at which many meats are cooked. Just use a thermometer to be safe and record your time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.858230
| 2013-08-13T12:57:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36004",
"authors": [
"Aaron Bell",
"Amberlynn Marte-Santos",
"Janet Brubacher",
"Mien",
"Ray Vincent",
"Saphire",
"TFD",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84422"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53719
|
When smoking ribs what is the 3-2-1 or the 3-2-2 method refer to?
I've read a couple places regarding smoking ribs and utilizing the 3-2-1 or the 3-2-2 method. What is this all about? What do each number signify?
TLDR;
This method is used many professionals for smoking ribs.
Each number signifies the number of hours per phase.
Smoke as normal for 3 hours, followed by 2 hours cooking wrapped in foil, and finally 1 more hour unwrapped and finish with bbq sauce and/or on direct flame for appearance.
Unabridged version
Three
The first phase is the smoking phase. The meat should smoke for 3 hours to develop the right amount of smoke.
Two
This phase involves wrapping it in a foil. This phase is when one braises the ribs so that the texture of the ribs is tender. Usually a liquid is involved here. Typically, some use apple juice or vinegar. The braising liquid is typically an acid.
One or Two
The final phase is appearance. During this phase one cooks the ribs so they have this perfect char on it. This can last from half an hour to two hours depending on the size of the portion or one's preferred doneness. The purpose of it to simply get some char on it. Some finish this phase with bbq sauce on a grill.
Variances
Baby back ribs on the other hand sometimes utilize a 2-2-1 method; because of the size of the portion. It's not an exact science.
Sources:
About.com
Youtube - Traeger 3-2-1 ribs
Youtube - 3-2-1 explained
These estimated times also assume a cook temp of around 225. For ribs though, many people like to cook them a little hotter. So adjustments may be needed depending on the cook temp like 3-1.5-.5 for example is what I use at around 275.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.858697
| 2015-01-17T20:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53719",
"authors": [
"Darlene Knox",
"Dawn Griffin",
"JavenLee Raven Raven",
"Marc Robinson",
"Pat Young",
"Raymond Holguin",
"Susan Judy Hummingbirds Haven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33752"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18870
|
Storing cut button mushrooms vs whole button mushrooms
Do cut buttons mushrooms have a tendency to spoil more quickly than whole button mushrooms?
Also, what are signs that a button mushroom has gone bad ?
Just curious about this.
Anything will spoil more quickly if cut than if whole. It's all a matter of surface area.
The bacteria/fungi/mold/whatever can only attack the surface that is open to the air. When you cut the mushrooms, you open more surface up to attack, and hence they will be affected more quickly. This is equally true for dehydration and loss of flavour (by evaporation), which are also linked to surface area.
With regards to spoiled mushrooms, a quick sinff will usually give away any dodgy mushrooms. They tend to stink like nobody's business when they've gone south. If they look right and smell right, they're most probably fine.
In my experience, yes, though you'll probably find dehydration to impact the mushroom quality of sliced mushrooms faster than decomposition sets in, especially if you store in paper packaging. Mushrooms seem to spoil more quickly in plastic (but they're less likely to dehydrate in plastic wrap).
Usually, a sort of fishy smell is a sign that mushrooms of any sort are past their prime. Certainly visible mold can form as well. Mushrooms that merely dry out aren't actually spoiled, however, and they can be used if you add water and cook them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.858877
| 2011-11-10T03:35:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18870",
"authors": [
"Kevin Van Ryckegem",
"Soup4U",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40900"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28793
|
How old is a chicken when it's time to be cooked?
How old is a chicken usually allowed to grow before it's ready to be used for cooking?
They can be as young as 8 weeks, and up to a year or more. The preferred cooking method changes with age. Here is a handy chart of the ages/weights/options.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.859014
| 2012-12-01T16:45:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28793",
"authors": [
"Argeman",
"Eliseo D'Annunzio",
"HoneyBunny",
"MEEPMEEPIMAHSHEEP",
"SylvainD",
"aBilal17",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66677"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57454
|
"Soften" ice cream to make ice cream bars
I am trying to make ice cream bars using a silicone mold, and the instruction sheet that came with it says "fill the mold with softened ice cream". I was wondering what the best way is to "soften" the ice cream?
I have a Cuisinart ice cream maker. Should I stop the machine when it's at soft-serve consistency and pour it into the mold, or just hard-freeze the whole thing, then thaw it in say, like a microwave? Would there be any differences between the two? I kinda think that the latter feels redundant.
If any of you could shed some light on this, I'd really appreciate it!
You just need the ice cream to be soft enough to mold.
Your recipe is referring to store-bought ice cream that tends to be very hard. A little time on the counter will soften it a bit without melting it completely.
A microwave is right out. It would melt pockets completely which would solidify to icy chunks.
If you are making the ice cream yourself then your situation is simpler. Homemade ice cream is still fairly soft when churning is finished. It has to be frozen solid in the freezer.
Just churn completely and mold.
Alcohol, Sugar and Salt can all contribute to lowering the freezing point of Ice Cream. In particular I have used alcohol, IN SMALL DOSES, to get a softer ice cream straight out of the churn, but which will become more firm in the freezer later. (This would seem to be a desirable outcome for you). Add about an ounce of vodka to your vanilla extract and add them together. You can also play with other alcohols for a variety of flavors. (I recommend Irish Cream in your chocolate ice cream :) )
thank you! I will try adding some alcohol next time! hope I don't get too buzzed from it haha
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.859089
| 2015-05-13T15:48:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57454",
"authors": [
"Belen Trujillo",
"Jackie Salguero",
"Karen chandler",
"Ken Vergamot",
"Paula Hargis",
"Peter Moynihan",
"Vicki Fisher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35511",
"paul johnson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88493
|
Identify a round kitchen tool with perforated and hinged metal leaves
My old roommate left this in my kitchen before moving out. I can't remember what it is or used for. Is this part of a grill? Does it go in my sink to trap things that shouldn't go down the drain? What is it used for?
They are a mechanical contraption used by ninjas... if you are a young boy with a very active imagination lurking around his mother's kitchen.
open the leaves, it's a steamer or strainer
It's a steamer basket.
If you pull the leaves apart it will look like this:
Then you put it into a saucepan like this:
You put water into the saucepan (the legs at the bottom keep the bottom of the basket clear of the water). Then you can use it for steaming vegetables, dumplings, etc. You put a lid onto the saucepan to keep the steam in.
I have one of those. The little stem in the middle with the ring attached can be screwed out for use in pans with less room.
ahhh!! I've always just used it as a strainer, I didn't realize that it was for this! This is so much better!!!
@RedSonja: My mom has one of those, which looks exactly like this photo. Except it has a string tied to the ring, so you can lift it out of the pot while it's hot. (Leave the string hanging outside the pot, past the lid).
I always thought it was a multi-purpose tool, that you can use as a sieve too.
That is a steamer basket. Put an inch or so of water in a pot and drop that in (other way up). Add some veggies (or other food), and cook until done.
Use it oriented as shown, the 'petals' move outwards to fit the size of the pan
It doesn't just "look like" a steamer basket, that's definitely what this is.
I've had that exact steamer for years. The legs give a little clearance to hold the food up out of the water, so don't put too much water in (less than the height of the legs). You don't want to boil the food, you want to steam it.
It does look like a steamer basket as the other answers mentioned.
If the need comes to take it out from the pan/pot after the water is boiling, I'd personally suggest to use a tool with a hook, e.g. a soup ladle:
connect the hook to the center ring of the steamer basket;
lift it off a few centimeters over the water;
let it drain for a few seconds before attempting to move its contents to a new recipient/container (or taking it out completely).
If the steamer has no ring to attach the hook to, you may use the soup ladle and a spoon to scoop out its contents (to prevent overcooking), avoiding to push down the basket petals.
A couple of other possible usages:
rinse light food with water (similarly to a light strainer) if placed in a large pan/container as Nick depicted (the rinsing water can be saved for other purposes, e.g. for watering plants);
cook large pasta (e.g. fusilli or conchiglie) with it, i.e. similarly to a pasta cooker:
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
@narrowtux the pasta cooker model shown here will actually work pefectly fine as a steamer - the clearance is as high as the glossy part of the insert. But that’s actually way out of the scope of the original Q/A.
The folding petals of the steamer basket aren't that sturdy. They're full of holes to let steam through, so you could easily bend them if you aren't careful when using as a strainer; I wouldn't recommend it unless you have nothing else and you're prepared to be careful while using and while washing it after if necessary. Your pasta strainer looks much sturdier.
As far as I can tell, this is an answer, just one that people have a lot of concerns about (advice that may not work, or may even be unsafe, and a picture of a pasta strainer pot is a bit of a non sequitur in the context of the question). So it can stay here if you like, but don't be too surprised about downvotes.
@Cascabel I added to my answer a few suggestions on how to use the steamer, in particular, how to remove it safely from a pan (avoiding using tongs or direct hand contact as someone previously mentioned).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.859295
| 2018-03-21T18:13:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88493",
"authors": [
"CPHPython",
"Cascabel",
"Cort Ammon",
"Fattie",
"MPW",
"Mr Lister",
"Peter Cordes",
"RedSonja",
"Sensoray",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65969",
"remco",
"user428517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88616
|
How can a Bavarian cream that includes orange juice thicken with so much liquid?
I found a recipe for an orange flavored Bavarian cream with the following directions.
Start with a crème anglaise by whisking egg yolks and sugar and then add boiling milk flavored with orange zest. Put the mixture back on the heat and -- here comes the fishy part -- add fresh orange juice and let everything thicken.
Then it continues to add softened gelatine, let cool and add whipped cream. But this makes sense.
How is a mixture so liquid supposed to thicken? Is this the right procedure to make a flavored Bavarian cream?
You ask about proportions, but don't give any numbers. That means we can only speculate
I didn't :) was hoping to have a feel for how much sense these directions had. Adding whipped cream to a liquid cream might not make much sense, but after gelatine is added to the latter, maybe it does.
The egg yolks can thicken the liquid when you heat it, like in a standard egg custard (the home made version, not the one made from custard powder). But this is a fairly tricky procedure: if you heat it too much the mixture will separate. So best done on a double boiler ('bain marie').
And in addition, you have the whipped cream and the gelatine, which will help thicken the mixture on cooling*. I suspect that there's also a prescribed time in the refrigirator...
(*: as I've been taught, the swollen gelatine is first dissolved in a small amount of liquid, and the whipped cream is mixed with the rest when the gelatine just starts to set)
Also: a crème anglaise is supposed to flow, like cream, rather than set, like a baked custard or flan.
Pure crème anglaise, yes, indeed. But then, you don't add gelatine to it.
I know; the recipe starts with a crème anglaise and I wanted to emphasize to him that at that stage it would only be a bit thicker than cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.859677
| 2018-03-25T11:53:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88616",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"remco",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87494
|
Kickstart Kimchi with sourdough starter
I'm making my first batch of homemade Kimchi today using a recipe from Jamie Oliver. As I also have a mature sourdough starter in the fridge, I'm thinking about adding a bit of sourdough (a few grams) to the Kimchi in order to start fermentation.
Is this a good idea, or useless, or even dangerous?
The main issue here is what microorganisms you'll be introducing via the sourdough starter, and whether you want them in your fermented vegetables.
The sourdough has lactobacilli, which chow sugar and produce lactic acid. This is perfect, since that's same category of bacteria that you want to encourage in your kimchi. I'm sure you're aware: the acid is preservative in that it deters the growth of other, harmful, bacteria. And it tastes good. While I don't know if there's a difference in the particular species that are happy living in dough versus those found on vegetables, I expect this would work out well, and it's probably the reason you thought of this.
The other main microorganism your starter has is yeast, and I think this will get you into trouble. Yeast has a large part in giving bread its special savor. But those flavors are not what you want in a vegetable ferment -- they come off as "boozy" or "bready". Indeed, the presence of wild yeast -- that bready smell, an overabundance of gas -- is usually a bad sign when fermenting. This is not just because of the flavor, but also because the yeast are directly competing with the lactobacilli for food.
The success of a fermentation from a preservation standpoint depends on your encouraging the lactobacilli to dominate the environment and make it acidic enough quickly enough that harmful things (other bacteria, mold) can't get a foothold. If they have to share their food with a large thriving population of yeast this is more difficult. That is less of a concern if you're not canning the result, just storing it in the fridge and consuming it reasonably quickly, but if you're looking for true preservation adding yeast is not going to be a benefit.
On balance, while it's a good thought, I'd suggest not using the sourdough starter for fermented vegetables. The impact of the yeast is likely to outweigh the benefit of jumpstarting the lactobacilli.
That said, maybe partition off a small part of your second or third batch and see what happens? I say "second or third" so that you can see what the results are like without it, for a clearer comparison.
I've kept a sourdough starter for some years and make kimchi once or twice a year, as well as various other vegetable ferments. I think that adding sourdough starter would be safe but not useful, as kimchi behind fermenting on its own very quickly.
Additionally, kimchi (and many other vegetable ferments) has a flavor that develops over time, and sampling the flavor at different times is interesting, informative (on how the fermentation is going), and helps you find how funky you like your kimchi.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.859863
| 2018-02-03T12:00:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87494",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81145
|
Mystery kitchen device with three finger loops, one attached to a sliding rod that passes through a ring
This is an oddball question but I am hoping someone can help me identify this device, which appears intended for use in a kitchen based on its location in a drawer full of other kitchen tools. As you can see it is about 4 inches long.
Always reread "Doodad" by Ray Bradbury when given a box full of mystery kitchen tools.
Or watch Dead Ringers...
Wow - your tape measure doesn't have cm on it! Is it normal to only have 1 measurement system on them where you are?
I would prefer a banana for scale.
One scale is normal in the U.S. for construction tape measures.
Doodad can be found on the Internet Archive.
This is a cherry pitter. The metal ring holds the cherry while the piston forces the pit out right through the cherry.
Doh! Of course it is. :) Actually I never saw one of these before but now that you describe its function it makes perfect sense.
I'm guessing it's not that familiar to most people nowadays since most use cherry pie filling or buy canned pitted sour cherries. It works well but I remember how sore and tired my hand was after pitting enough cherries for a pie!
@Jude - Out of curiosity does the cherry have to be in a specific orientation for this device to work or can you just drop one in any-which-way?
It'll probably work best if it's oriented so that the plunger is going through where the stem was, @O.M.Y., although up or down doesn't matter.
I was considering modifying the barrel & hopper of an old paintball gun and adding a cam-driven "plunger" to push out the pit to make an automated one of these. Not sure how I would eject the empty cherry, yet.
Cherry-rigged solutions ... and why do they always put two non-pitted cherries in every jar of pitted ones?
@O.M.Y. : while I'm all for tinkering, be aware that there exist electric cherry pitters as well :). There are also more elaborate and larger ones, with a more ergonomic plunger, that you might easier to adapt automation-wise.
Wow, it's a very old-school cherry pitter! Newer single-cherry, manual pitters are often shaped more like paper staplers and are much easier on the hands. I was gifted a no-name knockoff of this one and it's quite nice to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_pitter
Also seen to be used as an olive pitter. Same solution, similar problem.
Cherry or olive pitter: first two fingers trough the side loops, thumb through the center loop, raise the plunger and insert the fruit pole to pole at the bottom and depress the plunger
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.860135
| 2017-04-22T15:33:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81145",
"authors": [
"JDługosz",
"Jason C",
"Jude",
"LarsTech",
"O.M.Y.",
"Richard",
"SevenSidedDie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7000",
"jscs",
"mikołak",
"rackandboneman",
"xorsyst"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15167
|
Knife to Cut Dough
What's the best type of knife [and/or method] for cutting raw bread dough? Is a special dough blade necessary, or will any blade suffice?
what type of dough? yeast dough for bread before shaping? slicing cinamon rolls apart? slicing refrigerator cookies?
@Joe I suppose bread dough. But aren't all doughs pretty much the same, with regards to slicing (assuming raw)
Nope ... cookies are 'short' ... lots of shortening, low gluten, whereas yeast doughs tend to have lots of gluten. For cinnamon rolls, you don't want to deform them too much when cutting, so string often works better than knives. Some doughs are stiff enough you can just twist quickly and it'll break apart.
@Joe Okay. Updated question with my specific case.
I work in a fine dining restaurant, and the standard implement is a bench scraper AKA a dough knife AKA a bench knife. It's basically a stiff, 6" wide sheet of stiff metal with a handle, and can pressed or rocked down on the counter to cut dough into portions. It can also be used to move shaped bread or rolls, cut pastry, fold sticky doughs, and scrape off the counter for cleanup. They're not really knife-sharp per se, but the metal is narrow enough to cut dough well, and a knife would go dull against the hard surface anyway. The best models have measurements engraved into them, so you can consistently size your products, and will stand vertically on the handle (for icing cakes).
Now, for SLASHING risen breads before baking, the correct tool is something called a lame, which is basically a razor with a handle. Or, you can just use your really sharp chef knife (your chef knife IS razor-sharp, right?) and spritz it with pan spray to keep the dough from sticking.
It should be noted that a bench scraper or bench knife does NOT have a sharpened edge like a knife has. It is flat on the bottom not pointed to a wedge. It should be tuned up on a file by placing the scraper on the file so the flat bottom is on the file ( as if you were balancing it on the bench ) and pushed away from you in order to flatten the bottom. This gives it two edges and it is what makes it good at scraping a bench clean.
A knife large enough to not require a slicing motion. You want chopping or even better rolling motion. Any sharp knife will be ok but I have some preferences:
In a pinch I use my plastic dough scraper. A metal scraper with a flat blade is adequate, for example this one.
Pizza cutters are ok but if there is too much dough then they get bogged down.
My all time favorite tool for this - and I have more than one just for this purpose - is an ulu. This is a curved knife used traditionally by native Alaskans. Mine is big and rolls through a lot of dough easily.
from this one on Amazon
Look at that! I finally have a reason to use the ulu we got as a wedding present. My grandmother gave it to us and she uses hers for everything. But I like having a variety of knives for different purposes.
Also effective when defending against raiders.
My mother used to roll a sheet of dough into a tube for cinnamon rolls, then cut the individual rolls by wrapping a piece of string around the tube and pulling both ends until it cut through.
I like the idea, but it does sound a bit slow.
Assuming it is just yeast dough and you aren't trying to preserve some lift characteristic, you don't want a knife. You should have a bench scraper as your go-to tool for handling dough, it is not sharp, it is wide and flat so it does an excellent job of scraping dough up when it sticks to the bread board, and it is completely capable of cutting through dough if you are subdividing.
It is also plenty handy for actual bench scraping... i.e. getting remnants of old dough off your cutting/bread board/counter.
For most kinds of dough any blade will do, but you may want to sprinkle some flour on the knife if the dough is sticky (especially if the dough already contains flour; for non-flour ones, it may be a problem)
I have tried that, but it doesn't really help. There just isn't enough flour clinging to the blade to prevent sticking. It is much better to oil the knife generously. (The oil residues aren't detrimental for the dough, even if the original recipe is fat free).
Pan spray (Pam or equivalent) works MUCH better than flour to keep something from sticking to steel.
I've never seen a special knife, but I often use a long, thin, smooth edged (not serrated) blade. Cuts cleanly. Doesn't stick. Doesn't crunch the dough.
The only knife I would avoid would be a serrated blade because of how the teeth "hook" material to tear.
I use an electric carving knife. You know.. the knife no chef would admit to owning. The kind everyone got as a wedding present in the 1980's. Available at all low-brow stores for $15 or at garage sales for $3.
I use it instead of a lame. It is much more controllable.
For cutting bulk dough, I use a dull bench scraper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.860416
| 2011-05-31T21:26:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15167",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Benny Jobigan",
"BobMcGee",
"Joe",
"Jon Ericson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"yydl"
],
"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
}
|
15507
|
Alternative for shake and bake?
I want to make my own shake and bake at home. The shake and bake you buy at the store is full of unpronounceable, non-organic ingredients and seasoning.
I'm looking to make a good crust out of something that has whole grains any suggestions?
Oh p.s. this is for Chicken.
The way restaurants do it is simple, straightforward, and also very easy to make organic by using organic ingredients.
Standard 3-bowl breading
1) Bowl One: Seasoned flour -- flour, salt, pepper, and seasonings (for me: thyme, paprika, cayenne, garlic powder, onion powder, and parsley flakes)
2) Bowl Two: Egg wash -- Beaten egg with a 1-2 TBSP milk per egg yolk added
3) Bowl Three: Panko (or other bread crumbs) -- alternately, add some salt, pepper, and seasonings to them
Procedure:
Dredge the item to bread through the bowls in order, then repeat if desired to build up a thicker layer. You only need to change your seasonings to switch from breading chicken, fish, or even doing fried green tomatoes.
If you make your own bread and breadcrumbs, the ingredient list will read: flour, water, milk, eggs, yeast, salt, and spices. Hard to get more straightforward than that!
It's simple, fast, and works beautifully every time. Here's why it's the best way: the flour sticks to the wet surface of your item, leaving a dry, starchy surface for the egg wash to adhere to. The egg wash allows the panko to stick. For the next layer, the flour fills in the gaps between bread crumbs and absorbs residual moisture from the egg wash.
How to get from 1 to 3 without getting your hands dirty is another question altogether :)
why the milk in the eggs?
@BaffledCook: Use latex gloves; it's what we do at work. Oh, and use one hand for wet ingredients, and the other for dry.
@Dan: I know the milk promotes browning, but I couldn't tell you beyond that. It's just something everyone does, because it produces excellent results. On Food and Cooking should have explained it, but I don't think it did.
@Dan : milk has sugar (lactose) in it, which will promote the browning. You don't necessarily need it, but thinning out the eggs with a little liquid keeps you from getting too thick of a coating (as too much egg on there creates a slip plane, so the coating peels off when you go to eat it)
We have a small kitchen, so we usually use a big bowl for the eggs. We put all the chicken through stages 1-2, and leave it in the egg, ending up in a big bowl of eggy chicken. We let it rest for a bit while we clean bowl #1, and it also absorbs the spices we put in the egg (salt, pepper, thyme, etc.). When we're ready, we proceed with step 3. We always get a nice, even coat, and as a bonus we can divide the work and e.g. start steps 1-2 the night before sometimes, leaving the egg+chicken in the fridge overnight.
Panko, flour, spices (oregano, cayenne). Dredge through a beaten egg, then though the panko mixture. Amazing the government doesn't make them put a "For god sakes, you can make this yourselves!" warning label on it.
BobMcGee has explained the basic breading technique, but as you specificslly asked about whole grains, you may wish to make some minor adjustments.
You could use whole wheat flour for the first bowl, but it should be a very little amount (you actually want to shake any loose flour off before moving to the egg wash, and then letting the egg wash drip free befor going to the breadcrumbs). You would get more fiber using a replacement for the panko. Personally, I use whatever is on hand that I can crush into crumbs easily. This includes crackers (cheezits work great) or most cereals. For your whole grain concern, I'd consider some sort of a whole grain cereal, crushed. The bits at the end of a box are ideal for this, but if you are cooking for more than one person, you'll likely need a cup or more, depending on how finely you make the crumbs.
I would think that any flaked cereal (eg, wheaties) would work. (I've never used them myself, I typically use corn flakes), mAyve something like fiber one (i think that's the name of the one that looks like little twigs. I wouldn't recommend grape nuts, and I'm not sure of how shreaded wheat might work.
Common additions to the breadcrumb layer include chopped nuts or grated hard cheeses, but I have a feeling that the cheeses might not stand out with the nuttier flavors of a whole grain cereal, and the nuts wouldn't be as noticable, either.
For any gluten-free people out there, Quinoa Flakes work great as a replacement for panko.
Follow all the other advice here about three stage breading, but substitute gluten-free flour for the first step and Quinoa Flakes instead of panko.
This is how I made my chicken for Chicken Parmesean and it turned out wonderfully!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.860918
| 2011-06-15T23:56:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15507",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Beer_en_thu_si_asT",
"BobMcGee",
"Dan",
"Joe",
"Mister Helpful",
"Nikki",
"Poonam Abbi",
"Rachel Hettinger",
"configurator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jalopezp",
"kangax",
"libby",
"user32874"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18218
|
Substitutions for greek yogurt?
Are there any available substitutes for greek yogurt?
I don't have any in the fridge. Looking for a substitution besides regular yogurt or any yogurt based substitution. Looking to make a creamy like cold sauce for fish tacos.
Related (actually pretty much a duplicate): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2902/what-is-the-difference-between-greek-yogurt-and-plain-yogurt
@ghoppe saw that thread. That's germane to the difference between regular yogurt and greek yogurt. While I agree regular yogurt would be a substitution; it doesn't directly answer the question.
It depends completely on what you want to do with it. If you are baking it in a batter, no non-yogurt substitution will function. If you are making a salad dressing, you could use mayonnaise and still get a good salad. In between, there are various degrees of sensitivity.
Sour cream could work. It has a similar flavor to plain greek yogurt, although the consistency is somewhat different. In fact, My fiance and I have switched to using greek yogurt in place of sour cream because of this since sour cream is higher in calories. I think it would be just fine for a sauce.
I was thinking this, exactly. I have often seen greek yogurt used as a substitution for sour cream, so it would make sense if it worked the other way as well. Especially in the OP's original usage for a cold sauce for fish tacos.
For cooking, or putting a dallop on top of a bowl of soup? Try crème fraiche.
Greek expat here; while roaming in various countries, I often stumble across yogurt variants that tend to be too liquid for my taste ;)
Here is what to do in that case: take said yogurt and pass it through fine cloth (typically this is a clean/unused kitchen towel). Discard the liquid and keep the now much thicker yogurt for your needs. Hint: this works brilliantly for preparing tzatziki!
Advice:
never fail to buy some greek yogurt when you find it available, as a minimum to use it as reference in thickness/taste for whatever else you want to compare with! Also, remember, higher price may just imply quality.
While this is certainly good information, I don't see how it answers the question. The OP specifically says they are looking for something besides yogurt.
well, the method described allows you to take several liquid yogurt(-like products) and convert them to thick variants, much closer in texture to Greek yogurt.
The case is oftentimes, that stores around you have those liquid ones - fi. this was happening to me all the time while living in Amsterdam.
I get that and, again, it's good information. But the OP specifically states that they want a substitute other than regular yogurt or something yogurt-based.
You can use mashed baking bananas (plantains) to substitute for greek yogurt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.861324
| 2011-10-05T22:56:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18218",
"authors": [
"Barbara Genung",
"Christoph",
"Cindy",
"Fran Sebestyen",
"Joe Ero",
"Jon",
"Kent Pettersson",
"Tara",
"chimanpaanyanpa",
"chrisjlee",
"fgeorgatos",
"ghoppe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"josliber",
"loretta solmon",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18388
|
Substitute sugar free maple syrup in baking?
We're trying to make trailmix chunks. Is it alright to replace sugar free maple syrup (springtree low calorie maple syrup) in baking for this case?
My concern is that the sugar free syrup would break down and isn't a real replacement for the real syrup.
Update:
Recipe (roughly; as it was just eyeballed previously):
1 lb pepitas
1 lb raw diced almonds
1/2 lb of flaxseeds
3 cups of cranberries
2 cups of maple syrup
Several tablespoons of honey
Can you post/link to the recipe?
The ingredient list for the syrup might also be good - I myself am not sure what makes it syrupy.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Springtree-Low-Calorie-Syrup-Maple-Syrup-24-fl-oz/10449105
Water, Sorbitol, Natural and Artificial Maple Flavor, Cellulose Gum, Salt, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Potassium Sorbate and Sodium Benzoate (As Preservatives), Acesulfame Potassium, Aspartame*, Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate. Contains: Phenylalanine.
Trail mix is kinda supposed to be chock fulla calories, isn't it?
@Satanicpuppy sometimes. The point is that we don't have regular maple syrup.
@Jefromi it was a recipe recommended by another person.
@chris: no honey, or molasses?
Honey is your real binding agent here, not maple syrup. You can substitute the sugar-free syrup but be aware of what's in it - according to the ingredients, it's mostly Sorbitol, which is both a humectant and a laxative.
Now, ordinarily, I wouldn't tell people to worry about the digestive effects of sorbitol, but that's a seriously large quantity you'd be adding, so if any of you have sensitive stomachs, beware of eating too much of that trail mix at once. The other property - humectancy - means that what you end up with is going to be moister than what you'd get with pure maple syrup. That may or may not be a good thing depending on your tastes.
Since your issue seems to be a lack of availability rather than a problem with sugar itself, I'd personally substitute generic pancake syrup, sugar syrup or even corn syrup instead. Or, if you're really keen on the sugar-free stuff, you can use less of it and add more honey because the sorbitol will help keep the whole product moist.
If you really want to cut down on the sugar, you can also use agave nectar, which is a fairly close substitute for honey (a bit thinner), and could also stand in for maple syrup if used in combination with another syrup and perhaps some maple extract or maple flavouring. It won't be the same flavour, but, texture-wise, it should be a pretty close match.
Trail mix with laxative + hiking (or other trail mix'y activity) = not fun.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.861579
| 2011-10-16T01:06:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18388",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Javin Paul",
"Megasaur",
"Satanicpuppy",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"quantumbutterfly",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16272
|
Flavor notes or profile of truffles?
What do truffles (the fungi) taste like?
I'm just curious. I saw it on television the other day.
I just know that they're expensive and i know i probably won't buy any anytime soon. I don't know much about them either.
Uncooked? I was shocked at how unimpressive the flavor of raw shaved truffle was. It was kind of earthy, not particularly strong in flavor; in this case the truffle was probably not fresh enough. When heated and allowed to release their full flavor and aroma into food though, they are phenomenal. There's a rich, luscious taste and smell, with an almost petrol pungency to it. The latter is primarily from the 2,4-dithiapentane, which truffle oil replicates, although it has a harsher and less complex flavor. Truffle oil will give you this top note, but without any of the additional layered complexity.
All this said, different people have different reactions, and freshness matters greatly for raw truffles. If you really want to try truffle, canned or jarred truffle can be had in small quantities for under $20. The flavor is quite distinctive, unique, and pairs well with cream, milk, cheese, and butter.
Truffle oil is also relatively cheap and conveys some of the deep umami flavour of the truffle itself. Beautiful drizzled in homemade mushroom soup.
When you say raw, are you just referring to black truffles? Although I've never cooked with white truffles, everything I've read says to use them raw as their flavor breaks down with cooking.
Black winter truffles. Well, and black summer truffles which are like a weaker version. I can't speak to white truffles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.861787
| 2011-07-19T04:37:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16272",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Overworked",
"cybervigilante",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"julie",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6227
|
Butter substitute for 1 cup of butter for baking
What can I substitute for 1 cup of butter in baking recipes (e.g. cookies, muffins, cakes, etc.)?
I'm looking for something that has less saturated fat (and also doesn't have trans fat).
Update: Since baking is less forgiving than cooking (i.e. if you don't use the exact amount of each ingredient the recipe might fail), could you please also include the amount you would need to use to replace 1 cup of butter?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2323/substituting-butter-for-oil-does-it-matter-for-baked-goods
In muffins and quick breads, I have found that you can actually substitute apple sauce for oil or melted butter. This has worked very well for me!
Use the same amount of apple sauce that you would oil/butter, if not a bit extra.
I do the same, but I tend to leave in some oil (1/4 to 1/2 of the original amount). You can also use mashed bananas.
Is this a 1:1 replacement? I.e. do you use 1 cup of applesauce for 1 cup of butter?
Yes, I do a 1:1 replacement. For some recipes, I've found that I like to use a little extra apple sauce.
You can also use yogurt or sour cream in a 1:1 replacement in muffins and quick breads.
There are a lot of considerations to make when substituting for butter since it plays several roles that depend on the baked good.
Creaming solid butter with sugar is essential for the texture of a cake, because that's where you make all the little pockets that air will blow up later. Anything that you can similarly beat might substitute well. Personally I'm considering experimenting with bananas in recipes like this.
Baked goods that use baking soda and don't require creaming are good candidates for having their butter replaced, especially if they just require melted butter. This is where I'd be experimenting with yogurt or bananas or whatever else sounds interesting.
The way the fat melts determines how much a cookie spreads as it cooks. A fat with a higher melting temp would make taller cookies, while using melted butter would make flatter cookies. Oil would be a good substitute in recipes requiring melted butter, just remember that butter is 10-20% water.
In pie crusts, pastries, and biscuits, you build up layers of dough and butter when you roll and knead them, and this is what creates a flaky dough. Lots of recipes use part butter and part lard for their different melting points to balance flakiness and tenderness. Using any fat-free substitute would probably be disastrous but I haven't experimented. This is the one place where I really wouldn't consider using bananas, because you need fat to separate the layers.
Lard has less saturated fat than butter, and it's great in pie crusts. I can't speak to its other baking applications because I stick to butter for cookies and muffins and such, but experimenting with less butter when combined with lard to produce the total fat called for in such recipes might be worthwhile. Also, About.com has an article on dairy-free baking that you might find useful. It discusses when to use oil and when to use margarine (and when margarine is called for, there are some decent alternatives to traditional margarine on the market); the article has other great tips for baking, as well.
I use fat free Greek yogurt. I found it as a recommendation when I was looking up Greek yogurt and everything I have made with it came out as good or better than with butter. Use the same amount
Just use vegetable or canola oil. You'll likely need to adjust your measurement a bit, you typically would use less oil than the equivalent amount of butter. You may need to add a bit more water to compensate for the water present in butter (nearly 20% of butter is water).
Also note that the finished good will be textured differently. Cookies will tend to be flatter because you cannot cream the sugar into the oil as you can with butter.
Any idea how much less oil to use? 10% 20%? Or how much water to add? Or would both cancel each other out? In other words: 1 cup of butter should be replaced with 80% (of a cup) of oil and 20% (of a cup) of water?
@eagle: That would be sufficient, strictly speaking, but you may not need to do it at all. I would start with 80/20 and see how it works. It all comes down to what you're baking. I don't frequently (ever) substitute oil for butter, because I love butter. :)
A way to reduce the use of butter is to make a spread combining butter and canola oil.
1/2 cup butter (softened)
1/2 cup canola oil
Blend until combined, store in a covered dish in the fridge. Use like butter for baking or as a spread.
It has ~ half the saturated fat as butter and negligible amounts of trans fats. Provides mono-unsaturated fatty acids and omega-3 fatty acids.
A compromise though and not what you asked. I have found this to be a decent compromise.
Earth Balance (see this site) has excellent non-dairy, no trans fat butter sticks (1-1 substitute for butter). I've personally baked with them dozens of times and they work wonderfully for everything from pie crusts to cookies and muffins.
I typically hate naming specific brand names but Smart Balance is a decent butter substitute for baking and is used in a 1:1 ratio.
Unfortunately, there will always be a texture difference because different fats react differently to heat, specifically how fast it melts. Shortening, for example, melts between 115 and 117, meaning it melts pretty fast compared to butter, which melts between 90 and 95. The faster it melts, the flatter your cookie is likely to be.
Based on the ingredients, this is basically just margarine. Still a fine answer (no trans fat etc) but I personally wouldn't be too excited about using it over butter.
You can use coconut oil instead of butter or in addition to butter. It will flavor the cookies or cake with a very mild flavor of coconut....use the organic brand of coconut oil.
1 banana can substitue for 1 stick of butter. I recently tried this for a banana bread recipe & it worked great. Added extra banana flavor & eliminated a lot of fat & calories. I recommend using a fresh banana (not too ripe) so the texture is still firm.
You can always use coconut milk. For 1cup butter use 1/2 cup coconut milk. The cookies will be fluffier and sweeter from the natural sugar.
Hello Ashtote. We don't do nutrition and health advice on our site. I left your proposal to use coconut milk, but removed the claims that it is healthy.
I use Star Balance non-dairy butter. It comes out tasting the same.
Smart Balance, maybe? Star Balance doesn't seem to exist. But there's already an answer saying Smart Balance with more information.
Any oil is the best solution I tried it and it tasted perfect
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.861972
| 2010-08-28T00:02:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6227",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Hasan",
"Joe",
"Joshguy97",
"JustRightMenus",
"Louis Pretorius",
"Mrudul Mohan",
"Rebekah",
"Ryan Corbeil",
"SUPERIORA1",
"Senseful",
"Shoresh",
"Spam",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stephen Plotnick",
"cxseven",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94785",
"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
}
|
15767
|
How can I buy or make pasteurized eggs?
Many recipes for the raw-egg yolk sauces and dressings suggest using pasteurized eggs for safety, and say they are available in stores. I've never seen them for sale anywhere. Generally I accept the 1 in 30,000 risk of salmonella (healthy, young, comfortable with calculated risks); however, when I cook for others, I feel uncomfortable exposing them to the risk.
Now I'm wondering:
Where can I obtain pasteurized or irradiated eggs?
Are they only available in special stores, or in certain regions? Just in big cities, or in Europe?
Is there an easy way to pasteurize your own eggs (preferably in the shell) without affecting texture?
How does using pasteurized eggs impact the shelf life of homemade mayonnaises and custards?
It's a good question, but hard to answer. I've been looking for pasteurized eggs where I live, at specialized retailers and haven't found them. The theory is to pasteurize them sous-vide at 57ºC for 1:15'
I know that safest choice has been mentioned, and you said the stores listed (Harris Teeter, and Lowes) don't seem to have them. I do know that Restaurant Depot seems to carry them as well. I don't know if you are near Charlotte, NC but it might be worth swinging by there. You just need to fill out an application that you do some sort of food service and membership is free, I think you run a food blog and I think that is enough.
Also you can check out this site here. It might not be the most exact method but might be better than nothing, since you can't buy them. Couldn't hurt to try it. The whits should cloudy but still have the basic texture. The yolk will most likely set up just a tad. Hold an uncooked egg or two from your batch to compare. Again probably not 100% but if you are really worried about it, it should be better than the raw.
The theory is to pasteurize them sous-vide at 57ºC for 1:15'. You must be able to control the temperature, so specialized equipment is needed (ronner or similar).
The resulting egg has a different texture than ordinary (and I believe it tastes more 'yolky').
I've kept homemade mayo for more than two weeks without problem (off smell / taste).
Custards are heated, so no pasteurized eggs are needed, just like hollandaise sauce.
$20 http://www.dealextreme.com/p/digital-temperature-controller-66125
what if I can't afford to buy or even home-build a sous-vide rig (yes, I have seen the $75 immersion circulator build)?
If you cannot do sous-vide, then you must resort to buying pasteurized yolks... if you can find them.
Are there ways to approximate this without an immersion circulator? Maybe a double boiler or somesuch?
You could try a double boiler with a digital thermometer and an induction precision cooker... Can't be too hard, can it?
Pasteurisation requires fine control over temperature which would be very tricky at home.
According to 'Davidson's Safest Choice Eggs' at www.safeeggs.com, in North Carolina pasteurised eggs are available at Lowes Foods and Harris Teeter. That will hopefully mean more to you than it does to me!
As for shelf life, I would imagine there are few negative effects - if anything they should last longer as there will be fewer bacteria, providing you've used sterilised equipment.
The local Harris Teeter definitely didn't have them, but I'll have to check other locations to see if it may vary. There's not a nearby Lowe's Foods to check.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.862486
| 2011-06-25T18:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15767",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Benjamin",
"BobMcGee",
"DIANE",
"TFD",
"Vic Ladd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"michelle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15833
|
How do I change cake recipes for cupcakes?
This is a three-part question:
Which classes of cake are unsuitable for cupcakes? Can I do angel food cake or pound cake?
What changes do I need to make when converting a normal cake recipe for cupcakes? Temperature or baking time changes?
Roughly how many cupcakes should I expect from a recipe scaled for a 9x9 pan, a 9" springform pan, or a 12 cup Bundt pan? I'm not looking for precise counts, just a rough estimate to the nearest 5 cupcakes.
I think the best cupcake I ever had was a tres leches cupcake complete dripping with milk and with whipped cream and strawberry on top.
I've not yet found a cake recipe which I could not use for cupcakes instead.
I always change the baking time and only the baking time. I rotate the tray of cuppies after about 7 minutes, and after another 7 minutes or so I use the "clean toothpick" method to see when they are done.
It does vary greatly, but from most cake recipes, I expect to get 18-24 regular cupcakes, about 40 mini-cupcakes, or 9-12 large ("Texas") cupcakes.
For the cooking, reduce the time but keep the temperature the same as before. If the large tin took 30 mins, then the cupcake might just be 8 to 10 minutes. The other questions are too vague to answer. How many cupcakes will vary from recipe to recipe and some recipes require other changes to make them work. There's no single answer that can apply to everything. A bit of trial and error will be required or else be more specific in your question as to what cake type you wish to try.
Why is it a vague question how many cupcakes (standard size) I should get from a (standard size) cake pan? Is there something different about how the cakes rise in a muffin pan?
@Ashley: I've edited the question to be clearer. I'm not trying to get an exact count (obviously that varies, as you said), just a rough guess so I know if it'll fit in my cupcake pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.862769
| 2011-06-29T03:55:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15833",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Gordo",
"Hoppin Hard",
"Jasmine",
"Quesadilla",
"Sobachatina",
"WhatEvil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user33654"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17446
|
How can I make my own vinegar?
How can I turn excess wine into delicious wine vinegar at home? For those who have done it, are there any useful tips to get the best results?
I do not have access to any "mother of vinegar" starter culture, and am not likely to spend money on it; however, I DO have a well-stocked home kitchen and a lot of patience.
Edit: To be more specific about my questions
How long should it take to ferment, and when do I give up if it's not vinegary?
Do I need to add sugar/water for low-sweetness or high-alcohol wines?
How do I collect Mother of Vinegar for use in fresh batches?
With that many bullets, why not split this into multiple questions?
I could do that, but I think for now I'll cut some bullets out
My accidental vinegar just happened, and I have been able to propagate it by pouring the last few teaspoons from one bottle into the next (after drinking half of the next bottle).
It goes pretty slow using an open bottle (too little circulation) but it does go. I open the bottle every day or so and swish the contents around. It takes about 1 weak to even start smelling vinegary, and circa one month to really develop.
I've been sticking with the same variety of wine and not trying to diddle the sugar content.
I still have not developed a mat-like mother, but there does seem to be a culture there. I'm on the fourth generation now.
Although you can hope that the right bacteria will get from the air into a bottle of wine you left open, you will get quicker and more reliable results using unpasteurized cider vinegar. Unpasteurized means there should still be plenty of the needed acetobacter.
Pour your vinegar half and half with red wine in a container that you leave open (but with cheesecloth to prevent bugs and all to get inside) and let it sit in a dark spot 2-4 weeks.
Different sources recommend using solution with a 5-7% alcohol content, so any wine (typically ≤15%) diluted by half with vinegar should be fine.
The trick to making vinegar is the container. Place the wine in a plastic bottle and make a hole just above the wine (no sense in making a hole under the wine...). Make another hole opposite the first one, but on a higher level.
Place the container in a dry and dark spot and wait. When it smells like vinegar, you're done.
The trick with the holes creates a current that aerates the wine.
I've never done it myself, but an enologist told me.
Acetobacter are aerobic, and not a whole lot of stuff can live in a greater than 10% alcohol solution, so you might be able to get away with putting the wine into an open-mouthed container and letting it sit out for a few days, to get going. You might cover it with a cheesecloth to keep dust and mold out. Of course, there's no guarantee that you won't pick up some other bacteria or wild yeast in the process.
Some sour beers have an acetic character to them, but I just looked at the Wyeast and White Labs web sites, and neither of them sell straight Acetobacter.
Aren't there some vinegars that are sold still alive, with some mother culture in the bottle?
So, what would I do to wine that is 12-15% alcohol.... dilute it down or give it more time to ferment?
According to Wild Brews from Jeff Sparrow, Acetobacter's alcohol tolerance is ~18%, and it prefers a temperature range from 70-110F. You may be able to just set the wine out in a carafe or beaker with a cheesecloth over the top at room temperature for a few weeks.
So, if I dilute it down a little to accelerate fermentation, am I likely to get problems with other bacteria growing in there?
Maybe. pH may be an issue as well. The conventional wisdom regarding wild fermentation is that nothing that can really hurt you will live in the harsh environment in a wine or beer. Worst case, you'll make something that tastes bad. Try it and see what happens.
Bragg's apple cider vinegar says their mother of vinegar is not filtered out.
Wine becomes vinegar when in contact with oxygen. To speed up the process, if you are worried that bacterias would start growing, I would try to pour the wine in a larger ovenware and cover with a cloth. This should give result quicker than just leaving the wine in an open bottle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.863323
| 2011-09-03T16:54:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17446",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Erik Olson",
"Grr",
"Jeff Paquette",
"Miron Tewfik",
"baka",
"ckpwong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7305",
"iciclepro",
"jb.",
"k-l",
"rdt2",
"user207421",
"user2989297",
"user37499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15199
|
What foods *require* a food processor?
I've got an immersion blender, a normal blender, and will eventually be getting a stand mixer. Are there any foods I absolutely have to have a food processor to make, where I can't use one of those?
I know I can do purees and mixing with the stick blender, and supposedly pesto too... but I'm trying to figure out if I need to plan on buying a food processor long-term. Thanks!
This might sound like nitpicking, but how good are your blender and immersion blender? The answers to this question might be very different for someone who has, for example, a Vita-Mix and a Robot Coupe, vs. someone with the typical Cuisinart appliances.
The blender is a generic Hamilton Beech one -- cheap, and a far cry from a VitaMix, but it gets the job done. The immersion blender is the Cuisinart CSB-76BC SmartStick (200W) -- not as big or powerful as one of the monster restaurant models, but it had top reviews, and has plenty of oomph.
For starters, you'll almost certainly need a food processor for anything you need to mix dry, unless you've also got a heavy duty coffee grinder that you don't mind cleaning inside-out thoroughly and frequently. Conventional stationary blenders, at least in my experience, are terrible at this task, and immersion blenders aren't designed to be run dry (in fact, most of the good models come with stern warnings never to do this).
Examples of this are: Nut butters, fresh herb purées, meat purées, and homemade bread crumbs and flours. Pesto sauce also sounds like a long shot, but maybe there are customized recipes.
I've also never had any luck making cheese sauces, cheese dips, or other cheese preparations in a blender, and haven't had much better luck with my admittedly cheap stick blender. It's difficult enough with a food processor, but usually with them it's just a matter of scraping down the sides a few times. Whenever I've tried to make a manicotti filling, a mayonnaise-based tonnato sauce, a blue cheese dip or a goat cheese mousse with a blender, I've been totally unable to get a vortex going and have had to resort to the food processor to thin it out (after which I might transfer it back to the blender, but I usually don't bother).
It's an issue of viscosity, I think. Too viscous, and conventional/stick blenders are practically useless.
Now a lot of this might be possible with very high-end equipment. A Vita-Mix or Blendtec can blend just about anything, and usually comes with a tamper so you can force dry or viscous food down into the blades without risking life and limb. Also, some very high-end immersion blenders - and when I say "high end", I mean that they are labeled as "power mixers" rather than "immersion blenders" - can be run continuously and possibly even dry. But I would not want to try this on a consumer-grade stick.
I've also heard that you can do some of these things with a Magic Bullet. For those not familiar with the product or infomercials, it's basically a really tiny blender that you can pick up and shake around while it's running - ergo, much easier to do dry preparations. But the effort required is still much higher than that of a food processor.
I think that pretty much covers it. If you need to purée anything solid or even semi-solid, you'll likely regret not having a food processor.
It's possible to make pesto in a blender, but it might be easier in a food processor.
@Joe: I figured it would involve adding the oil early. I'm not sure if there's a good reason why all of the recipes I've tried involve processing the leaves, nuts, and cheese to a paste before adding the oil, but that is the usual order.
As you suspect, a vita-mix (from experience) can handle all of the cases you list.
Anything that you want to pulse, so you're not completely liquifying it like in a blender pretty much requires a food processor. Which conveniently, happen to be some of the things that Aaronut already mentioned:
bread crumbs
meat purées (or even a quick grind for making chili)
vegetables (when I'm making large batches of meatloaf, tomato sauce, etc.)
It works rather well for mixing some types of dough (pasta, brioche, pie crusts), which don't come out quite as well (in my opinion) in a stand mixer.
But for the 'can't live without it' feature of the food processor -- grating stuff up. Semi-firm cheese (eg, cheddar), carrots, potatoes, etc. Faster, and less potential injury than breaking out the box grater if you're doing any significant amounts.
+1 for grating. Also slicing (and kneading, although a good mixer can do that too, in theory). It's not worth getting a food processor that can't do all of those. (I'm partial to Braun's CombiMax / MultiQuick series.)
@Erik: Stand mixer with a paddle/dough hook is usually better than a processor for kneading. Slicing is a good one, although most stand mixers have slicer/grater attachments now.
@Aaronut : I singled out which doughs, specifically ... stand mixers are better for some types of dough, but not all. Specifically see Bittman's recipe for brioche in a food processor in How to Cook Everything ... the steel blade cuts the butter in, without overworking the dough. And the feed tube for my food processor is larger than any I've seen for any general home stand mixers. (I admit, I don't use it for slicing, though, just grating)
Good point about the feed tube size. I generally only use that for liquids, myself - I've got a tiny food processor so it's always been easier for me to just put any solids straight into the bowl. YMMV.
You might also give some thought to getting a mini food processor before a full size one. They are less expensive, of course, but they can also do some things a larger one can't. Specifically, they are much better at making small batches of things like pesto, chimichurri or chermoula. In a large food processor, a small batch of those things won't even reach the blades. I used this model for years with great success. (Now I bought a high end stick blender that also has a mini-food processor attachment. This kicks butt but you already have a stick blender.)
None. No food prep requires a food processor. It makes a number of things easier–but I haven't owned one (or needed one) in 20 years of home and restaurant cooking.
true ... although fresh breadcrumbs are a royal pain in the ass without one. (freezing the bread first helps, and then a really long time with a knife 'til you get down to the size you want). And there's a few other dishes that take too long with other tools (eg, anything pâté-like), that I'm just not willing to make them without a food processor.
I've always made breadcrumbs by hand (let them dry out, freeze, etc.), and it goes fairly quickly. Pâtés can be whipped by hand, and simplified with a meat grinder (or stick blender). Pestos can be made by hand or a stick blender. But, I enjoy doing most of these things by hand.
I am with Bruce on this one. Food processors are notorius for time-consuming clean up -- often you will exchange the time that you saved on food prep for time at the sink washing the various parts. Minimalists can get by with quick knife skills, and a good blender. (Note: to get chunky results from your blender: do the prep in small batches, and remove each amount as soon as it is partially blended -- just a few quick seconds at low speed is sufficient).
Cuisinart food processors (at least the two I have) are dishwasher safe [well, except motor, but duh]. That makes cleanup time almost nothing.
ahh, perhaps that's my issue. My minimalist tendencies (and a tiny historic house) have led me away from dishwashers. Good to know about Cuisinart's option.
None.
The food processor is something to have if you don't have a stick blender, grinder, mandoline, etc. It's a sporkish machine designed to do the jobs of 5 other tools, badly.
I just recently got rid of my food processor after acquiring a Preethi Food grinder. With that, a mandoline, an immersion blender, and a good box grater, I find I haven't used my FP in a year.
All that being said, FPs are bizarrely effective for pie crust, quick pizza crust and other low-gluten doughs. Personally, I prefer to make these by hand-mixing, but if you do a lot of pie, I could see keeping an FP around.
I drag my Cuisinart out mostly for grating and shredding. Coleslaw, for example, requires me to shred most of a cabbage, and two carrots. It takes just seconds with the food processor. A hand grater and a mandoline could probably cover a lot of this ground, but it would take longer. One thing's for sure: your blender isn't going to help you grate cheese or shred cabbage.
Some recipes for no-egg and/or non-dairy mayonnaise are very easy with a food processor with an emulsifying disk and very unreliable or difficult with other tools.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.863699
| 2011-06-01T23:39:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15199",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Bruce Alderson",
"BunnyKnitter",
"David K",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Kati",
"derobert",
"graham blackburn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16296
|
How can I get more flavorful jasmine rice?
I'm used to cooking basmati, which can stand on its own with just a few spices and a little butter. With jasmine rice, I come away disappointed; the rice never seems to bring anything to the dish, and generally comes off a little bland, even with fairly potent flavorings.
Is there some technique or trick specific to jasmine rice that I should be using? Are there particularly good flavor/ingredient combos for jasmine rice I can use?
Not sure how much rice you are making, but if making about 2 cups of rice, first heat 3 tablespoons of peanut oil over Medium High heat. Add the rice and toast it in the oil until it releases a nutty fragrance - about 1-2 minutes. Then I like to use Chicken stock (3 cups) to finish it off. Personal preference but I like to add scallions (green onions) and cilantro to the rice when it is done. Cooking it this way I have not noticed a tremendous taste difference from different brands of Jasmine Rice.
Toasting the rice helped considerably with flavor.
A few things come to mind:
Before cooking:
Cook the rice in coconut milk, maybe with a piece of ginger
or
Put a teaspoon or two of cumin seeds in the cooking water
After cooking:
Mix with fried scallions, ginger and mustard or cumin seeds
What I ended up doing, which worked well:
Toast rice before cooking until just a hint of golden brown appears, and a nutty smell is produced (as per allnet's and avinash's suggestions, which is why allnet's answer was accepted)
Add minced garlic and diced Roma tomato to rice just before toasting is done (for 2 cups dry rice, I used 3 cloves garlic, 1 medium Roma)
Add caramelized onions both before and after cooking rice. This is similar to the "fried onions" suggestion.
Add an additional diced tomato after rice is cooked
Finish flavor of cooked rice with rice wine vinegar, honey, and a touch of lime juice
My girlfriend called the final result the best of my cooking experiments, after chicken breaded with pakora batter. Thank you everyone that had suggestions!
I think toasting the rice made the biggest difference from previous versions. The rice released a very delicious flavor and smell. I could have used even more onion and garlic; although I thought the amount excessive based on the smell when cooking, the actual flavor was fairly mild afterward.
I will experiment with adding toasted cumin, mustard seeds, and ginger to my current result. Don't have good (read: homemade not crappy grocery store) stock or scallions to play with right now.
Try next time with oil (in Spain we use olive oil, idk if the combo with garlic and peanut oil is nice), not an excessive amount, put minced garlic and the salt you want to use for the rice. toast it. Add the rice and mix and toast it for some minutes! Then add the water! (depends on the rice: 1x3 or 1x2) and cook normally!
Jasmine is specific as it has high GI index. As for the flavor, it is a bit bland on top, but should have a floral fragrance, so it is perfect for Thai, Indonesian, Malay and other far east recipes where you have very strong sauces or tastes from the main dish (where basmati would be best for Indian and middle eastern dishes).
NOTE:
I would not call myself a cook, but my Thai friend, whom I would, used to use a mix of three types of rice, some for texture and some for taste (SEA dishes). Also, I must say that I got aware of subtleties in taste of rice only after few months of heavy rice diet.
Replace your rice water with stock.
Vegetarian/vegan? Use vegetable stock instead. Other liquids to intensify the flavor--rice wine, rice vinegar, soy sauce. I'm sure you could use the Western style wines/vinegars too, though I haven't tried with those specifically.
allnet's answers cover the rest of what I would say: basically toasting the rice and using herbs/spices.
Although I have not tried this with jasmine rice, I think you can try cooking it like the Indian pulao. In a tbsp or two of neutral vegetable oil fry 2-3 cloves, 1-2 inches of cinnamon, and 4-5 whole cardamom pods. When spices release their flavor, add jasmine rice soaked for roughly half hour and drained. Fry the rice for a couple of minutes and then cook it in water, as you would usually do. The aromatic spices will impart a nice flavor to the rice. Alternatively, you can also add star anise or fried onion.
This is more or less what I started out doing (basically the same recipe I use for basmati, minus the frying, and it is truly delicious... with basmati. It doesn't seem to work as well for jasmine rice, which is what prompted the question.
In my experience, it at least partly depends on where you buy your jasmine rice. If you buy it at a large American grocery store chain, you'll get something bland. I don't know where they get it or what they do to it, but it has no smell or flavor. If you buy it at a small Asian grocery, it will taste and smell very good, and complement the dishes you serve it with.
I always buy my rice at a local Asian grocery, so I know this is not the problem. Do people really buy bulk specialty rice from normal grocery stores? It's like 2x or 3x the price for poor quality.
I see it at the chain grocery store, so someone must be buying it. I agree, I don't know why.
Tilda Rice & Spice guide suggests jasmine rise teams perfectly with ginger, lemongrass, galangal, lime, green chilli and kaffir lime leaves. So maybe try ginger instead of star anise, which is a better match for basmati.
This seems to be a cultural issue. I live in Indonesia and most here rice is related to jasmine in GI, but is I guess a less flavoursome cheaper strain. The texture and bland flavour is familiar and is a conduit for curries, sauces, and for frying in rice itself. The rice I could only describe as bland. In other countries I'd buy Jasmine rice, which is more aromatic than what we get here. Since the rice is simply cooked plain with only water, no salt or oil or anything at all, references to basmati 'standing on its own with just a few spices and butter' are a little bizarre to me. The rice isn't supposed to stand on its own. You put things on it - a curry sauce might be strongly flavoured on its own but when mixed with rice it softens it and the bland and the strong balance out.
From what I can see the main advantage of jasmine over cheaper strains is that it has a pleasant aroma, but if you cook it with a bunch of aromatics it's less likely that you'd notice this.
If you only ever eat rice as 'pilau rice', 'egg fried rice' and so on, and never have it plain then it might be that jasmine rice is not worth it for you.
I dislike basmati because I am used to eating steamed, high GI rice, and I just cook rice in a rice cooker plain, and basmati is not particularly well suited to that.
Also I'd mention that people here eat 200kg of rice a year, three times a day, and the purpose originally is as a source of carbs (fuel) for people working. Actually my dogs eat rice too, and if you have a daily requirement of 2500 calories or whatever, then rice immediately fills over half than that, providing carb, calories and a little protein as well, so you know that your family gets through a 50kg bag every couple of weeks or whatever, it's a significant thing in a family budget given that the price is fixed by the government.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.864346
| 2011-07-21T06:10:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16296",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brian Mansfield",
"Liz",
"M.K",
"Oliviakuba",
"TV Mohini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"muued",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"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
}
|
19533
|
What is the easiest way to measure bread's rising?
How can I easily measure the volume of my bread as it rises? I usually eyeball it or test for feel, but this isn't very accurate, and definitely isn't getting the full rising potential out of it.
Proofing buckets seem like one possibility, but I don't want to buy a large uni-task kitchen item if possible. I'm also not sure what volumes to expect from a pound of dough.
Are you wanting to measure how much the dough is rising, or how big the resulting loaf is (which includes oven spring during baking)?
@jontyc: I'm just looking to measure rising. My oven spring is excellent, and I can eyeball that well enough.
Do you have a large plastic container? Something like this:
.
Use a non-permanent marker on the outside to mark the initial volume.
A small diameter will make it easier to monitor the volume.
Instead of a marker, you can also use a rubber band to mark the starting and / or goal volume.
@Aaronut: Most plastics won't survive the oven, but why would you put that in the oven‽ Unclear why you'd ever do that with a bulk fermentation bucket.
It's a good idea, but I don't have any Cambros or anything nearly that big. My largest plastic container is a quart or two. Is there a way to work around that?
Masking tape works too. And Bob, consider buying one of the plastic bins. They seem to rise better than other containers do.
You can use a transparent glass bowl (which doubles as a mixing bowl, so is not a uni-tasker), but since the sides aren't straight you'll have to create a scale for it.
Attach a piece of tape to the side (in such as way that you can detach the tape and put it back in the same place—e.g., very top of tape is very top of bowl) Pour in a measured amount of water (say, 2 cups). Mark the level on the tape. Add more water (another two cups). Mark it. Repeat as high as you'd like. You'll notice the lines get closer the higher you go. You now have a guide you can use to measure rising in the bowl, despite it having angled sides. If your dough comes to 3 lines, its doubled at 6.
You can remove the tape before washing, and put it back on afterwards. You can duplicate your piece by measuring the distance to each line on a ruler (with the tape lying flat on a surface), and then prepare a new piece of tape with the same measurements.
A sharpie might stay on the bowl for a bit, but personally I run my mixing bowls through the dishwasher, and I doubt marker would survive that.
Alternatively, if you have large ones, you can use glass liquid measures (you'd want one at least 2L, I'd think)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.864910
| 2011-12-09T16:31:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19533",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cassandra Lee",
"FuzzyChef",
"Heidi Pastores",
"KatieK",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15709
|
What is this French cuisine technique called, where "a piece of pheasant meat is cooked between two slices of veal, which are then discarded?"
A famed physicist Murray Gell-Mann compared a theoretical machinery in high energy physics theory to a technique in French cuisine, which he described thus:
... a method sometimes employed in French cuisine: a piece of pheasant meat is cooked between two slices of veal, which are then discarded
This phrase is very often quoted in the high-energy physics literature. You can for example read the Nobel lecture by David Gross (a laureate in 2004) here, in which he quotes this sentence.
I always wondered how this particular piece of French cuisine would taste, but I could never order it in French restaurants so far because I don't even know how this is called!
So please, good people at cooking.stackexchange, inform me how it is called and how it tastes!
I saw that technique once on TV. I think Lord Byron used it. However, I can't find it anywhere (in 5').
To Yuji's point, it had better taste good. Meat "wastage" is as serious a crime as beer spillage
I am quite sure that it 1. doesn't have a name, and 2. is obsolete.
I read of this technique in a book on traditional English cooking (turns out that it was very similar to French cooking some centuries ago). Back then, meat was always roasted over an open fire. The fire is a hot and uneven source of heat, and they always had huge pieces of meat in a castle kitchen, so it was normal for the inside of the roast to be underdone, while the outside was practically ruined. So they used the good and tried technique of wrapping the roast, cooking for longer time than it would have been possible with unwrapped meat (which helped the raw core), then discarding the ruined wrapper. As the most plentiful ingredient in a noble's kitchen used to be meat (at least in England - maybe the French got the recipe for them despite the better availability of vegetables?) it was just a convenient tool to do the job.
Nowadays, we don't need to do this. A modern oven roasts much better. There are other, cheaper wrapper materials available for whoever wants to use one. I guess that some chefs may be reviving it because it sounds so unusual, it is guaranteed to attract attention. It could be worth eating, but frankly, if I wanted to know how pheasant cooked together with veal tastes, I would choose a recipe which doesn't discard the veal.
As for the name: The book I am referring to ("The cookery of England" by Elisabeth Ayrton) is based on very good research. The author publishes medieval recipes from manuscripts verbatim, etc. She also explains many points, gives some historical background, etc. I am 99% sure that if there was a special name for this technique, she would have known it and mentioned it at the point she describes the practice. For example, she explains "frothing" (pouring batter over the almost cooked joint) in the same paragraph she referrs to wrapping.
Wow- awesome answer @rumtscho.
Thanks, that's a wonderful answer. I would get that book and read it, that sounds like a truly interesting book, too! But your answer is a little disappointing: I thought that the French are so subtle that they want to give a hint of flavor of veal to the pheasant meant that they employ this technique. But you say it's because of a more mundane reasoning of roasting the core nicely...
A lot of techniques like this date back to the Crusades -that's how the Europeans learned how to make pies and pasties - and I would bet that the technique does have a name - in Arabic!
You know, I'm not sure if there's a more specific term, but I think this is an example of barding meat. In this case it's with veal, rather than the more normal pork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.865138
| 2011-06-23T07:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15709",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Dom",
"Gabriel Sanders",
"James Barrie",
"Noralie",
"Ramey Subba",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Sobachatina",
"Tiff",
"Yuji",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6570"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16174
|
What are the nutritional data for water kefir?
What are the nutritional data for (strained) water kefir, compared to the starting sugar water?
I would expect there to be less carbohydrates and more vitamins, but haven't the foggiest idea what the actual numbers are.
Bounty: I'm offering a sizable bounty for the best answer. Taste Five's answer gives good theory for what nutrients will change, but I am really after numbers. Answers will be ranked from low to high like so:
Lowest: list of nutrients that increase, no idea as to amount
Lists nutrient changes, rough amounts, and cites a source or sources
Sample nutrition data for one batch, with source listed
Formula for conversion of sugar to other nutrients (I.E. each gram of sugar metabolized turns into X, Y, and Z). Will need a source probably.
I know precise figures will vary from batch to batch with temperature and degree of fermentation; this is understood, and I will accept answers specifying a range of values or just values for one batch or set of kefir grains.
Are you looking for just the unflavored water? i.e. just the plain fermented water.
Yes, just kefir brewed with sugar and water. Or even better, a formula for what the fermentation does to the sugar, in terms of changes in nutrients.
I would be interested in this as well. As I tried to research it a while ago and found a lot of contradicting information about it. Mainly there was no really study that could conclude the probiotics from kefir did anything to aide in digestion(stating not all probiotics are created equal). All I was able to find at the time was kefir eats the sugar and releases alcohol, lactic acid (might just be when using milk), folic acid, and carbon dioxed.
BobMcGee if you already have your water kefir grains grains can you share where you got them.
@Taste Five: I got them off some woman selling on Craigslist. Also, the evidence I found suggested that milk kefir was fairly strongly antimutagenic and the probiotics actually useful for digestion... but there was a lack of similar evidence for water kefir/tibicos.
BobMcGee Cool, I'll have to check craigslist out. Thanks. Been looking for more info but haven't found any.
Well, the only thing I can offer as an answer at this point would be to use a hydrometer. Measure the specific density before and after. You could then be able to tell how much in sugars you have left.
I can't really think of any good way to tell what bacteria and yeasts will remain in your strained water kefir. I know there has to be some since it will continue to ferment. There really should be some sort of rough guideline that can tell you about how high your probiotic count is based on time or the change in specific density.
I asked a yogurt maker at the store (were I work the cooking school) and he said it would be to hard to work out as it depends on how good your cultures are and so on. Each batch could be so different. He said it likely that your talking a probiotic count in millions-billions per cup and you would have to have each batch tested individually. Which yogurt makers don't really do. Yogurt is not kefir but it is similar so it should be close if not more.
As far as other vitamins and nutrients. You should see some B and C vitamins from the folic and acorbate acids. You can increase the folic acid (B vitamins) by fermenting for longer periods of time but then you will also produce more acetic acid (vinegar). You should be able to get more acorbate acid from more sugar and/or fruit but if you add a lot more you may need to add more kefir grain so it doesn't have to ferment to long(and have a risk of acetic acid again). It seems that this would likely produce more ethanol as well so you would have a slightly higher alcohol content (i have seen some people say they have gotten close to 2% alcohol by volume, but I think most recipes give you in the .2-.5% range).
Any other nutrients seem to have to come from the water (like a mineral water), the sugar (raw sugars tend to have more trace minerals), and the dried fruit.
On a side note, aside from the complex carbohydrate in the sugar, kefir is going to need calcium, magnesium, and potassium to continue to thrive. I remember talking to someone a few years ago that said they let there grains ferment/breed in a mixture of eggshells, raisins and some other things I don't remember now and again to get the grains back into tip top shape. But she also sold the grains so I don't know how needed doing that actually is.
Not sure you will find this to be useful, as I think you might have been looking for something more concrete. And the only DIY test I could find was for vitamin C and it wouldn't even tell you how much, you could just run a comparison before and after and see if it is more. It just seems like there are to many variables involved and not many people seem to do just straight sugar water. Hopefully maybe this will be useful to other people reading the question for at least a starting point on possible adjustments they can make.
Hydrometers are rather imprecise. They are usable when determining if home-made brandy is closer to 40° or to 50°; in kefir, the total ethanol content is probably less than the margin of error of the device.
I should be good enough to come up with a fairly decent specific gravity reading(not specific density as I said before). Say you were able to measure that you fermentation lower the specific gravity by 50%. If there was a study done that then turned out a formula for figuring out how much of a certain thing was made based on that you should get a vague idea. I agree though as far as alcohol it would probaly do no good seeing as most kefir would probably be less than .5% by volume. so whatever formula did exsist probably wouldn't tell you much.
@Taste Five: Hope you won't be offended that I'm offering up a bounty on this one; you've got a serious head start, I'm just seeking more numbers and sources in the answer. A little editing and you might find yourself with double the reputation.
There was an NIMH studying exactly this. There are two caveats to this answer. First, it is behind a paywall. Second, every water kefir culture is different and even the same culture will have different balances depending on geographic location, temperature, light, pressure, humidity, and on and on.
This study claims the primary product of fermentation is ethyl alcohol. However, another study (I can't find it right now) claimed alcohol was only produced during the anaerobic stage in the capped bottle and primarily lactic and acetic acid were produced during primary, aerobic fermentation. My guess is the varying results are an artifact of my point two above, namely the variance of kefir based on environmental factors.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/fml/2013/00000348/00000001/art00011?token=005a1b9d13954808fd66720297d76345f70234a595f73385935316d3f6a4b6e4e395e4e6b6331a34e2153d4145
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.865561
| 2011-07-15T18:16:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16174",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chef Tom",
"Dilbert Doe",
"Nathan Crisp",
"Poisontonomes",
"Shou",
"Toni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"rumtscho",
"srslysic"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15923
|
Why do frozen greens get fibrous and tough in the microwave?
When I microwave frozen spinach or amaranth greens to cook them, they sometimes get tough and fibrous. There doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern in when this happens, so I can't figure out how to avoid it.
So I ask you: why do frozen greens get tough and fibrous when cooked in the microwave, and how can I avoid it?
Are you sure that they get tough? Tough, fibrous veggies have lots of celulose. I don't see how your microwave can create additional celulose. I'd say that you either have batches of different quality, something consisting of older, fibrous plants, or sometimes undercook them (even with the same setting, depth of heaping or different plant water content can lead to different cooking times needed).
While I'm not certain that it's not from variation in the quality of the product, frozen vegetables are usually quite consistent. I've never seen problems when heating in any other way. Obviously it's not creating new cellulose, but something in the process must be drying it out / toughening it up or causing other components to become tough. Anyone have specific ideas?
Microwave ovens cook primarily by spinning water molecules. Frozen water is less susceptible to this affect. I would guess that with certain vegetables, as frozen water turns to a liquid, it is quickly heated to the point that it boils and evaporates. The heating is less even than cooking frozen vegetables in a pot and leads to areas that are somewhat dehydrated and fibrous.
Try cooking your frozen vegetables in a container with a lose cover and additional water. This will allow them to cook or steam from the the outside in much like in a pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
This makes perfect sense, and certainly explains why the texture is so unique and uniquely vile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.866085
| 2011-07-03T20:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15923",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Isaac Kotlicky",
"Mark E",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25110
|
Soaking liver in milk: in or out of the fridge?
When soaking pork liver in milk for 2 hours, should I place it in the fridge or at room temperature? I'm worried it might go bad, as my room is pretty hot in the summer...
What reason would you have for not soaking it in the fridge?
Yes, you can safely soak it at room temperature, but why would you? There's no reason not to refrigerate.
Meat is safe for about 2 hours in the temperature danger zone of 40F/4C to 140F/60C. Beyond that, it should be cooked or refrigerated. So, if you do decide to soak at room temperature you should cook or chill it promptly.
Well, I thought the process is slowed when cooled.
@drozzy Yes, it may be slightly slower, but you can safely soak overnight in the fridge, which lets the process proceed further.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.866264
| 2012-07-18T14:12:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25110",
"authors": [
"Andriy Drozdyuk",
"Anmol Singh Jaggi",
"Antwnis Antwnakis",
"BobMcGee",
"Carol White",
"Kozanayi Aggripa",
"Teresa Mackey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9471",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16579
|
How to set yogurt so that it doesn't get watery?
The yogurt which I purchase from the market looks too perfect and intact. Is there some special trick which prevents the home made yogurt from getting watery?
Aye. It's called, "chemicals"
Yeah, dangerous stuff like rennet, vinegar, and salt
Making paneer? If so, pressing and squeezing tightly in cheesecloth will force the curd together into a more homogeneous whole.
@BobMcGee No, making curd only. :doh: Perhaps I framed the question wrong. Here I am talking of yogurt not curd! I didn't know the exact difference between the English terms yogurt and curd. :(
@Anisha Kaul: Yes, I think it is a language difference here. Curds are the little lumps that form when you add acid to milk or yogurt. When you talk about "making curds", generally it is assumed you're discarding the whey (the greenish liquid that separates from the curds). In this case, the curds are usually used for cheese-making. With yogurt, kefir, or villi (or other cultured milk products) we talk about culturing it; it is not described as "making curds", since a smooth, even consistency is preferred to grainy, chewy curds.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2243/what-is-the-difference-between-yoghurt-and-curd
Many of the commercial yoghurts use stabilizers like pectin to prevent the yoghurt from separating during transport. All fruits naturally contain pectin (some more than others), so one option, if you are making your own yoghurt at home, is to add some fruit to it. Here in the US, supermarkets carry small bags of dry pectin powder; if you can get some of that, you could try adding it to your yoghurt.
Another option is to initially heat your milk to 85°C for a half hour before cooling it and adding your yoghurt starter. This heating serves two purposes: (1) it gets rid of some of the excess moisture through evaporation, and (2) the heating will denature (i.e., stretch out and relax) some of the milk's proteins. Denatured proteins will be able retain more of the liquid that is in the final product.
Finally, you can add powdered milk to the mix (about 125ml of powdered milk per liter of milk). Powdered milk is basically just milk protein, so the added protein will help contain some of the final liquid.
The type of milk, the milk fat content, the heat, the type of acid or rennet you use all have an effect on how the curds form
Two things to try are:
Better draining of the whey, use fine paper liner on the sieve, and replace a few times
Re-cooking, after the initial setting using acid or rennet (up to four hours) salt and then re-cook the curds on a low heat for a little while to encourage whey loss. If you over cook them now you will have tough or stringy curds, interesting but not good
Some commercially packaged cottage cheese has carrageen, locust bean gum or similar added to make the casein/whey slurry a bit thicker
Commercial cottage cheese is usually made with cultures and rennet, and not acid. They also have a higher fat content than normal cows milk would have, i.e. they have added extra cream to the milk
Perhaps I wrote the question wrong, sorry, see edit.
Yep, curds is cheese making, now we are on yoghurt? Accurate temperature control and is the key to smooth yoghurt
Yes, but that's not a complete answer. ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.866381
| 2011-08-02T05:52:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16579",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Bojack",
"Cryst",
"Debbie M.",
"Lost",
"Rebecca",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user35355",
"user35370",
"yzhernand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17423
|
Why do you put celery in a bloody mary?
Why do you put celery in a bloody mary? Is there a chemical reason for this or is it done just for garnish?
You know I always wondered why it was used. Always just figured it was something to chew on so you dont' get drunk as fast.
Because tomato sauce and vodka together does not taste terrible enough.
It's meant to be munched on between sips, and permits a "reset" - the cocktail will be fresh upon the tongue the sip after the bite, permitting you to enjoy its flavor and consistency without being oppressed by the cumulative effect of unctuous, spice and salt that is the hallmark of the beverage.
Celery is an astringent and an aromatic - it will cut through the palate-coating tomato juice can leave behind, cool the intensity of the salt and heat, and will interrupt the soup-like consistency with a firm crunch. It's often included in tuna and chicken salad and served with hot wings for the same reason. Other vegetables that tickle our sense of "bitter" in a pleasing way may be similarly substituted - but celery also acts as a handy swizzle stick.
There is no chemical reaction that happens. It is mainly a garnish. You might get a tiny bit of celery flavor in the drink from the celery, but I think this is negligible given the other strong flavors in a bloody mary. If you want a celery flavor, add celery salt.
the celery help cleans the taste in your mouth ..helping every sip of your ceaser taste delicious
I've always seen it done as a garnish, and only a few places anymore will keep fresh celery around just for one drink, so it's becoming that much rarer.
To be fair, there are a lot of ways to make a Bloody Mary. A good barman will ask their patron how they like theirs. The two requisites that make it a Bloody Mary are the vodka and the tomato juice, and then a source of salt and sour are typically also considered must-haves, but exactly how you get those in the drink are up to you. Beyond that, any and all of the following are commonly added or omitted based on drinker's preference:
Clam juice (traditionally a must-have, and a good source of salt, but the name is off-putting in many regions, especially outside New England)
Pickle juice (for those further inland, this is typically a little more palatable than clam juice to add salt, and also a sour note)
Olive juice (same idea as pickle juice)
Jalapeno brine (same but adds a spicier kick)
Lemon juice
Lime juice
Sweet & Sour mix
Worstershire sauce (yes please; most don't consider it a BM without this)
Tabasco/hot sauce (ditto)
Balsamic vinegar
Kosher salt (some will put it in the drink, others will salt the rim)
Cracked pepper
Chili powder (same idea as Tabasco; works best when mixed with the tomato juice ahead of time)
Sriracha, wasabi, etc (exotic forms of spicy)
Beer (traditionally a chaser, now it's just as often added directly to the drink)
Ginger (Heard of it, never tried it; the theory is that since a BM is supposed to settle the stomach after a wild night, the ginger furthers that goal. Also a spicy note)
That's just what goes in the drink. I have seen or heard of all of the following being used as garnish, most of them skewered:
Celery (traditional)
Olives (modern cop-out)
Dill spear or whole dill pickle (common in the Midwest)
Gherkins/sweet pickles
Asparagus
Cocktail onions
Cherry tomatoes
Lemon wedge/slice
Jalapenos (fresh or pickled, whole or slices; obviously common in the Southwest)
Pepperoncini peppers
Artichoke hearts
Pepperoni
Salami
Bacon
Ham (we making a drink or a sandwich here?)
Slim Jim/beef jerky
Cheese (various varieties from cubes of pepperjack to string cheese)
Shrimp
Tater Tots
Onion Ring
Hard boiled egg (say what?)
Spare rib
Brisket slice (ok, now it's a combo meal)
Buffalo wing
Bacon cheeseburger (yes, an entire bacon cheeseburger on a skewer)
... and of course, someone just had to put them all in one drink:
There are a lot of non-celery options here, but I am not sure I saw a reason why celery?
The celery stick garnish became a staple of the Bloody Mary only after an impatient patron at Chicago’s Pump Room couldn’t wait for his server to bring him a swizzle stick. He took matters into his own hands and snatched a celery stalk from a nearby relish tray.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.866694
| 2011-09-02T19:22:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17423",
"authors": [
"Daniel W. Farlow",
"Guangdong Spam Technology Co",
"Johnny",
"Neil Meyer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandy",
"canadiancreed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5438",
"nabilh",
"steve"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26019
|
Concentrated Yerba Mate
I love yerba mate, I drink A LOT, and I would like to bring some with me backpacking. Do you think I might save a few ounces to carry if I brewed my mate beforehand, concentrated it into a thick goo and then took that with me backpacking?
How would I do that? Just simmer it for a few days? That seems like not the best idea...
Also, is there any online retailer where I can find such a product for purchase?
I have a feeling that you're going to be much better off with loose leaf tea here. Teavana claims that their mate tea is good for 25-30 t/2ozs or ~15 cups. Considering that you can brew it 2-3 times, you can get 30-45 cups of tea from 2oz of dry tea.
Condensing a Mate into a syrup you'd need to be able to concentrate it to the point of 1 oz making 45 cups of tea in order to get even an ounce of weight savings. That means that you'd have to condense ~300oz of liquid tea into a single ounce.
You could do that, but it would not save much weight and will be perishable. The concentrate will have enough water to spoil. If you want to take this course still, prepare a concentrate by using about 4x as much mate and steeping somewhat longer. You can reduce it over low heat, but probably not enough to get a sludge without hurting the flavor.
If you're concerned about weight, I suggest light equipment. 50g of mate will make you about 15+ cups of it. To steep it, I suggest getting a very light tea infuser, either a basic basket or cup with built-in infuser. This way you can enjoy fresh yerba mate.
An alternative exists: simply buying ready-made instant yerba mate. It looks like this:
As you can probably see, it's a fine powder, a teaspoon's worth is about equivalent to a fresh gourd fill - so, it's quite efficient for when you're on the go.
Do note that:
the powder is indeed fine and very sticky, so you have to take care when preparing your brew (e.g. when backpacking, shield yourself from the wind). Otherwise, it might get everywhere.
the taste is somewhat different from "real" yerba mate (I would say not as good, but passable).
the powdered form contains a quite substantial amount of caffeine per teaspoon (about comparable to a typical energy drink can). While nearly not as dangerous as pure, powdered caffeine, you should still be mindful of the dosage.
As a bonus, after you're done backpacking, a small amount blends surprisingly well with vodka (but recall the caffeine dosage note above)!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.867047
| 2012-09-06T18:40:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26019",
"authors": [
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151460"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16210
|
Why do my egg whites separate after whipping?
Every time I try to whip egg whites, I seem to end up with the same problem. After a good bit of strenuous beating with the whisk, the egg whites finally reach the "firm peak" stage. I then go grab something (last night, it was the chili peppers to coat in egg), and right away the egg has separated into fluffy white peaks on top, and liquid on the bottom.
What's going on? Is there a trick to keeping the egg white a uniform texture?
This is the nature of meringue: they will start to fall apart as soon as you stop whipping. There are a few tricks to help it hold longer, but in general you want to have EVERYTHING ready to go as soon as the meringue is whipped.
To help stabilize the meringue you can:
Use a copper or SILVER-plated bowl to whip, or add a tiny amount of powdered copper supplement from a health food store
Acidify it slightly: add 1/8 tsp cream of tartar or 1/2 tsp lemon juice per white, before beating
Let the bowl warm to room temperature, which increases the ability of the whites to take in air
Ensure there is absolutely no yolk in with the whites. The fat greatly destabilizes the foam.
Now for WHY these tricks work:
I'm going to quote heavily from Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking", as it does a wonderful job explaining meringues and other whipped egg whites:
Like the head on a beer or a cappucino, an egg foam is a liquid--the
white--filled with a gas --air-- in such a way that the mixuture of
liquid and gas keeps its shape, like a solid. It's a mass of
bubbles, with air inside each bubble, and the white spread out into a
thin film to form the bubble walls. And the makeup of these liquid
walls determines how long a foam can stand up. Pure water has such a
strong surface tension--such strong attractive forces among its
molecules--that it immediately starts to pull itself together into a
compact puddle; and it's so runny that it puddles almost immediately.
The many nonwater molecules in egg white both reduce the surface
tension of the water they float in, and make it less runny, and thus
allow the bubbles to survive long enough to accumulate in a sizeable
mass. What gives the mass of foam a useful kitchen lifetime is the
white's team of proteins.
Whisking unfolds these proteins, primarily globulins and ovotranferrin, which bond to each other and stabilize the bubble walls. Cooking will evaporate the water and unfold ovoalbumin, creating a rigid and permanent protein network.
However, the same proteins can ALSO destabilize the foam if they bond too tightly. "The protein network begins to collapse when too many of these bonds accumulate and the proteins cluster together too tightly" (page 102). In the case of egg proteins, one of the strongest bonds is a disulfide bond between the sulfur-containing amino acids, cysteine and methionine. Eggs contain copious quantities of these amino acids, which are why they produce such a potent stench when they spoil; the sulfur is converted to malodorous sulfur compounds, particularly hydrogen sulfide.
Copper, silver, and acids stabilize the egg foam by preventing the formation of these disulfide bonds. To quote Harold McGee (page 103):
It turns out that along with a few other metals, copper has the useful
tendency to form extremely tight bonds with reactive sulfur groups: so
tight that the sulfur is essentially preventing from reacting with
anything else. So the presence of copper in foaming eggs whites
essentially eliminates the strongest kind of protein bond that can
form, and makes it harder for the proteins to embrace each other too
tightly.
McGee also notes that silver has the same property of inhibiting disulfide bonding. Acid achieves the same goal of reducing disulfide bonding, but works slightly differently:
The sulfur bonds form when the sulfur-hydrogen (S-H) groups on two
different protein molecules shed their hydrogens and form a
sulfur-sulfur (S-S) connection with each other. The addition of an
acid boosts the number of free-floating hydrogen (H) ions in the egg
white, which makes it much harder for the S-H groups to shed their own
H, and so slows the sulfur bonding down to a crawl.
Hard to say what's going on exactly, but there are a few things you can do.
Add a pinch of salt before whisking.
Have the whites and the bowl cold.
You can even put the bowl in a cold bain marie.
Use a very clean metal bowl (grease will interfere).
That's about it.
I always use a glass bowl to whip, that way you can see what's happening at the bottom.
As long as it's not plastic.
Same thing happens to me every time when making sponge cake! it helps if your egg whites are at room temperature instead of cold.
We were making a topping for muffins wth egg whites agave & cream of tarter. It separated out before the muffins were cooled enough for icing. I thought to cook in a double boiler while beating with an electric mixer to form peeks. Like a 7 min. Icing. MED. LO heat . Worked fine!! Remained stable in the frig for days! And I did not need to be concerned about the safety of keeping raw eggs fresh.
Don't over whisk the egg whites.
I won't delete the answer despite a flag, because it does address the issue in a way. However, I consider it to be a very poor answer, because 1) it doesn't really give an explanation (the OP explicitely asked why it is happening), and 2) doesn't add anything to the existing answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.867257
| 2011-07-17T04:11:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16210",
"authors": [
"Bacawind",
"BaffledCook",
"Chima",
"Connie Cramer",
"Karen Mascavage",
"Luaan",
"Rincewind42",
"SD Wright",
"TRayburn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"mounir",
"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
}
|
15893
|
How can I make use of an underripe mango
I bought a mango this morning that seemed to be ripe; at least it was the ripest of the bunch. I'm somewhat acquainted with picking out red/green mangoes, but this was my first exposure to yellow mangoes, and I apparently chose poorly.
After slicing up the whole thing, I realized my mistake, and as it is, the fruit is so sour it is inedible.
If it were a lesser fruit (say, a nectarine), I might just toss it, but I'm trying to be resourceful, and mangoes are not inexpensive around here, so I'd like to make use of it. What uses are there for an underripe mango? I thought of simmering it with milk and a little sugar, but I can only guess as to how how things would turn out.
If you simmer milk with acid, the milk will curdle. I wouldn't go this way.
If you insist on a sweet application, you have to add sugar (or another sweetener) to the mango. A sweet taste will cover acidity perfectly. You can either cook it with sugar syrup, or macerate it. After that, pureeing is probably best, because you want to avoid hard sour pieces in sweet sauce. From then on, your fantasy is the limit. Jam (maybe in combination with another fruit - how about that nectarine and some Grand Marnier?), sorbet, candy, yogurt-based smoothie, jello in molds or as a cake layer, mixing with cheese to create a spread or a mango cheesecake - everything is possible. The taste, however, will be less than optimal, because unripe fruit is not only sour, it doesn't have yet its full aroma. Still, it will work - not as well as a ripe mango, but it will be OK.
Sweet isn't the only option. The classic use for an unripe mango is to put its sourness to good use and prepare a mango chutney. Again, you can stay traditional and make it pure, or experiment with additional fruit and spice combinations. Then use the chutney as a dip or sauce in savory dishes.
I ended up making a mango and onion chutney, and it was quite tasty. Out of curiosity, I dropped a small chunk of the fruit into a little milk, and the whole volume curdled in seconds. I feel silly for not even thinking of the milk+acid combination being an issue.
If you have a WHOLE, UNCUT green mango, you can ripen it on the counter. To speed this process, the mango may be place in a paper or partially-sealed plastic bag; this will help retain the ethylene gas fruits emit, which speeds ripening.
Once cut, you'll have to put your mango to use. Fortunately, green mangoes are a prized part of Southeast-Asian cooking, where their tartness is used to add tang to savory dishes! In this use, green mangoes are often combined with salt, chili peppers, sometimes lime juice, and sometimes soy or fish sauces. Coconut milk is another common flavor combination, for example coconut rice topped with green mango preserves.
In particular, Thai cuisine makes an extensive use of green mangoes. For an example, look at this green mango salad recipe. In India, they may be sliced and topped with salt and lime juice, or pickled, or incorporated into a delicious green mango chutney. Indians also grind dried green mango into amchur, a sour powder used in curries and other dishes.
Central American cuisine also includes green mangoes, and they serve it sliced with salt, vinegar, pepper, and hot sauce. Topping with toasted pumpkin seeds is also common.
:Edit:
The one common thread here is that green mangoes are generally used in savory, not sweet dishes. This is because the flavor of under-ripe mango is quite different from that of ripe ones. This different flavor works best with salty and spicy combinations, with (brown) sugar as a secondary, background note, not as a dominant flavor. I would particularly discourage combining green mango with milk, unless you want the acid to curdle it into curds and whey.
Would the fruit not decompose since it's already been sliced?
Yes, it would. Let me make it clearer that I'm talking about whole, uncut mangoes... once cut, you'll have to use it in one of the other ways. Personally, slicing with salt, lime juice, and chili powder sounds quite appealing to me. Answer edited to be clearer.
I'd be making an Indian mango chutney as BobMcGee listed on the second paragraph. Don't need to wait for it ripening.
I vote for the Thai mango salad or Indian mango pickle.. :)
In India raw mango is used to make a delicious one-of-kind spicy, savory cold drink, with just enough sweet. It’s called ‘panna’. In a variant of it the same is made with the pulp of a roasted/burnt green mango. You can search online for the recipes.
1) IF you are into curry, you can make a sweetened mango curry which tastes amazing with Parathas (Indian pan fried bread) or even Roti for that matter.
http://foodviva.com/chutney-raita-recipes/aam-ki-launji/
2) IF you are into thai food, make a mango salad: http://www.rakskitchen.net/2015/03/thai-green-mango-salad-recipe-vegetarian.html
3) Chop it and freeze it. Buy some good ripe sweet mangoes - then mix the ripe ones with raw one to make a mango milk shake. Add sugar to cover for the raw one's sourness.
If your mango is green and still yet hard, take the skin off, cut out the seed and cut into bite size pieces. In a bowl, mix 1/4 cup soy sauce (aloha Shoyu works for me), 1/4 cup white sugar, and 1/4 cup white distilled vinegar. Mix that around a bit. Place mango in bowl and have a taste. This is what you call pickled mango. Something like li hing Mui but I believe better. Try it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.867840
| 2011-07-02T17:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15893",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Diego Tinoco",
"Ray",
"Rincewind42",
"hoof_hearted",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"jose rodrigues",
"notthetup",
"user33815"
],
"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
}
|
15760
|
Curry powder mix
I mostly make curry from scratch. However some recipes (kedgeree)call for using curry powder. I can never get the mix right.
Is there a standard spice mix substitution?
There isn't a standard substitution for curry powder; all the blends are subtly different, and may or may not include any of a dozen or so spices.
The standard grocery store curry powders all have turmeric, coriander, and cumin in large amounts, and a smaller amount of cayenne or red pepper. Beyond that, they may include varying amounts of cardamom, mustard seed, fenugreek, asafoetida, caraway, cinnamon, nutmeg, garlic powder, ginger, black pepper, or clove. How almost all of them manage to taste like pallid imitations of real Indian curry blends is anyone's guess.
I know recipes are frowned on here, but in this case I think it may elucidate things. Alton Brown provides a recipe which will probably get you a good ballpark result:
2 tablespoons whole cumin seeds, toasted
2 tablespoons whole cardamom seeds, toasted
2 tablespoons whole coriander seeds, toasted
1/4 cup ground turmeric
1 tablespoon dry mustard
1 teaspoon cayenne
Either store together and grind before use (whole seeds store longer), or grind it up into a powder and store that way.
From that base recipe you'll have to tinker with all of the additional spices to get your own substitution.
this worked well. Not quite the same, but that could be put down to freshly ground ingredients. I think it was cardamon seeds which made the difference.
The thing to do is to visit an Indo-asian grocer's shop and ask for Garam Masala, which means mixed spices. Be careful not to get the mixture that is used in tea.
The general mixture usually includes powdered turmeric(4), coriander(4), cumin(2), cardamom(1), chili(1) and cloves(1/2), and quite a bit of salt (often as much as 50% by weight). English curry powders also contain powdered ginger, usually.
Fenugreek (ask the man in the shop for methi) has a very fugitive flavour. If you are using it (usually as the dried leaves), add at the very last moment before serving the food - the taste disappears in a couple of minutes if you cook with it.
Methi gets included in mixtures to make them smell interesting, but by the time the dish is served the savour is long gone.
Garam masala does make an excellent curry, but from what I've seen, curry powder in this context is for the specific blend used in Indian-influenced or Indian-inspired dishes from Britain, France, Australia, etc. For these dishes, garam masala is not an appropriate substitute; it would be like using a Spanish salsa in a recipe calling for sauce espagnole. The mention of kedgeree as one recipe needing it further confirms this opinion.
Thanks for the info but bobmcgee is right. I have actually tried garam masala as a substitute before and it didn't work.
Came across this old post through a linked comment and this answer confuses several things which makes it likely to give a poor result. Garam masala is not "mixed spices". Masala is indeed a spice mixture; chai masala is a spice mix for tea, "chana masala powder" would be a mix for some version of chickpea curry and garam masala is a mixture of so-called warming spices, usually used in addition to a number of other spices and not as the only seasoning for a dish. There are plenty of other masala powders available, some regional ones, some common across the country.
Fenugreek is usually used in curry mixes in ground seed form - fenugreek leaves are a different spice that would be uncommon in curry powder. What we consider as a "curry" taste especially in the west relies a lot on fenugreek seed and on fennel seed (on top of the basic coriander-cumin-turmeric-chili base); good commercial curry powders have both. The Alton Brown mixture reads more like what you would put into an actual north indian curry dish, where you add these spices whole, and round it off with garam masala later - probably "too authentic" to give you a "curry" flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.868266
| 2011-06-25T13:59:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15760",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cosmic Ossifrage",
"Jeremy French",
"NadjaCS",
"Stephen Angell",
"avneesh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15975
|
Why don't dry bread crumbs spoil, when bread does?
Why don't store-bought bread crumbs spoil? Can you make your own bread crumbs and save them for later use? Will homemade breadcrumbs mold?
Bacteria need a friendly environment to live. They can't survive without mosture. Mold tolerates more, but it needs moisture for life too.
Bread is too dry a food, so it doesn't catch bacteria. This is why it can be stored outside the fridge. But if you live in a moderately humid climate, it can still be moist enough for mold to grow, especially if stored in a non-breathing package (plastic bag). Drying the bread to the point where this won't happen is possible, but it gets quite hard then. Examples for such dry bread are zwieback or finnish crispbread.
Store bought breadcrumbs are dried to the point where they can't catch mold. This is why they can be stored for so long. If you make your own in the food processor, they will be similar to bread. Probably a bit better, because the bigger surface will let them dry quicker than bread. But if you want to be sure they will last, dry them. You can use a dehydrator or put them in the oven at the lowest temperature (usually.50 deg C) and hold them there for 4 - 5 hours.
You can also cut up the bread and lightly bake it to dry it before breaking it into crumbs. 300F/150C to 325/160C for about 20 minutes.
Wow...thank you I have wonder about that for a long time. Your answer was great.
It should be noted that while dry-enough bread crumbs won't mold, they'll still turn rancid at some point.
@jscs I suppose this depends on whether there is fat in the bread or not.
Agree with the first answer. I would like to add that drying out your bread crumbs in a slow oven or dehydrator also serves to kill bacteria and mold spores that may be present so that they remain good to use while they are stored in a clean sealed container. They will eventually go rancid from the oils present from the original grains used to make the flour, but that will take quite a long time and is not unsafe but merely spoils the flavour of the crumbs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.868574
| 2011-07-06T06:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15975",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Daniel",
"Dennis",
"Jacqs",
"Kim",
"Redandgreenonionloveronly",
"brooke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6675",
"jscs",
"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
}
|
24705
|
How can I make crispy chips?
I made potato chips by following this recipe, but they didn't come out crispy.
What is the accurate temperature for frying chips?
Note (from Jefromi): my best guess based on the comments is that the OP didn't use this recipe, but rather fried thin potato slices in a deep-fryer at 180C, in an unknown oil, for an unknown amount of time. If this is enough to let you answer, just go for it.
You're going to have to provide a bit more information than that. I assume "the common way" means deep frying? What temperature did you fry them at? For how long? How were the potatoes sliced? What kind of potatoes were they? And... just to make sure, you are talking about potato chips, right? Not french fries?
ya.potato chips
Potato chips are normally fried, not microwaved. Why are you asking about temperature if you're not deep frying them? Did you slice them paper-thin? Microwaves vary in power - did you actually cook them until they were done?
ya.i slice them into paper-thin. fried them 180c
The recipe you linked to uses a microwave, but you say you "fried them 180C", presumably meaning you fried them at 180C in... a deep-fryer? We really can't help you fix things unless you actually tell us what you did. Failing that, we can't even tell you techniques that make for crispy potato chips if we don't know what equipment you have.
ya..deep frying
@Tahmina "moderator attention" under flags means that you have found something wrong with a question or answer, and you ask a mod to look at it and possibly delete it. It doesn't mean that more users who can answer will see the question.
Hi @Tahmina, we're having difficulty answering your question because it's not clear. You told us in your original post that you microwaved it (you said you "followed this recipe"), then you've told us that you tried to deep fry it at 180C. If you could give a more detailed explanation of exactly what you did we can help. Eg: "I deep fried **** in **** oil in a **** for **** minutes....". Unless you made them in a microwave and are looking for instructions on how to do it in oil? Either way, please clarify.
Speaking as a Brit - we are a nation of chip lovers :)
Use an oil which can cope with the high temperature such as groundnut. For that proper chip experience (* heart attack alert *) add some beef dripping or lard. I add a small amount to give the chips a nice flavour.
Whilst heating the oil regulary dip a chip in the oil. When it starts to bubble then it's time to cook. If the oil is too cold the chips will absorb it and they'll go soggy. (This is easier to achieve with a traditional chip pan or I prefer a deep saucepan).
For the perfect chip the potato variety is important but this is personal taste. Last seasons reds will make dark delicious chips but I prefer new potatoes which make a crisper lighter coloured chip. (The potato variety also affects the colour when cooked).
Finally, drain on kitchen paper and a sprinkle of salt.
Mike, the "chip" I believe Tahmina is referring to is the American-style chips--the flat, round variety (I think they go by "crisps" in Britain?).
Does this apply to these as well, or primarily for chips (a.k.a. French Fries for those of us across the pond)
Apologies, I didn't know we were speaking American English and as you correctly state Chips (UK) = Fries (US) and Crisps (UK) = Chips (US). Hence the confusion ("Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language" ;) )
I would imagine you could use the same technique for Crisps (chips) but I would be inclined to leave the dripping or lard out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.868782
| 2012-06-27T03:12:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24705",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Mike",
"Ray",
"Tahmina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15981
|
Why is my macaroni salad absorbing all the liquid?
I like to prepare my macaroni salad and refrigerate overnight. The next day I find that my salad is dry, because the salad dressing has absorbed into the macaroni. What causes the salad dressing to absorb into the marcaroni? Please help me?
Pasta absorbs liquids, because it is made of starch, and starch absorbs water. Tossing the pasta with oil will reduce the absorption, by coating them in a water-repellent layer.
Beyond this, the solution is simple: don't drain as much water from the cooked pasta, and add more dressing. There's a limit to how much moisture pasta will absorb.
I would add that another solution is to cool your macaroni salad ingredients overnight separately, then combine before dining. It takes some time for the soaking-in to occur, so at least the first meal's worth will be properly sauced.
This is just the way starch works. And pasta is made of starch.
In raw pasta, you have densely packed starch molecules. When you cook it, the water seeps into the starch molecules on the pasta surface, and in the presense of high temperature swells them, softening the pasta. This is called gelling of the starch. It happens in the pot while you cook the pasta.
But for true gelling to happen, you need lots of water in your starch. And water only penetrates starch slowly. It is quicker in pasta (which is made of milled flour) as in whole grains (e.g. rice cooking), but it water penetration is still quite incomplete after typical pasta cooking times. It is high on the outside, but low on the inside.
Given time, the water expands through the pasta. If you drop a single drop of dye on a cotton towel and wait, you will see what I mean. So when you leave the pasta, the water is traveling from the hydrated surface layers into the dry core. This means that the outer layer is left without the water, and it either goes dry if left without sauce (never seen it? A heap of pasta will stay moist, but a single strand will go back to hard in a night), or it sucks in the moisture from the sauche. Since a sauce is mostly water, it is practically absorbed into the pasta.
This was the explanation for "what causes" the absorption. As for a solution of your problem, it is very difficult. It is like asking "I poured water over flour, how can I keep the puddle of water from being absorbed". I guess that you could try oiling the pasta before you apply the sauce, or other tricks. But none will work well. The sauce won't cling to waterproof sealed pasta. Maybe you could try presoaking the pasta before cooking them, but you'll get such limp pasta that they won't be worth eating (if they don't dissolve first). The only thing which works is not to store pasta and sauce together. Keep the covered pasta in a bowl in the fridge, the sauce in a second bowl, and mix before eating. If you want the sauce to really seep in, you can use a small part of it on the pasta immediately, knowing that it will disappear, and add the rest when you eat.
When I make my cold tuna pasta salad, I always make up the dressing first and add it to cold pasta, never hot or even warm.
To avoid having a "dry" salad I add whipping cream to the mayo, sometimes sour cream. Always stays nice and moist!
I add some whipping cream to rinsed pasta. Mix and refrigerate for a couple of hours. Mix every hour. Mix dressing. Your salad will be nice and moist.
How about an ice bath for the pasta before adding sauce. If the sauce includes olive oil it should stay moist
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.869071
| 2011-07-06T14:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15981",
"authors": [
"Ankit Aggarwal",
"James",
"Lawrence Poplaski",
"Marcin Zareba",
"Maryan",
"Michael Beasley",
"WOPR",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95637"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16420
|
How long can you store the bones of a chicken in the refrigerator?
No odours can enter the place where I am keeping the bones in the refrigerator so contamination is minimized.
If raw, the same time as raw meat. If cooked, the same time as cooked chicken. Both depend on cumulative exposure to dangerous temperatures since time of death, but generally, not longer than 3-4 days for cooked, less for raw.
@hhh it is actually more complex than just "cumulative time", because it involves bacteria multiplication and death rates for every point in the temperature interval and the duration spent at this point. This is practically impossible for a cook to know, so the FDA specifies the rule of thumb: No more than 4 hours spent between 5°C and 60°C, cumulative since purchase (assuming the butcher followed correct procedures). It is very restrictive, but most people think it is sensible to follow it (and American restaurants are legally obliged to).
@hhh on a side note, please use the "@" sign before a nick when leaving a comment for somebody who wrote on the same question, answer or comment, so they can get a notification. Only the name isn't enough.
@hhh another point: if you want to stockpile bones, freeze them. They will keep for months that way. This question was about a refrigerator.
Rumtscho gives the answer in the comments:
No more than 4 hours spent between 5°C and 60°C, cumulative since
purchase (assuming the butcher followed correct procedures). It is
very restrictive, but most people think it is sensible to follow it
(and American restaurants are legally obliged to)
And about freezing which I will use:
if you want to stockpile bones, freeze them. They will keep for months
that way. This question was about a refrigerator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.869691
| 2011-07-26T19:00:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16420",
"authors": [
"Adrian Cid Almaguer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35325",
"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
}
|
16105
|
How to make soft Gulab Jamuns?
I use Gulab Jamun mix of the Gits company. http://www.gitsfood.com/gulabjamun/
The problem is that even on low fire the balls get brown from out side, but don't get cooked "properly" within.
When I try to cook it for a longer time, they tend to be hard.
What can I add to the mixture so that it cooks "properly" within and remains soft too?
Sodium bicarbonate? or something else can work too?
Add baking powder to the mixture, if needed, as it will cause them to puff up and lighten when cooked. Adding a little cream may also help.
I have a Gulab Jamun recipe from "Dance of Spices" by Laxmi Hiremath, pg 412, which lists the following for the dough:
0.5 cup (120 mL) unbleached all-purpose flour
2 cups (around 470 mL) powdered nonfat dry milk
1 tsp (5 mL) baking powder
1 cup (236 mL) heavy whipping cream (probably listed as "double cream" where you live, see question on cream types)
about 1 TBSP water (15 mL)
The dry ingredients are mixed, then the cream is gradually mixed in, and the water is added to make a smooth, pliable dough.
Thanks Bob, but 'pastry' here is referred to a small piece of cake. :) BTW, how much baking powder should be added to the 200gm mixture? What are these 'Gulab jamuns' called n English?
I believe "pastry" is used on this site in a broader sense, as a post on creme brulee received the same tag. In this usage, it refers to the restaurant brigade system, where the pastry station is responsible for breads, desserts, and baked goods. I can't say PRECISELY how much baking powder to add, but I think 1/2 tsp or so would be a good starting point. Finally, there is no English equivalent of gulab jamun. I'd say that the closest food we have are doughnut holes, and they're not very similar.
Also... if you're getting bad results from your mix, you might try doing it from scratch, and mixing less. Using fresh cream may help retain a tender texture by inhibiting gluten formation.
I didn't understand, what should from scratch? That mix is ready made. I am not supposed to do anything there else than adding water and baking soda now.
"From scratch" means try making it without using a mix. A good mix should not need any changes to work. If it doesn't work right when you use a good recipe and no mix, then there is another problem. In that case it could be that you're mixing it too long.
The reason for using this mix is that, making the mixture from scratch proves to be more expensive, time consuming and cluttery. :D I try the baking soda first and then the cream.
@Anisha Kaul if using a mix is less expensive than doing it from scratch, you can be absolutely sure that they used low quality ingredients. Usually a prefabricated food is more expensive than its ingredients.
@rumtscho That mixture is in the form of a powder. So they must be using powdered milk for it.
My brother just made some Gulab Jamuns and had the same problem...You have to knead the dough really with lot of pressure and make it ultra soft. Then fry the balls in thick bottom pan on a low flame. Pans that become hot quickly will make the balls dark and wil not get cooked inside..
I will take care this time, thanks for the reminder.
Kneading dough is important. Make sure you don't knead very tight and roll it very tight.
While frying heat oil to high and reduce to medium. Wait for few seconds and fry the jamun in medium or low heat.
Add baking powder which helps to soft.
Dont leave the fried jamun out for long after frying. Drop it in sugar syrup. Make sure it dips completely in the syrup.
While kneading dough add some milk which has small amount of heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.869858
| 2011-07-12T17:12:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16105",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Benjy Malca",
"BobMcGee",
"CodeMinion",
"Colin Jennings",
"Jordan",
"SlightlyIronicName",
"Spammer",
"Willie Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85624",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16238
|
What is the way to make a powder of red chilies?
I purchase green chilies and in some days many of them turn red.
Can I use my mixer-grinder to grind them into a powder, or is there some other way? Do I have to roast the peppers before grinding? Do the seeds have to be removed?
Chilies are dried before grinding. There are several ways to dry them:
Leave them in an exposed part of the fridge for several weeks. There should be a lot of open air around it, to allow moisture to escape.
String them up outside. To do this, poke holes and run strings through them and tie the strings up so they're spread out. For best results, you should do this during hot, dry weather, and ensure they get plenty of sunlight. Expect it to take several weeks.
Oven-dry them at low temperatures. You want temperatures to be under 150°F/65°C so as not to cook them, and it will take several hours to a day or two. Reduce the temperature if you see the peppers darkening or turning black. Rotate the peppers regularly to allow even drying, and leave the oven door slightly open to allow moisture to escape. If you wish to have a little more roasted flavor, increase the temperature.
Use a freeze-drying machine or dehydrator.
Discard any peppers with rotten spots, both before and after drying. Before grinding, remove stems and seeds.
Grinding:
I've successfully used a blade-type coffee grinder to grind dried peppers into flakes. A blender or food processor should also work, assuming you are handling larger quantities.
I must confess puzzlement about what exactly a "mixer-grinder" is, even after consulting the link. I believe the appliance may not have an exact equivalent in Europe or the United States. However, if it is suitable for blending or grinding it should work fine for dried peppers.
I should add that you ought to wear gloves when handling the peppers, and beware of the fumes from the dehydrator or oven, as they may be very pungent. In extreme causes, protective goggles may be a good idea.
Depending on what you intend to use the chili powder, I would leave the seeds to remain (but making sure the chilli is completely dry). The seeds give a strong taste, and is useful for some dishes.
If you live in very cool climes your house may have low humidity during the winter which will also serve to efficiently dry strung chilies over the course of a month or two.
I actually grind (with a cheap, blade-type coffee grinder) mine on a as-needed basis, though it has the drawback of requiring me to clean the spice grinder regularly.
@Nivas: Seeds are a matter of personal taste. When I ground my own peppers, I left the seeds in too, and have no complaints... but most other people seem to remove them, so I went with the standard approach. dmckee: It's good to know you can dry peppers indoors. I imagine this would work even better if they were hung near heat/AC vents to ensure good airflow.
@Anisha Kaul: "Exposed part of the fridge" means somewhere that doesn't have too much stuff around it, where air can easily flow around the peppers. For oven/air drying, several weeks could be anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 weeks, I believe. It would depend on climate. As far as seeds: they actually do not carry much of the spiciness; it is the membranes around them which carry this. However, the seeds do contribute a slight bitter flavor. To achieve powder vs flakes you would need to grind more, and might need to use a different type of grinder (something with a finer blade).
Is removing the stem an integral part of grinding them?
The very best peppers I have ever dried were homegrown habaneros that I dried and smoked in our electric smoker at a low temperature ( maybe 145 degrees ) over a mesquite wood for several hours. I think you might be able to replicate this over a very low grill, and use another type of pepper. I have had good success with cayennes as well. It is a simple process to then grind it in a spice grinder, and I would use Yoda's good advice from #4 and #5.
The end product here will be a smoky pepper, so this is a variation worth trying.
Many blenders are described as grinders, but they do not grind: they just smash with their whirling blades. However, if you really want to turn the chilli seeds to powder you will have to wait a long time. I think you need a real grinder with a proper grinding wheel. This is often called a mill. Maybe your pepper mill would do this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.870286
| 2011-07-18T03:32:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16238",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"GusOst",
"Matthew Paul Chapdelaine",
"Mike",
"Nivas",
"Rahul Thakur",
"Shashaank",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98587",
"mamadalgas",
"occamsrazor"
],
"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
}
|
16042
|
Why do marshmallows poof up so huge when put in the microwave?
As anyone who's put marshmallows in the microwave knows, they expand a ton! Sometimes they puff up to literally more than twice their original size (YouTube video for those who haven't seen it).
So, why?
At first I assumed it was because they had a lot of air in them, but that doesn't make sense. There's no way that amount of air can puff up that much from the heat!
What makes marshmallows poof up so much when they are microwaved?
Marshmallows expand so much because the water in them becomes steam, and gas takes up a LOT more volume than liquid. Specifically, 1 mL of water becomes ~1.36 LITERS of vapor, before it gets heated further. That's 1000-fold expansion, before you add additional expansion as the gas is heated.
Marshmallows don't have all that much water content, but when it's trapped in a stretchy gelatin matrix that holds gas readily, it only takes a bit to blow the whole thing up like a balloon.
You are correct that the gas expansion on its own is insufficient; unless I've badly muddled my calculations, gas expansion from 20C to ~150C (caramelization temperature) will increase the gas volume by under 50%.
Vacuum works as well as heat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHY9fFQhX68 Same principle, the water boils. You can tell the marshmallows leak vapor because when vacuum is released they return to less than original size.
Because the water becomes gas and takes up more space than a liquid, and then puffs up, and then when its not being heated anymore, it shrinks.
Try to explain your answer a little more
Because the molecules inside the marshmallow moves faster and faster as the heat rises
and the little bubbles of air inside the marshmallows grow bigger and bigger and then it expands. only 14 years of age
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! It turns out that this isn't the whole story - see BobMcGee's answer. It's not just air expanding, but also water expanding as it turns into steam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.870672
| 2011-07-09T02:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16042",
"authors": [
"AStopher",
"Aufwind",
"Benjamin",
"Breealzibub",
"Cascabel",
"Norma Cherry",
"S Takacs",
"Sid",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91274"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15512
|
How can I create a chicken substitute?
How can I create a homemade product with that has the texture, flavor, and cooking properties of chicken, but is vegetarian (or vegan)?
I'm inspired by the Lightlife, the Sipz orange "chicken", and Veggie Grill "burgers" but am looking for something more flexible that I can make myself.
I'm not looking for a specific recipe, but rather general techniques and ingredients to use as a starting point.
As far as I can see, you need a factory to get the texture right.
Seitan (aka. wheat gluten/vital wheat gluten/wheat meat/fu*) can be used to make chik'n nugget type chicken, but not as in breast or thigh, etc. Recipes abound on the internets.
The gist of using it involves bringing together compositional ingredients (basically the gluten) and flavoring, mixing to develop it into a rubbery mass, forming it into and using as a dough (i.e. making chik'n nugget cutouts).
*There are differences between these, but they are all basically the same beast.
Seitan is a pretty good sub for chicken; works better than tofu for most things (anything where chicken is cut up into pieces; stirfry, tacos, chick'n 'n' dumplin' soup, etc.)
@TJ Ellis how well does it hold up in brothy stuff like as you would have with chicken and dumplings? I've only had it dry (dressed/sauced after), typically breaded.
Thanks for the pointers; looking forward to trying this out
it holds up pretty well in brothy stuff! it's often made by boiling the dough in a broth for a couple hours, in fact, and continues to hold up fairly well in applications after that too.
specifically, in my experience, it works great for chicken and dumplings!
There are a few recipes on the Vegan Dad blog for veggie chicken from scratch:
Chick'n Burgers (but read the comments also)
Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken-flavored vegetarian broth is usually a key ingredient. You can find a lot of them on Amazon, and sometimes in health food stores. I usually use Edward and Son's Not Chick'n bouillon cubes, just because they sell them in a store on my block.
There's also a company called eco-cuisine that sells mixes, but I haven't tried them.
For other pre-made options May Wah in NYC supplies meat substitutes to a ton of vegan restaurants, and Gardein has some great veggie chick'n scallopini cutlets you can use for a lot of recipes.
no problem. btw - these are awesome and not commonly known: http://www.vegieworld.com/cart/product_pages.asp?id=540 - At Red Bamboo in NYC they deep fry them and add buffalo bbq sauce for an amazing wing substitute, but I pan fry them at home.
You could try Chinese dry tofu (Dòu gān) as a starting point. It is nutritionally good and has a 'meatlike' texture.
http://www.thetofuboutique.com/?p=454&page=4
For stewing, I love Green Jackfruit -canned or frozen. Fooled me entirely in a Malaysian curry. Needs long gentle simmering in flavorful broth/sauce. Flakes fleshily when forked.
Beancurd sticks are those shrivelled yellow plastic batons in cellaphane packs that cook up first rubbery then slowly disintegrating to desired tenderness. Forgot it once in a hotpot for 2 hrs and it was chicken soup!
For 'chicken' strips I often use tofu that has been pressed for a really long time so it has less of a squishy texture, then roll it in flour paprika and salt and flash fry it until it's golden brown and crispy on the outside.
I know someone had already mentioned Chick'n nuggets, but you could also try the Quorn brand "chicken" items. They have a very similar texture to chicken. But if you are looking for a veggie burger, then i found this great recipe for Black Bean cakes.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/spicy-black-bean-cakes/detail.aspx and they are pretty easy and delicious too!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.870876
| 2011-06-16T05:02:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15512",
"authors": [
"Austen",
"Brian",
"Chef Terrie",
"DaaBoss",
"David Geffeney",
"East Coast Gourmet",
"Hellion",
"Hemang",
"James Barrie",
"Shawn Shoemake",
"Tara",
"Vasily Shabat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"kashev",
"mfg",
"paul",
"yinyang1092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17440
|
What are some good gluten-free food alternatives?
A friend of mine has recently discovered that she has a gluten intolerance, and thus she now has to avoid foods. It is somewhat challenging to find good tasting recipes or alternative products in grocery stores, especially because the labels are not always clear about gluten contents of products.
What are some good places for gluten-free resources, and recommendations on particular products or brands which are the best alternative to typical products?
This subject seems to be pretty well-covered by What are good references for Gluten free baking (at least as well as such a broad subject can be covered in Q&A form). You'd be better off asking about specific substitutions or just browsing the [gluten-free] tag.
possible duplicate of What are good references for Gluten free baking
Disagree on this being a duplicate -- there are many 'hidden' gluten sources even in non-baking applications. That other question has lots of good links & recommendations, but there may be other tips (eg, ingredients to avoid or be wary of). I think the title is vague, but the body of the question is reasonable. (unfortunately, I can't help other than aggregating answers already under the gluten-free tag)
@Joe: I'm not overly impressed by the answers thus far. If we don't see any significant improvement, I think we should close/merge and just normalize the scope of the original question.
@Aaronut : I agree on the quality of the answers, but that has more to do with the people answering than the question itself. It may be that we just don't have the people on here necessary to answer gluten-free questions. (even if we once did). I don't know if it requires leaving it open longer, or somehow getting better exposure from some of the celiac/gluten free sites that might be out there.
Three years later, our guidelines on "list of subjective things" questions are much more stringent. So I have to close independently of the duplicate discussion.
I'm a coeliac from Australia and so my tips come from my experience here, but they should hopefully be useful regardless.
The first thing I suggest is joining your local society which can be invaluable in terms of support, information and even training. The training covers for example how to read ingredient lists to determine whether something is gluten free by ingredient.
As a general rule you need to avoid products containing [wheat, barley, rye, malts and triticale][1]. There are a few exceptions such as glucose syrup, caramel colour and dextrose derived from wheat where the ingredients are so highly processed that they contain no detectable [gluten][2].
Cross contamination and hidden sources of gluten can make it hard to ensure a gluten free diet. In my experience the hardest replacements are the bread based ones. They generally do not come close to the texture and taste of traditional breads. Baking your own bread may be the best option using gluten free bread mixes.
Eating out can become a bit of chore because many restaurants use gluten containing products such as sauces and fillers. I recommend contacting the restaurant beforehand.
The following products are some of the better gluten free alternatives I've found (couldn't post links because I don't have enough rep):
Zehnder Bread
San Remo Pasta
BuonTempo Pasta
Schar Products
Neumarkter Lammsbräu beer
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-free_diet
[2] http://glutenfreefamily.com.au/2010/07/glucose-syrup-gluten-free/
ah! a subject near and dear to my heart!! I'm answering this question more broadly than just in the "baking sense".
Most "natural food" stores (such as Whole Foods) have specific gluten free areas, where you can find gluten free bread, pancake mix, cookies, pizzas, etc.
For a "take out" or "eat out" kind of environment, I've had good luck with Thai food and SOME Japanese foods. Sushi is ok, as long as it doesn't have tempura.
For changes to cooking, she should start thinking more about rice dishes and potato dishes. Pasta dishes are ok, but she'd need to get gluten-free pasta (which does exist!! Mrs.Leapers is my favorite).
Just an FYI for your friend, "modified food starch" CAN be wheat by definition. Anything labeled "Gluten-free" is a safe bet, assuming your friend is in the US. Depending on her sensitivity, something "made using equipement that processes wheat" can be bad.
Above and beyond anyhting else, read labels!!! I've noticed a tendancy to have allergy information under the ingredient list. BUT this is not a hard, fast rule.
Hope this helps!!
Be careful with asian foods -- some gluten intollerance is actually a wheat intollerance, and soy sauce preparation uses wheat. If you're cooking at home, you can instead use a wheat-free tamari.
If you eat Indian Chapati, then there is Bajri flour. It is gluten free.
Take 1 scoop flour, add little salt, a bit of chilli powder, very very little water and make a dough. Keep the pan on heat and start rolling. Take one plate, put dry flour, make a ball and start pressing and rolling until it is a round shape like pizza, then slowly put it in pan and keep adding a little oil so that it doesn't stick to the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.871214
| 2011-09-03T14:23:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17440",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aethelbald",
"BillThomas",
"Dominique Duchesneau",
"Joe",
"Rakesh Bute",
"TFD",
"acute",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jamdel",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25730
|
How to get more flavor out of dried herbs?
What is the proper way of bringing the flavor out of dry herbs like oregano and basil?
In the US I use fresh herbs to make my pizza sauce. But since I've moved to Norway they don't have any fresh herbs that even resemble the flavors that I'm used to in the US. After recreating my pizza sauce I found that sweating the herbs increased the flavor of the sauce.
I'm curious: is it the variety or the quality of fresh herbs that differs between Norway and the US?
@ChrisSteinbach I haven't given up on using fresh herbs I just need to setup to grow them myself. I need to find some good soil and fertilizer source around here also. http://www.growing-basil.org/
Dry herbs are slower to release their flavors than fresh herbs; they will need extra cooking time to impart their full flavors, so add them to the dish sooner. Since they are less delicate and need the moisture, you may also want to add them along with a liquid, to help extract out the flavors. Crushing the larger-leaf herbs up a bit may also help. Use less dried herb than you would with fresh, because they are more concentrated.
Although these will help, the sad truth is that even the best-dried herbs will not have the subtle flavors of fresher ones.
Edit: One other technique you might use (if there's minimal cooking of other ingredients) is to soak them in oil for a long time to extract flavors. I would suggest an overnight soak in olive oil. You can get more flavor out if you heat the olive oil before letting it sit to soak; something like 50C/125F is a reasonable temperature to dissolve more flavor compounds, without damaging the more delicate ones.
The sauce doesn't get cooked before the pizza goes into the oven. So I need to extract some of the flavor from the herbs before cooking. This is why I added oil with the herbs to try to bring the flavor out.
@JustinNathanaelWaters If you're sweating herbs, they're cooked. If there's no further cooking, my suggestion is to heat a little oil or butter until hot but not cooking temperature (about 50C/125F), and remove from heat, add herbs, and let them sit in there overnight to extract flavor.
Would you sweat them at 50C/125F for overnight or would you sweat them then let them sit over night without heat?
@JustinNathanaelWaters You probably get more flavor the longer they're at temperature, but really the idea is just to heat them up a bit at first to get things rolling.
@user5891 It's possible the flavors they wanted weren't the ones that come out with cooking. If you cook oregano much it can taste like menthol (if you use a lot, it seems). If you want a herb you can cook a lot in large quantities, I might suggest summer savory as a substitute for oregano. On pizza, though, you're probably good with oregano. I'd suggest summer savory for chili, though (although I haven't tried it there, yet, but I certainly have tried a fair amount of oregano in it, which gave it a cough-drop sort of taste after cooking it for a good while, but initially it was good).
When you use dried herbs, you will need to use less than fresh.
With some spices, you can bring out their flavor by toasting them, but I don't think that is the best course with herbs.
I would try heating some olive oil, and add the dried herbs, and heat gently. I think this would allow the oil to take on the flavor of the herbs, and then you could just spread this on the pizza before you add the sauce.
This is exactly what I'm doing. I turn the saucepan on lowest heat setting and heat up the oil first. Then I let them sweat for 10 minutes with heat then turn heat off and add to sauce 30 minutes later. Maybe I'll do a test between the overnight method and the hour before method.
Avoid powdered herbs as they go insipid quickly.
Rub the basil/oregano flakes in one palm vigorously with the heel of the other using your recipe's salt. This will carry the flavor.
Inhale the aroma of your hands deeply before washing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.871618
| 2012-08-18T20:20:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25730",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Evgeny Smirnov",
"Gene Riddell",
"Justin Nathanael Waters",
"Larisa",
"Lia Granot",
"Max Symonds",
"Ofer",
"Rakesh",
"Richard Whiting",
"Suzanne Fine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user744810"
],
"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
}
|
16435
|
How can I fix a mole sauce with excessive cinnamon?
I made an Oaxacan-style mole and went too heavy with the cinnamon stick. That flavor is now too prevalent. How can I fix this?
I was thinking about adding some chicken stock and tomato sauce. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
In terms of simply diluting it, stock, tomato, and onion are reasonably good bets - but they'll dilute the other flavors too.
Clove or allspice can take it nicely over the top; sage and oregano can tame it.
This approach means to simply adjust the flavors of the sauce. Basically, if the problem you are having is that cinnamon is to cinnamon-y and distinct relative to taste, you can apply a flavor blur with neighboring spices (the clove, allspice, coriander, cardamom, cumin etc). If the problem is that you are finding that neighborhood of flavor to intense, you can round the palate by adding the herbs.
The other route would be re-scaling the sauce. Adding stock, oil/fat, peppers/onions, chocolate disks/cocoa, or other ratio constituents means you would need to re-up on the other constituents as it may throw off the sauce's viscosity. This may be preferable if you simply can't stand the cinnamon or its neighbors; or if balancing the spice/herbs would make the sauce too noisy.
I might increase the cocoa powder a bit (assuming that this is a mole that calls for chocolate). Cinnamon is perceived as sweet, so my thought is that additional bitter chocolate might help neutralize it. This is speculation though, I've never tried it.
Cinnamon and cumin work as opposites in this sort of situation. You can reduce the perceived cinnamon by adding a bit of cumin, and vice versa.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.871990
| 2011-07-27T04:23:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16435",
"authors": [
"Afriza N. Arief",
"Alexio.cz",
"Andrew Hevey",
"Cascabel",
"Jill Kerrison",
"Ollie",
"Sisi",
"chip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42913",
"user35008",
"zwol"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19863
|
Are fungal toxins a significant problem in coffee, and if so, can they be avoided?
I stumbled across this blogpost which claims that coffee is awesome for our bodies but only if it doesn't have mycotoxins (toxins generated by fungi).
To quote them:
One study showed that 91.7% of green coffee beans were contaminated with mold. This is before they were processed, which allows even more mold to grow. Another study showed 52% of green coffee beans and almost 50 percent of brewed coffees are moldy. Coffee is easily one of the largest sources of mycotoxins in the food supply.
They conveniently sell coffee beans that underwent a different process and don't have mycotoxins, so I have to wonder if this is a real problem and if there are ways to avoid it besides buying from them.
Perhaps buying green beans and processing them somehow so the fungi are washed away?
I think that the "should I avoid" part is off-topic. We don't do health-related recommendations here. But if you are convinced that the fungi are there and have decided to avoid them, the rest is on-topic. So a rewording will probably be good.
@rumtscho, I don't read it as "Should I avoid them?" but "Are their statistics true?" Whether that's on-topic or not, I'm not sure.
@PeterTaylor if he writes "should I avoid them", but means something totally different, then I still recommend a rewording.
@rumtscho, ah, in the title. Sorry, I looked through the body of the post and didn't realise you were quoting.
The fact that this guy egregiously misquotes/misinterprets the second study - which was clearly designed to test the effects of roasting, not categorize the prevalence of mold - makes the post highly suspect. The fact that the so-called "brain fog" is part of a well-documented list of caffeine withdrawal symptoms and is also observed in heavy drinkers of tea and other caffeinated beverages moves the whole thing pretty deep into bunk territory. Seems like just another snake oil pitch to me.
It's also worth mentioning that the symptoms of mold exposure are far more varied and more serious than just feeling "edgy" and "cranky". If this were a serious problem then a lot more people in the world would be very sick. So again, I call BS.
"One study showed that 91.7% of green coffee" could perfectly mean "917 of thousand beans taken from a mold infested sample" :)
Time to apply a bit of healthy skepticism here:
The blog post:
Is (so far) the first and only one I've ever seen stating mold to be a practical problem in coffee - in the sense of being present in a high enough quantity to matter (mold grows everywhere).
Uses all kinds of weasel words to describe symptoms ("edgy", "cranky", "useless mentally").
Describes symptoms that are well in line with plain old caffeine withdrawal.
Frequently links to other blog posts on the same site, most of which are "top 10 ways" and "top 5 reasons" fluff pieces.
Manages to cite and thoroughly misuse two studies: one from 1995, and another from 2003. Both are about Ochratoxin A (OA), which isn't even the biggest risk; Aflatoxin is. (More on these later).
Advertises a fairly expensive product, sold by the same author.
The author:
Is, according to his LinkedIn profile (which I refuse to link here), the VP of Cloud Security at Trend Micro - a Silicon Valley tech company. I could not find any evidence that he or his his employer has any experience in human biology or nutrition.
Makes all sorts of unusual claims about himself: "He upgraded his brain by >20 IQ points, lowered his biological age, and lost 100 lbs without using calories or exercise."
Has an entire page of testimonials, which he frequently cites as "evidence".
Has an entire site dedicated to product-peddling, including the ubiquitous six-second abs (yes, that's hyperbole) and a $60 "earthing mat".
Has the following disclaimers on the product site (all in tiny print at the bottom):
The statements made on this website have not been evaluated by the FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration). Our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
The information provided by this website or this company is not a substitute for a face-to-face consultation with your physician, and should not be construed as individual medical advice. The testimonials on this website are individual cases and do not guarantee that you will get the same results.
In short, he employs tactics which are commonplace among con artists selling magnetic bracelets. In my opinion, all his claims are technobabble, and I think they are not trustworthy.
The facts and studies:
The largest sample tested was just 60 samples of beans, and was tested from only one source (Brazil). This is fine for individual studies, but in the real world there are hundreds (thousands?) of sources from many different countries. It's safe to say that the current studies don't even come close to testing all of the coffee from around the world.
Both OA studies found an incidence rate of approximately 50% for the OA-producing mold, at wildly different concentrations (minimum 0.2 ppb in one study, maximum 7.8 ppb in another). If this tells me anything at all, it's that you should probably vary your source if you want to minimize your risk.
Neither the FDA nor the EFSA actually have a legal limit for OA, but the EFSA "suggests" a limit of 8 µg/kg, which means that even the worst samples are below the very conservative legal limit.
One study actually tested the incidence of OA in brewed coffee, not just the beans, and found a maximum of 7.8 ppb in the brew (that's 7.8 µg per 1 kg of ground coffee).
For reference, there's an EFSA directive recommending an intake of no more than 120 ng/kg (body weight) per week, which comes out to 8.4 µg/week for a 150 lb/70 kg individual, or 1.2 µg/day.
Based on the worst contamination of brewed coffee (7.8 µg/kg), doing the math, you'd have to consume the brew from 150 g of ground coffee per day. That's about half a standard-sized tin of coffee. Per day. If you drink that much coffee, shame on you.
The 3rd study (the one rumtscho linked to, not cited by the blogger/con artist) looked at Aflatoxin, not Ochratoxin, which actually is regulated by the FDA at a maximum of 20 ppb. This study also showed approximately a 50% incidence rate after roasting, with the highest concentration of AT being 16 µg/kg for decaf (less with caffeine). So that means with any random cup of coffee you have up to a 50% chance of consuming an amount of AT that's still well below the FDA limit - that's very nearly zero risk.
None of the studies test the rate of mold growth on beans while in storage under various conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.), so we can't comment on what happens in storage. So I guess if you want to really be on the safe side, only buy as much coffee as you think you can use in a week or two.
Conclusion:
Don't believe everything that people tell you - especially people with something to sell. Unless you're drinking gallons of coffee a day, brewed coffee is perfectly safe.
Awesome synopsis, thank you very much! I feel safer now :)
As the blogpost author complained that the "about the author section" contains personal attacks, I edited it. Now it only contains verifiable facts, such that he has a site which sells an earthing mat. I changed the "con artist" accusation to refer to the (publicly visible) tactics employed by the blog post author and not to his (unobservable for us) person, and pointed out that this is Aaronut's personal opinion. I hope that this dials back the tone while keeping all the objective points @Aaronut intended to make.
The short answer would have been 'no, it's not a significant problem, otherwise the FDA and other health organisations would have regulated around it'. But your answer is pretty neat :-)
@BaffledCook: I think it was necessary to address the underlying issues, because part of the author's claim is that the FDA regulations somehow aren't good enough or are based around economics rather than safety (which is a preposterous claim by itself given the FDA's well-earned reputation as a wet blanket, but there you have it).
@Aaronut, I didn't read the original article, but I got the drift from your answer. My comment was just an attempted piece of humour.
@Aaronut: I find it tasteless to compare the merchants sale tactics to con artists, and it has left a bad taste in my mouth. Not only does Aaronut compare the mechants tactics to con artists, he also says he finds the merchant untrustworthy, thus strengthening 'claim' that the merchant is a con artist. There is no point in comparing his tactics to con artist, except but the indirect claim that the merchant is a con artist. I suggest that this post is edited, and the con artist reference removed. After It should suffice to make a reference to a sales mans tactic.
@Aaronut Uses a lot of space explaining why the person selling the stuff isn't likely to be trustworthy. The question is about coffee and toxins, not about whether a specific merchant is a decent human. I suggest to remove this post, or remove the entire paragraph about the author.
The question revolves around a specific blog post, not about an ongoing scientific study or even a notable claim, therefore the credibility of the author of the original blog post is a totally legitimate concern, and it's not at all unreasonable to devote a mere 25% or so of the post to addressing it. The language here has already been softened quite a bit; your suggestion is noted and declined, as I don't find your rationale at all convincing and don't know anything about your motives either. Feel free to discuss this further on [meta] where it can be properly vetted by the community.
My university has access to the study @w00t linked in a comment here, so I thought I'll provide a summary of their findings.
Do green coffee beans contain aflatoxins? They found that yes, coffee
beans naturally grow molds which produce aflatoxins. Molds and
toxins were isolated from 17 out of 30 samples of green coffee beans
they purchased from local markets.
Do roasted coffee beans contain aflatoxins? Yes, 22 out of 30 samples had molds and aflatoxins. The levels were lower than in green beans (about 30% less).
Does roasting reduce aflatoxins? They tried three types of roasting (oven, microwave and traditional). All methods roughly halved the aflatoxins, with traditional roasting resulting in the highest reduction (55.9%). The difference between methods was very small, ranging from ~45% to ~55%.
Does caffeine affect aflatoxin growth? They put caffeine and aflatoxin-producing molds in a mixture of sugar, yeast, and water, and waited. The molds grew with only half the speed of molds in the same mixture without caffeine added. They couldn't detect any aflatoxins in the mixture itself, but say this could be because they started with small amounts of mold. (Their measurement method is sensitive enough to detect tenths of micrograms per liter).
Conclusion: You can't get rid of mold and their byproducts (aflatoxins) in your coffee, but you can reduce them somewhat. If you insist on that, use freshly roasted coffee, no decaf. Be aware that the study doesn't give an answer if brewing coffee with moldy beans results in aflatoxins in your coffee. So you can't use it to arrive at a recommendation for safe coffee-drinking habits. Change them if you want to, but be aware that it will be a speculation. The question whether the alpha toxins are dangerous to human health, or which concentrations can be considered absolutely safe, is not researched in this study. Also, they found that while changing the roasting method does have an effect on the mold present in the beans, the difference was very small - so even if it has negative effects, I doubt that you can avoid them by changing the roasting method.
The study also mentions that the average for green (not roasted) coffee beans is 4.28 ppb, which is well below the FDA stated limit of 20 ppb. And then, as you mention, there's the obvious question of how much of that gets into your brew (clearly not all of it). The risk sounds vanishingly small to me, unless you already have a hypersensitivity to mold (in which case coffee isn't the only thing you should be avoiding).
Perhaps we should re-direct this conversation to be closer with the OP's intent. The OP's question is:
"if this is a real problem and if there are ways to avoid it besides buying from them"
The first question can be paraphrased as "Do mycotoxins present in brewed coffee affect mental and physical performance enough that I should spend extra money to buy mycotoxin-free beans?".
First off, the question is highly subjective - is a potential increase in mental performance worth the extra money to the OP?
There are no studies on is whether the level of mycotoxins present in coffee has any measurable effect on a person's mental and physical performance. Asprey has a theory based upon personal experience, therefore they may be worth something, but should also be taken with a grain of salt. The lack of studies on this does not mean Asprey is a fraud or a con-artist, only that his assertions should be taken for what they are - personal experience. His opinions should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
We therefore have to break the question down. Does mold exposure impact mental performance?
As far as I know, there are no easy answers here, but this study does imply a link between mold exposure and mental performance:
https://www.atlanticlegal.org/pdfs/baldo.pdf
Second, does the level of mold / mycotoxins present in coffee affect mental performance? There are no studies about this, so your only source will have to be the personal experience of people trying this for themselves (aka Asprey and his readers).
Separately, the moderators and other contributors have made it clear that the mycotoxins present in coffee (beans or brewed) fall under the FDA's limits. However, Asprey's blog and assertions are about maximizing mental & physical performance. There may very well be a different threshold between what the FDA considers a "safe" level of mycotoxins, and the level of mycotoxins capable of affecting your mental performance. It would be illogical to conclude that the two thresholds are the same. Keep in mind that the degree of change Asprey is likely talking about may be the difference between getting an A+ vs. an A on whatever measure you consider to be relevant.
In short, there are no hard & fast answers to the OP's question because no relevant studies exist. We can safely say that yes, mycotoxins are present in coffee. Do said mycotoxins affect mental performance? Unknown, but it is supported / suggested by anecdotal evidence. Is anecdotal evidence sufficient for the OP to spend extra money on coffee beans? This is the real question.
How much of that study did you read? First of all, it's not an experiment, just an analysis. Second, it deals with much higher levels of exposure than has ever been shown to be possible from coffee. Third, it generally deals with a very different type of mold. Fourth, there are several references to significant physical symptoms (headaches, dizziness, etc.) These were people who had serious problems, to the point where they were actually involved in litigation. Nothing to do with coffee, and there is an easy answer: we reject anecdotal evidence until verified by an experiment.
Even if these studies did exist, discussing them would be completely off topic on our site. We do food safety stuff here, as in "will you go into hospital within 2-3 days of eating this", but not "healthy" food in the sense of what long term effects a food may or may not have on your physiology.
I think this is an attempt to answer the question, so I'm going to leave it, but I'm not sure it's a particularly useful one - as others have said, there's basically no evidence here, and no reason to assume or speculate that there's anything to worry about.
The take away is not all coffee is created equal try different beans until you find one that gives you the best bang for your buck, Starbucks dark roast puts me in a better mood than foldgers or Maxwell house. Mycotoxin ? Branding? Subjectivity?
It's very possible that unnamed blogger / coffee and supplement salesman has a sensitivity to mycotoxins.That people who regularly consume healthy fungus and bacteria aren't normally affected by.
Or it could be that other chemical components of the coffee influenced by the growing region that are best suited to his physiology.
We don't know what the real reason is , we can assume much of the coffee available to us is perfectly safe , with the exception of all that toxic caffeine stuff sometimes called a phytotoxin!!!
I'm the guy who made this coffee. In my opinion, yes, alfatoxins are dangerous for you, and you should drink coffee which doesn't have them. Most coffee gives me awful symptoms, ones so bad I quit coffee for 5 years before I figured it out. Now I only drink this coffee, because it gives me no symptoms, and I am selling it because I believe it is better for others too. My opinion is that
There are toxins (specifically biogenic amines and mycotoxins) present in coffee at levels high enough to affect how you feel.
Am I saying coffee will kill you? Nope. But bad coffee slows you down - a lot - and low toxin coffee speeds you up - a lot.
To back this opinion, I am currently conducting an IRB-approved study, with Stanford University's assistance, to test the mental performance of people on my Upgraded Coffee vs Starbuck's dark roast. I can also invite you to test the toxin-free coffee for yourself, by purchasing it from me or from other sources (I wrote a blog post "How to find high performance coffee in your city", google it).
My other sources for my opinion are
This study. It shows detectable aflatoxin in 85 of 127 samples. Some (many) were below the legal limit, but the problem is that the legal limit is not the safe limit, it's the economically feasible one.
This conference talk. It says that coffee can contribute up to 25% of your daily "safe" (not by my standards) dose of the OTA toxin.
If you google "coffee mycotoxin" you can find many other studies which have shown the presence of mycotoxin in coffee.
Aaronut's answer suggests that I am not qualified to judge whether coffee with alfatoxins is dangerous. I feel that his "The author section" is an example of "attacking the messenger", which is a poor tactic. Here are my credentials:
I'm a very successful Silicon Valley exec with enough money that I don't need to con people at all.
I run an anti-aging group that brings world-class experts in every month.
My wife is an MD and co-author of my book on nutrition for pregnant women (currently in publishing)
I've lectured internationally on human performance
100 000 people a month read my blog
If you want to question my facts, or criticize my reasoning, that's perfectly fine to do as a comment, but as an answer this (a) contributes nothing of substance and (b) is dangerously close to being spam since, among other things, you're telling people here to spend money on your product while continuing to make vague unsubstantiated claims, handwave away the decades of scientific study that went into the creation of food safety regulations, and even disclose the hypothesis of an unfinished study which is a gross ethics violation (since this type of study would need double-blind controls).
In short, if you want to keep this answer up here, I suggest you do some substantial clean-up on it. Eliminate the subjective health claims and sales tactics, which unfortunately are almost the entire post.
@Aaronut: I think it's safe to delete this answer on grounds that it isn't in fitting with tone for the site (personal attacks, sales tactics), nor is it informative.
I would also be happy to see this question edited to a form more in fitting with the Q&A format and community standards of civility.
Normally, we expect answers here to be a direct answer to the question, and not a reply to other answers (there are comments for that, but your text was way too long). It actually picked up flags for deletion. I don't want to censor you, so I edited the post into a form which addresses the question and lists your arguments and credentials below. Now it is up to the community to decide whether they trust them or not.
Personally, I don't agree with your opinion, and your arguments and list of credentials don't convince me. In my role as a moderator, I tried to be as neutral as possible and edit the post in a way which presents you in a positive light, the way you would have done it. In my role as a community member, I stand by my downvote and will not remove it, because I think your opinion about coffee is wrong, and the arguments you list don't convince me.
Likewise, I'm fine with the edited form of this answer and won't delete it; however, it remains an exceptionally poor defense due to the fact that none of the cited sources actually substantiate the claim that "typical" coffee contains dangerous amounts of aflatoxin or ochratoxin, nor do any of the cited credentials lend any credibility to the author as an expert on mycology or even coffee in general. We don't know if your specific claims are supported by these "world-class experts" (or even who they are), and "human performance" is not a scientific field.
"100 000 people a month read my blog" -- relevance?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.872191
| 2011-12-21T17:31:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19863",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Peter Taylor",
"Tracy Orione",
"arberg",
"exnavychief",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94554",
"hunt",
"jcollum",
"kaka",
"pleurocoelus",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"smakcanada",
"w00t"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15630
|
How do I know if a frying pan is suitable for a glass ceramic cooker?
I had a set of great looking frying pans with layered bottoms that I was unable to use on my glass ceramic cooker.
The problem was the bottom would bend when heated up and lose close contact with the cooker surface. Once that happened it would take an hour to boil the amount of water that is normally boiled within five minutes - heat would just not go into the pan, so using the pan was just a waste of energy and time.
I got rid of that pan and instead used the cheapest most basic pan with single layered bottom; it doesn't bend too much and maintains contact with the surface so it works alright.
However if I want a more advanced pan than the most basic one I use now (for example, with ceramic coating), the local retailers only offer pans with layered bottoms. And of course it'll be close to impossible to return a pan just because doesn't accept heat well on my stove - that hardly counts as manufacturing defect. I'd rather not risk buying a pan if there's reasonable chance that it bends while heating up, making it unusable to me.
Is there a way to be sure that a frying pan with layered bottom won't bend too much when heated and that it is suitable for use on a ceramic glass cooker?
From what I've seen, encapsulated-aluminum disk bottom pans and straight aluminum pans are simply prone to warping. The aluminum is just too soft and can't take the mechanical stress, and the disk-bottom pans have problems with dissimilar metals. Different metals expand at different rates, and thus will separate over time if heated and cooled repeatedly.
Now, it's possible to get a disk-bottom pan that won't warp or separate, but the outer jacket of stainless must be quite thick, at least 2 mm. The disk in the bottom also has to be completely covered by the steel -- if you can see a different looking metal peeping out, the pan is a no-starter for you. It'll probably be a heavier, thicker pan, with fairly thick walls as well.
The simplest solution is to use a pan that's cast-iron, all-stainless, or multi-ply AKA clad aluminum/copper. Cast-iron is too thick and rigid to warp, and is a homogeneous material, so it isn't prone to problems from dissimilar metals. All-stainless is stronger and more elastic, and again homogeneous. It has lousy heat conduction though.
Multi-ply pans avoid warping because they're better made and incorporate thicker outer layers of stainless, which hold the pan rigid against warping. I think the process by which the aluminum or copper is contained in the stainless is also more robust.
I'm lucky because I get to use All-Clad on my ceramic stove -- warping is never an issue.
The biggest cause of warping metal pans is pouring cold water into a burning hot pan. If you let the pans cool down slowly on the stove top they will last much longer.
I ignorantly did that for years (cold water into a burning hot pan) just as I was just building my kitchenware assortment. It wasn't until I bought my very first professional quality skillet, and promptly warped it, that I realized was doing something wrong. (All my other pans were warped too, but I just figured it was because they were cheap.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.873881
| 2011-06-20T12:49:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15630",
"authors": [
"Chris Dunaway",
"Donna M",
"Ibrahim",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mr_CryptoPrime",
"Wilile",
"ali",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33462"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24487
|
How do I calculate the final acidity of homemade vinegar?
I am making vinegar by mixing vinegar (containing the mother) and wine, and then allowing fermentation to occur. I am wondering how to calculate the final % acidity.
Assume:
I know the initial concentration (by volume) of acetic acid, X, alcohol Y
All alcohol will be converted to acetic acid
No sugar is converted to acetic acid
How do I calculate the final acidity?
Which kind of percentage are we doing here? % by Volume, % by Weight, or % by moles? The answer will be different for each, and in some cases depend on temperature (volumes change with temperature).
As stated in the question, % by volume. I'm of course only looking at an approximation
I think my confusion comes from having a chemistry background, where the terminology is used somewhat differently. This also means that if I can find a good half hour to look up densities, it won't be hard to answer. In any case, I have taken the liberty of rewriting it to clearly state the assumptions.
@BobMcGee Percent by volume is by no means uncommon in everyday usage. For example, it's pretty common for alcohol. I'm not sure "concentration (by volume)" is really more understandable, even though scientists wouldn't use percentages.
@Jefromi: I know what volume percent is, but "% per volume" just seems awkward, rather than "concentration (by volume)". Many concentrations are per volume... moles of solute per volume solvent, grams of solute per volume solvent. Even if you don't think the point is significant, I think you can agree the rewritten question is clearer.
@BobMcGee I was just saying "% by volume" would've been pretty much standard (if non-scientific) terminology, and possibly less confusing to non-science people - not everyone has the same background we do. I know concentration by volume is common in chemistry and of course agree that the question is clearer now; never said otherwise.
@Jefromi: Yeah, I was able to figure out what he meant, it was just a bit awkward for my sleep-deprived brain. Just coming off 10 days straight of work and I'm a little out of it. Need to be a bit more awake to do chemistry. The rxn is conversion mole-for-mole of ethanol to acetic acid, with acetic acid having density of 1.049 g/mL, and molar mass of 60.06 g/mol, where alcohol has 0.789 g/mL and 46.07 g/mol molar mass.
Maybe test the pH?
This is actually a great chemistry question! First off, you need the density and molecular weight of the acetic acid (1.039 g/mL, 60.05 g/mol) and alcohol (which is ethanol — 0.709 g/mL, 46.07 g/mol). Assuming 100% conversion of ethanol (y) to acetic acid (x), you will end up with the same number of moles of acetic acid as the amount of ethanol you started with.
So if you started with y mL ethanol, you would have 0.709/(46.07 * y) moles ethanol.
Since we are assuming 100% conversion to acetic acid, we end with the same number of moles acetic acid, which we can then convert back to mL. mL acetic acid = 60.05/(moles acetic acid/ethanol * 1.049).
If we condense all that into one calculation, you end up with: mL acetic acid = 1.753 * mL ethanol.
If you add the volume of acetic acid you made in the fermentation process and the amount you started with, you have the total volume of acetic acid in your vinegar. Simply divide this by the total volume of vinegar to get the % acetic acid!
Doesn't the reaction that produces acetic acid also produce water?
Yes it does, the reaction produces 1 mole of acetic acid and 1 mole of water for each mole of alcohol though. C2H5OH + O2 → CH3COOH + H2O
I get the impression that the OP wants to be able to figure this out before making the vinegar, so calculations that don't include that (i.e. depend on measuring the resulting volume) aren't a complete answer.
I should add then how to convert initial concentration by volume to volume. Since % by volume is just volume alcohol or acetic acid/total volume, it is easy to convert to mL.
Go to a home winemaking supply shop or www.countrywines.com.
Buy an Acid Test Kit.
Dilute homemade vinegar: 1 ounce vinegar with 9 ounces water (distilled, preferably).
Follow directions in the acid test kit multiplying neutralizer used by 0.075 as indicated in the test kit instructions.
Multiply this result by 8 to account for the dilution to get your end result: Total Acid expresed as percentage tartaric acid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.874179
| 2012-06-16T01:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24487",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Dejan Jovicic",
"Don LaDaga",
"Fruitdruif",
"Marc-André Lafortune",
"Mike",
"Per Kristian Thorsen",
"That Idiot",
"freedomworks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94093",
"scientifics",
"smcg",
"user8369515"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42539
|
How to properly sharpen Santoku and any other knife using a water sharpener/Japanese whetstone?
I've recently bought a really nice Santoku knife from Wüsthof along with a Japanese water sharpener, and since then I've been watching a lot of videos and reading a lot of guides about how to use the sharpener. I've come upon many various ways to do it, but I never know if one is "right" or better than the other to get things started. I've never sharpened a blade before, and I've never really taken good care of the knifes I already own, so I thought now is a good time to start with it.
What I do know is that for Japanese knives, I use a 15 degree angle, and for European knives, it's usually about 22-23 degrees. I also know how to properly prepare the whetstone for use. What I do not know is: how do I do the actual sharpening properly?
Some people I've seen slice the knife over the stone diagonally at the correct angle, while only taking care of one part of the knife (the front, the middle, the back) and move on to the next after a while, while others straight out do everything at once, sharpening the whole blade in one motion, alternating between one side of the blade and the other.
Now my real question is: What kind of technique should I apply as a total beginner, and can I use that technique for both the Japanese and European knives I have (excluding the angle at which the blade is put onto the stone which I know of)?
Also, how often should I sharpen these blades usually to keep them in a decent shape? I have the typical 1000/3000 whetstone.
The user "virtuovice" has some great videos on knife sharpening. It was my introduction to whetstone sharpening and since following his videos, I have been able to sharpen my range of kitchen knives to a pretty incredible sharpness. His videos are mainly aimed at hunting knives, but the techniques can be applied to kitchen knives
Have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc_TEWmMcD0
The main thing to try and remember is to move with your arms and not to rotate your wrists at the ends of each stroke across the stone so that the angle is kept constant. I'd practice on some cheap knives and just go slowly first. Look at how much metal is being removed from the blade - rinse the knife often and check your progress. Imagine you are trying to take a very fine slice of stone off the top surface.
In terms of technique, you can also take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm53mCOQTR8
It's easier to see because of the high grind on the blade.
How often you sharpen depends on how often you use them and the type of steel. I use Globals and Mundials and the Globals require much less sharpening Mundials.
Here's a video from Chefs Armoury https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TPDgdo7jfM
1. Prep your stones
Depending on what stones you use, you may need to soak or not. I use the Naniwa stones that just need to be wet and don't require soaking. I keep a spray bottle for this. I use 400, 1000 and 3000 stones.
2. Make sure your stone is flat
You want a flat stone so that the angle between your knife and stone is stye same along the entire length of the stone. If your stone has a curve in it, get it flattened first. If there is a noticeable curve, ask a professional to flatten it. After this, maintaining a flat stone is easy.
3. Decide your angle
Usually 15-20 degrees. I find the Japanese knives are usually at around 15 degrees and European knives are around 20 degrees based on a bit of trial and error. You'll know if your angle is too low since you won't make progress after a few strokes.
4. Holding the knife & stroke
One hand on the handle (of course) holding the knife at the desired angle. The other hand, fingers on the flat of the blade. Wrists straight. The sharpening stroke is when the knife moves away from the edge.
So if the edge is facing towards you, push into blade as you push your blade away but release the pressure as you pull the blade towards you.
If the blade is facing away from you, push into the blade as you pull towards you and release as you push away.
Make sure you maintain the same angle on both strokes and always use the entire length of the the stone. If you only use part of the stone, that area wears away more quickly and you can't be sure of the angle.
5. Sharpening
Start with the coarsest stone. Pick a side, say edge facing towards you. I start at the tip of my knives. The tip is usually curved, so your hand position changes slightly. After a few strokes, move down the edge and take a few stokes. Keep doing this until you have done the entire edge applying water as needed.
Now pick up the knife. On the side that is not being sharpened, run a thumb or finger across the flat of knife from the spine to the edge. On the edge, you should feel a burr. When you can feel the burr along the entire length of the edge, that side is done, otherwise it needs more work. Now sharpen the other side until you can feel the burr on the other side. We'll address a complete lack of burr later.
_ <- Burr
\
/\
/ \
| | Just sharpened side
| |
Once you have done both sides, go up to your next stone and repeat.
As the stones get finer, the size of the burr gets smaller and harder to feel. On a 3000 stone, it gets very fine. If you cannot feel it, wash the blade of any material that you removed. This can sometimes help you feel the burr. I also find that dry hands work better than wet hands when trying to detect the burr.
6. Finishing
When you get to your final stone and have done both sides, you need to remove the burr. Just hold the knife at the same angle as you've been using with the burr side in contact with the stone, and pull the edge of your knife across it to remove the burr.
You can also strop your blade, but it is not necessary.
7. Reflatten your stone
You can do this with a special flattening stone, or a bit of very fine sandpaper. I wet some 600 grit sand paper and put it on my bench (flattest surface in my home). Then sand the stone down. It only needs a few strokes if you do this regularly.
Don't feel a burr trouble shooting
If you have been working at if for a while and cannot feel the burr here are a couple of suggestions.
Wrong angle
Your angle may be too low. Increase the angle slightly and try again. On a coarse stone, you should be able to feel the burr after only a few strokes.
Knife is too blunt
Detecting the burr only works if the knife is close to being sharp. If it is too blunt, you need to remove a lot of material before you are close to a sharp edge again. Don't do this. If you do, you'll end up with an asymmetrical edge.
_
/ \ /\
/ \ Keep working one side and you get / \
| | | \
Instead, give a few strokes across the entire length of one side. Flip it over and do the other side. Make sure you do a similar amount of work so that the edge is symmetrical. The idea is to try and meet in the middle. Check after working each side and eventually you will get a burr.
A tip I got is to use a permanent marker to color the part of the blade you will be sharpening. It will get scraped off as you sharpen, but it will enable you to see if there is any part of the blade that you are putting too much or too little focus/pressure on.
If it is a Wusthof with the "Petec" branded edge (all recent ones), the original angle will be specified as either 14 or 10 degrees/side - BUT that might not be what you want. Steel wise, these are still european knives (albeit on the harder side if we are talking the upmarket series), try out and test 14 to 20 degree edges, with and without microbevels.
True japanese knives (the double bevelled type, not the traditionals), by the way, will commonly come with a factory edge of 14 or 12 degrees/side, but the steel used is harder than what any big european maker uses (with the exception of one Zwilling series).
To properly sharpen a Santoku or any other knife using a water sharpener/Japanese whetstone, follow these steps:
Soak the whetstone in water for about 10-15 minutes before use.
Place the whetstone on a stable surface and hold the knife at a 15-20 degree angle.
Use a consistent and firm pressure to slide the knife back and forth across the stone in a smooth motion.
Repeat this process on both sides of the blade until a burr (a slight ridge) forms on the edge.
Use a honing steel to remove the burr and refine the edge.
Rinse the knife and whetstone with water and dry them both thoroughly.
Test the sharpness of the knife by cutting through a piece of paper or a tomato.
If necessary, repeat the sharpening process until the desired level of sharpness is achieved.
Read the full step by step guide on my website: Sharpen Your Santoku knife.
Please familiarize yourself with the rules regarding self-promotion and always clearly state your affiliation directly in the post. In your profile is not sufficient. We also expect new answers, particularly after a relatively long time, to bring something new, not repeat what’s been explained before and, in this case, in more specific detail. Also note that a generic answer to a very specific question doesn’t qualify as answer - see [answer] for details.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.874545
| 2014-03-05T18:47:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42539",
"authors": [
"CarbonSteelSkilletGuest",
"Eleni Fotiu",
"Pizza Cappuccino spam",
"Rino M",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"William Ayersman ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99394",
"mirialis spam"
],
"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
}
|
42581
|
Amount per serving
How can I calculate the Amount Per Serving label in the nutrition facts.
Not basing it as a recipe where it is already stated but by ingredients. For example, I have a customized recipe, I want to know the amounts per serving based on my ingredients.
What countries labeling laws are you looking at?
If it's a custom recipe, just require it to include how many people it serves.
Are you asking how to compute the serving size ("each serving is 1 cup") or the number of calories, etc. per serving?
@derobert The serving size, seems pretty clear from "amount per serving". He asked separately about the nutritional content.
also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42664/304
Related/partial duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64336/1672
You set it arbitrarily, although hopefully based on some reasonable single portion size. Once you have the serving size, you calculate the nutritional information based upon it.
There is some rumor of stronger regulation forthcoming in the US to make portion size claims on labels more realistic, but that is not the case at this time.
But to what do i base it from? Do i just add all the amounts per serving from all the ingredients and make that the new amounts per serving of the recipe?
You base it on judgment and knowledge... it isn't something you can automate. The unit even varies, portions of a whole (1/8 of a pie), cups (breakfast cereal), and so on.
Its too simple yet complex. How should i judge it?
I certainly lack the knowledge on this things. Anyways, i was hoping there was some sort of simple calculation for the amounts per serving behind every recipe.
Like its all a total of something from all the ingredients used.
No such calculation exists. You cannot solve this problem programmatically. Even if the recipe includes a yield, "36 cookies", you would have to decide if the serving size is one cookie or three.
What is serving per size actually?
Is it how much you eat a plate? like a box of cookies contains 12 cookies then how much is the serving per size is it 12 since im eating it alone, or does it vary upon how i eat them?
@Johntheprogrammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate
The question doesn't say anything about a specific country, so the paragraph about forthcoming regulation doesn't seem relevant.
@PeterTaylor It is relevant. If the US published standards for amount per serving, it'd give you something to go on, far better than just guessing or trying to deduce the rules that manufacturers tend to follow (which of course is country-dependent too).
@Jefromi, either you've also heard these rumours and hence have access to some unstated context, or you're making the (not entirely unreasonable, I grant) assumption that anyone who assumes that their local regulation is universal must be from the US. But even if you're correct, as the Hong-Kongese guidelines state, note that the dietary habit (sic) of people in Hong Kong and overseas countries may not be the same, and the US is almost certainly an outlier.
I'm not saying US regulations apply everywhere. But if you're trying to make an informed guess for serving size, given a choice between "I have no information, I will do it alone" and "I know some rules the US uses", the latter is definitely useful.
@Jefromi, that's true, and I'd have posted links to various guidelines if derobert's question hadn't raised doubts about what OP is really looking for. But one of us is being more subtle than intended, because I still don't think you've got my point that neither OP of the question nor OP of the answer mentioned any country. Rumours of stronger regulation forthcoming in an unspecified jurisdiction are completely useless to everyone.
@PeterTaylor I'm quite aware they didn't mention a country. That doesn't make my last comment less relevant. The question isn't about printing legal nutrition labels. The guy wants to make a web app that shows nutrition facts for custom recipes.
If I understand right, this document might be the basis for the stronger regulation you mention.
You have two problems here, one easy and one hard. The easy one is "how many servings are in this recipe?" As others have said, the recipe may make 36 cookies but is that 36 servings, or 12, or some other number? That is the easy problem in my opinion. Many recipes say "serves 8" or "serves 6" and you could work out the total numbers for if someone ate the entire batch, then calculate "I can't eat more than 2 of these" or "I should eat at least half of this to get enough protein" as needed.
The harder part is taking raw numbers like how much protein is in an egg or how many calories are in a cup of flour and working out how to combine them. Say you are frying chicken in 1/4 cup of oil. You certainly don't add the oil calories to the chicken calories - not all the oil ends up in the dish. But if you add oil to a cake batter, you will add the oil calories in to the calculation. Some forms of cooking affect some nutrients, so perhaps the Vitamin C in a long cooked fruit dish is not the same as the Vitamin C in the raw fruit you added to it. I don't know a general solution or technique for dealing with this. It depends what nutritional facts you care about (calories? fibre? fat? Vitamin C? B? E?) and how you are cooking the food. In addition if you are using "one apple" or "two carrots" you won't have the same precision as "100g of diced carrot" so your recipe may not be the same every time.
If you just want to know roughly the calories, just add up the calories of the raw ingredients and make some adjustments for ingredients that don't end up in your mouth. Beyond that I don't think it's possible.
Interesting position. I think that the first part is already hard enough to make it unsolvable. The amount somebody can eat differs with the person. The amount a person predicts she can eat differs with her level of hunger at the moment she is making the prediction. Other external factors such as size of the plate, cookie size, mood during eating and parallel activity will also have a large influence. Basically, people 1) eat different portions of the same food under different circumstances, and 2) are lousy at predicting the average portion (which has too much variance anyway).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.875389
| 2014-03-07T10:49:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42581",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Betts",
"Cascabel",
"Hollyn Fisher-Rogers",
"John the programmer",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kim Oun",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SHREYA Amolika",
"Spammer",
"coin",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99692",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45079
|
How can I get hash browns to bind without using egg?
I don't want to add egg to bind hash browns. What is the best way to bind hash brown without the eggs?
My first thoughts are should I still grate the potato, or boil first to soften to enable them to bind?
Just a guess-baking soda?
I follow Alton Brown's recipe from Good Eats for grated (the only way!) hash browns and never have problems with it binding. It's from the episode "Another Man Food Show: Breakfast" if you want to search it out. He talks on the show about why the type of potato matters and recommends a high starch potato like an Idaho or Russet. I use Russets as they're readily available here and never have any issues.
Summary of the cooking process:
10 inch cast iron skillet to medium low. I think I've tried it in a non-stick skillet and while it cooks, you don't get the same browning.
Grate potato with large grater. Squeeze out the water from the grated potato. I use my hands, he uses a tea towel.
Add bacon fat to the skillet. Scatter the potato evenly and cook for 5 minutes without touching it at all. I compress them down a little bit after I've scattered them.
Turn down the heat, flip and cook for another 5 minutes. I flip it by sliding it onto a plate, flipping it in the air there, and then sliding it back on. Using a second plate to flip it might be easier.
Notes:
I think the biggest thing is the type of potato. I tried it a few times with some other potato because I had them on hand, and it turned out terrible. I've also tried with previously boiled potatoes, and it was even worse.
Not touching is important too. You want to give them time to stick together.
I would like to add emphasis to using a cast iron skillet for proper browning and crispness. Also - why are you using a plate to do the flipping rather than a frying spatula?
Because I find it easier to flip with a plate then with a spatula. I make less of a mess, especially if I want the hashbrown to bind together.
Ah oops. I read this as separate (smaller) hash browns :) not one large one
If you find the potatoes too starchy, soak them for 30 min in cold water, then drain and dry. The tea towel method - spread out and wrap the potatoes in a tea towel and then twist the towel tightly as if you were "wringing it out", squeezing as much water from them as you can (over the sink).
Try this really simple technique I discovered in a hash brown recipe once: Place grated potato into a bowl. Sprinkle salt over (about a teaspoon), mix salt through the potato and leave for a few minutes. Pick up handfuls of potato and squeeze excess moisture out until you've done all the potato.
The salt draws out the liquid. This seems to make the potato stick together really well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.876150
| 2014-06-23T13:59:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45079",
"authors": [
"Matt",
"Michael E.",
"Mireille deLaittre",
"Morgan Gould",
"Okexchange",
"Simon Kuang",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"jsanc623",
"nonvegan_inquirer",
"talon8",
"thenewbies"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62787
|
How to fully incorporate cream cheese with pumpkin puree?
I have tried to incorporate softened cream cheese with pumpkin puree and it's never fully incorporated - small bits of cream cheese are left in the mix. How can this be prevented? I've tried 2 different brands of cream cheese and these bits happened both the times.
How were you mixing, mechanical or by hand? At what speed? Did you beat the cream cheese for a while before adding the purée?
And to add to Erica's questions... Was the cream cheese at room temp or fridge cold?
When mixing cream cheese with softer or more liquid ingredients, you first need to make sure both things you're mixing are softened and smooth.
Even room temperature cream cheese is sometimes hard to mix. I usually microwave it in a glass bowl for 30 seconds then beat it until it is smooth. A food processor or electric mixer will make this easier.
In a separate bowl, beat the pumpkin puree (or whatever else you are mixing in) until it is smooth.
Now take a few spoonsfull of the pumpkin puree and add them to the cream cheese. Mix until smooth. Add more of the purée, mix. Eventually it will all be incorporated, or if the cream cheese mixture becomes liquid enough, you can add all of it in.
If you're mixing the cream cheese into something more solid like almond paste, reverse the process and start with a couple spoons of cream cheese in the stiffer ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.876417
| 2015-10-24T19:41:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62787",
"authors": [
"Avery Eskridge",
"Bobby C",
"Catija",
"Erica",
"John 1960",
"Mark Waddey",
"Sally",
"Tiffany Harris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"priya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37453
|
Will a pork shoulder be dry after 16 hours at 110C
I'm intending to do the following recipe with an 8lb (3.6kg) bone in shoulder (Essentially 30mins @230C/450F, 16hours @ 110C/230F, 45mins@230C/450F).
I'm concerned that such a long cooking time will dry out the meat and my shoulder is below the 5-8kg range that the recipe suggests. I've looked around on the web for advice and I haven't found anything conclusive
Cooked boneless 3kg for 6 hours
unclear what size shoulder and whether the bone was in or not, says cooking time was too long
Most of the posts on this site use a slightly higher cooking temperature for much less time (250F for 6-8 hours seems to be the consensus).
There seems to be two concerns:
Safe meat, this seems pretty easy to achieve (140F+)
Tasty, melty, delicious meat (195F to melt the collagen)
I'm inclined to just give it a try but a decent pork shoulder runs at least $70 in Canada and I don't want to blow thanksgiving.
Any thoughts on how/if I should adjust he cooking time/temperature?
Pork shoulder is extremely forgiving.
You are looking for an outcome, not a time, and not an absolute temperature. Cook it until it is tender, which indicates the collagen is sufficiently converted to gelatin. That may or may not have happened at a particular temperature, because the conversion process is time dependent, and the rate is temperature sensitive.
Meathead describes testing for this in his comprehensive recipe for smoking pork shoulders:
If there is a bone, use a glove or paper towel to protect your fingers
and wiggle the bone. If it turns easily and comes out of the meat, the
collagens have melted and you are done. If there is no bone, use the
"stick a fork in it method". Insert a fork and try to rotate it 90
degrees. If it turns with only a little torque, you're done. If it's
not done, close the lid and go drink a mint julep for 30 minutes. If
the internal temp hits 195°F but the meat is still not tender, push on
up to 203°F, my new favorite target.
See also:
Pork butt roast: slicing temp vs pulling temp
What makes a moist steak (or roast)? (which is not just about steak)
That is an awesome answer, so I think to summarise what I've read so far, work on 2hrs/lb (so maybe 10hrs rather than 16) and if it finishes early wrap it and don't worry? Given I have to have it ready at a certain time I'll start it 12hrs before lunch to make sure?
Yes, if it finishes early, pull it and hold it. It should store extremely well in a small beer cooler, for example.
Any thoughts on foiling it as suggested in this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-goldwyn/physicist-cracks-bbq-mystery_b_987719.html
That depends on if you are actually smoking or not. If you are smoking, not wrapping will give you better crust development at the cost of time. Otherwise, no harm in wrapping if you want to speed things up.
Not planning to smoke this one, I am intrigued by the idea but I'm not sure my neigbours would thank me.
BTW - I had an 8lb bone in roast, roasted it for 16hrs at 110C then a quick 20 minute blast at 220C to crisp up the outside and it was fantastic, it was probably done after around 13-14 hours but the extra 2hours didn't seem to hurt it
I am glad you had a good outcome. I am about to do a little 3 lb chunk of shoulder in my baby countertop oven :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.876571
| 2013-10-09T14:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37453",
"authors": [
"David Hayes",
"Peddling Pelican Bike",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7172"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25161
|
How to fry crispy bananas?
I've fried bananas in a pot with some butter, but they remain soft and I would like to make them more crispy. Should I use oil instead?
What temperature are you using? You will need a hot pan, and make sure it is not over crowded.
I assume you are referring to standard, grocery store, cavendish bananas-
They have a ton of water and sugar and have a very delicate texture. This makes them easily disintegrate and get gummy instead of crisp. The key is to deep fry them at a fairly high heat until they are dark and crisp. It also helps to use greener bananas that will hold together better.
Butter is not well suited to this because of the necessary oil depth and high heat. Not only would it take a fair bit of butter but the butter would start to burn. Even clarified butter wouldn't be ideal.
Vegetable oil or shortening would be the way to go.
Additional notes:
To make frying them easier bananas are often coated in something starchy- like a tempura batter. Recipes abound and they are, in my opinion, much better than frying the bananas on their own.
Plantains are more often fried because they are much more starchy than Cavendish bananas. Plaintains actually become sweeter when fried.
I think you'll have better luck if you twice-fry them. Instead of butter use a vegetable or maybe even a peanut oil. Slick them to the desired thickness and give them a quick fry. Remove the slices and place on paper towels to cool. Then fry again. The first go around seals them and the second will make them crispy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.876865
| 2012-07-21T11:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25161",
"authors": [
"Cathy Procaskey",
"Efrem Zecharias",
"Jackie Wilson",
"Liga Barisa",
"Linda Billingsleywilson",
"NBenatar",
"binchotite",
"dragonflycat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57533"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41238
|
What types of alcohol will make meat tender when marinating?
When marinating meat for Russian "Shashlik"(BBQ) some people marinate meat in alcohol. My uncle prefers to use beer when preparing pork. My Georgian(this Georgia) friend uses red wine, which was the only ingridient I was able to get out of him. His BBQ is always very juicy and tender.
My questions: What types of alcohols should be used to help bring out meat flavor and making it tender without messing with the taste? Is there one type of alcohol that works great with all meats or should different types be used for different meats?
Bonus: What properties does alcohol possess that it makes meat tender?
Alcohol does not make the meat tender. It even prevents the outside surface of the meat to fully absorb the flavours. Then again, most marinades don't penetrate into the meat anyway.
When it comes to Shashlik, I think what is working for your uncle, is the time the meat spends in the fridge getting aged (they probably marinate for a day or more) and the enzymes break down the meat.
It is a myth that Alcohol or Acid make the meat tender. In fact, they have the opposite effect. Per food author Harold McGee's quote:
Alcohol does denature and dehydrate meat and fish tissue, and the
stronger the alcohol, the stronger this effect.
What you should do instead, is to cook off the alcohol from your marinade first. The ingredient that keeps the meat juicy is salt which most marinades have.
The less acidic marinade (beer versus wine) the more tender the meat. However, some not so acidic wines end up flavouring the surface of the meat enough to provide a pleasant byte.
You are right, meat does usually spend 1-2 days sometimes more. What about other alternative some people use my dad for example his version of Shashlik marinate is Vinegar, Salt and a lot of Onions. It is also left in the fridge for couple days.
Most of the marinades are helped by the salt and hindered by acid/alcohol (vinegar is acidic, wine is both). I personally think the onions are good with meat. Here is how I'd do it: 1) two days before BBQ, put meat and chopped onions in a ziplock bag in the fridge. 2) 4-6 hrs before BBQ sprinkle salt on the meat, back in the fridge. 3) 45mins before BBQ, optional: add vinegar, beer, or whatever your kick. 4) right before BBQ, cover the meat with oil (shake in ziplock bag). 5) BBQ to just right.
I don't agree with that statement on acidity. Sauerbraten is a perfect counterexample. Many marinades also have acid.
Also salt does not keep juices in; quite the opposite is true. Salt draws water out. This is called curing.
@Robert when it comes to meat, salt actually helps retain juices during cooking. Refer to Harold McGee's book.
Also, there is only one liquid kind of alcohol (Ethanol) that is safe to consume in macroscopic quantities - the other ones are either a) "higher" alcohols (fusel alc.) that define a lot of the flavour profile of a spirit and usually have a strong aroma, but are only there in minute quantities (and they would often have unpleasurable, immediate health effects otherwise), or non-ethanol alcohols of low complexity ... which are usually patently toxic (methanol, propanol...)
Marinades do not tenderize meat, except maybe the surface. Some claim a soak in dairy will tenderize, but no one seems able to explain how that would work.
Marinades simply don't penetrate the flesh. Furthermore, high acidic marinades will chemically cook the meat, usually not an ideal situation. The tenderness of your friend's recipes are based on some other thing they are doing to the meat.
It sounds like your friend is using both acid and tannins in his marinade, a good combination.
An acidic marinade does tenderize meat when left in for 2 hours or less. If left in the marinade longer than that, acids will toughen the meat rather than tenderize it.
Enzyme and tannin based marinades work better long term. Red wine tends to have a good tannin content for this (as does black tea and coffee), and also contains some acid.
Buttermilk and Yogurt are great for long term marinades, as those enzymes break down proteins very well. The enzymes in fruits like kiwis and Figs break down connective tissues and are also great for long term marinades.
Hope this helps!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, BPB!
If you use pork neck for shashlik AND you want to get it tender, then use mineral water in the beginning. Just cut the meat in pieces and move it to a container and SLOWLY pour mineral water in. Let rest in refrigerator for couple of hours. What it does, the carbon acid of mineral water goes between tissues and when forming CO2 it "rips" tissues apart. Same principle with acidic marinades but slightly differen chemistry. So if you want to get your shashlik tender, then use beer or mineral water. If you use mineral water, remember to pour it off. Then pour in the marinade of your taste, like wine. "Spongy" meat will suck the wine in and it will taste delicious over night.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.877034
| 2014-01-17T20:50:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41238",
"authors": [
"Abdul nasi",
"Alie Nelson Butterfield",
"MandoMando",
"Paul Crosby",
"Preston",
"Robert",
"Spammer",
"Thommo Thommo",
"Vladimir Oselsky",
"Waatti Contracting",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96085",
"ishita",
"rackandboneman",
"toomanyoars"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19749
|
Can I make potato dauphinoise/potato gratin/gratin dauphinoise without cream and just milk?
Tonight I'm going to make potato dauphinoise but I don't have any cream - at all - and all the recipes call for it! I should also note I have no creme fraiche or fromage frais or plain yoghurt e.t.c just milk and cheese (cheddar, unfortunately no gruyere or ementhal). Can I make it without cream or should I make a bechamel instead?
At first I thought there wouldn't be enough moisture in a potato/bechamel combination to cook the potatoes, but a little searching on Google reveals a few recipes with non-parboiled potatoes and bechamel sauce - so go for it.
Example:
Bechamel Potatoes
I don't think I'll do the whole 'bechamel' thing for pure laziness and just use milk... but thanks for the effort anyway I really appreciate it!
I do gratin potatoes this way all the time. Make a béchamel sauce, add grated cheese, add more milk so it's runnier than if you were using it for a typical cheese sauce, fill a baking dish with thinly sliced raw potatoes, pour the sauce over, tap the dish on the counter to help the sauce settle, and bake. Fantastic!
If you are not making this for the Queen, then you can use milk. Because it is an open gratin dish, the excess liquid should bubble away. You may want to add a little extra butter for richness.
Or if you have evaporated milk available, that will be a little closer to the original, although still not the same.
The problem of making it with a bechamel is that the liquid is tied up with the flour and is not as available to cook into the potatoes. That said, many potato au gratin recipes are made with milk and flour, which is very similar to what you are trying to do with this.
No matter what you do, it will not be the same dish, but should be nearly as tasty, if not as rich, as the original.
I'm probably going to do what you said: normal recipe but milk and a few tbsp extra butter. instead of cream. Thanks, that really helps!
OK, so I'm a couple of years too late but: What you want is "Boulangère Potatoes".
Potatoes sliced thin
Onion sliced thin
Fresh herbs (Sage, Thyme, Flat-leaf parsley or similar). Chopped fine.
A little butter for the top
Stock (chicken or vegetable).
Layers of potatoes followed by a small amount of onion and some fresh herbs + salt/pepper. Repeat. Dot the last layet with butter. Pour on stock to just almost but not quite reach the top layer of potatoes.
Bake for 1h to 1h30 in a medium-hot oven. Increase the heat at the end if you want it even more crispy.
I have one in the oven right now!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.877583
| 2011-12-18T16:53:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19749",
"authors": [
"Karen",
"Kate Gregory",
"Nietzsche",
"Nubie cook",
"Richard Moser",
"Snapman",
"VeeKoo",
"grayson smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94663",
"limecandle",
"mk1201",
"rousseau_Helene "
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44378
|
My Fudge Is Crunchy! Where Did I Go Wrong?
This is the recipe I'm trying to follow, but from what I've seen it's a fairly standard fudge recipe. I watched a few videos online and I felt like I had the general idea of what to do.
The fudge came out pretty good except there are a few very small, very crunchy 'bits' mixed in. It's not that the entire thing is 'grainy', the texture is pretty much what I'd expect...it's just a few small crunchy bits mixed it.
I want to try the recipe again, but I don't know what I could have done wrong. So I'm afraid I'll repeat the mistake. Can anyone speculate what might have gone wrong? I've come up with the following....
The Mixture Wasn't Smooth
When I first mixed the milk, sugar and cocoa, even after a fair bit of stirring I could see small clumps of sugar. Could this has been the cause? Do I just need to stir it more?
I Burned It
After bringing the fudge to boil, I reduced the heat to simmer. The temperature was 212F and I was aiming for 238F. I have a gas stove, but I struggled to get the flame set correctly....it would either boil or stop simmering. After 10 minutes or so of simmering it was still at 212F. I ended up with a 'very light boil' and the temperature started rising again. In total, I probably spent 30 minutes heating it. Right before it hit 238, I thought I smelled 'burning'. I turned off the heat, moved it, and went along as normal.
Or possibly something else?
The most likely culprit is how well you beat the mixture just before pouring it into the pan. I really like Alton Brown's explanation of the fudge-making process. What you're trying to do is form very small sugar crystals which provide fudge with its fine texture. Those crunchy bits you describe are larger crystal formations which can happen if you have a "seed crystal" remaining in the fudge as it sets. The purpose of stirring the fudge very well before pouring it into the pan is to deliberately form small crystals and break up any larger ones. If you didn't really thoroughly stir even just a few small patches of the fudge, some seed crystals may have developed there.
The clumps you describe in the initial mixture should have dissolved, but working them out would make sure that everything is evenly distributed. You can add the butter to the original mixture for the same reason instead of waiting until the end like the linked recipe recommends. A little bit of corn syrup will help control crystals too. Lastly, stir the fudge like crazy and scrape down as much of the work bowl as you can while you go. If your arms don't feel like they're about to fall off afterwards, you probably should have mixed it more.
Regarding temperature, remember that when simmering your fudge will carry over a couple degrees even after you turn off the heat. So you can kill the burner when your thermometer reaches 235F and monitor until you hit the target temp of 238F.
Quite honestly, fudge-making is a pretty sensitive process, so don't be too broken up if it takes a few tries and a lot of attention to detail before it's perfect.
The distinction here, between OP's recipe and AB's missive, is when to beat the stuff like mad! Please correct me if I'm wrong: Fudge is sugarwork, so perturbing when initially cooling (just after turning off heat) is bad (encourages undesirable big crystals). AB seems to say: let cool uncovered from 238F to 110F, THEN beat like crazy. Right?
I have great results with unsweetened EVAP milk, not condensed. I use med heat on burner all through recipe. I never stop stirring to prevent milk scald. The boiling time is usually 4 mins, still on med heat, but once the candy thermometer registers 234, I remove it from heat and add the chocolate, vanilla and marshmallow cream. Stir until combined away from heat and pour in buttered pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.877828
| 2014-05-24T15:13:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44378",
"authors": [
"CAROLYN HOLLAND",
"Emi",
"Gail M",
"Violet Rosenzweig",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"iorgu",
"mark",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"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
}
|
88082
|
Fat Head Dough Optimum Thickness
I saw Cooking eggs too soon for Keto dough earlier this week and determined this "Fathead Dough" was something to be tried. How thick should the 'dough' be rolled, particularly for 'other applications' (taco bowls and nacho chips in particular)
Both thicker and thinner can work as long as you roll it out evenly.
In my experience, rolling it thinner makes it feel more like "real" wheat dough. However that way it feels more like flatbread than proper pizza crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.878145
| 2018-03-02T00:32:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88082",
"authors": [],
"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
}
|
19429
|
Does it make any sense to grate the radish on a grater without peeling its skin?
Does the radish automatically get rid of it's skin when grated on the grater? OR for safety reasons is it better to peel the skin off the radish before grating?
By radish I mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikon
Do you usually peel radishes? I never have. (Are we talking about the same kind of radish? In the US we have primarily something like this.)
@Jefromi See edit. :) BTW, I never saw your kind of radishes? Do they (your and mine) taste different?
Ah, okay! You can also find daikon here but it's usually called daikon, in my experience. And yes, they're fairly different. Daikon has a milder flavor; the little pink ones have a stronger sharp, peppery flavor, along with a little of a flavor that's also in horseradish and mustard.
Daikon peel is edible. I believe it does have a somewhat different flavor (stronger? I don't have one around to try) than the rest of the root, so you might want to try a bit before you include the peel in a dish. You'll also have to wash a bit more carefully to make sure you don't leave any dirt on. And the skin is tougher, but if you're grating perpendicular to it, you'll end up with small enough pieces that it shouldn't be a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.878228
| 2011-12-06T04:26:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19429",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Pete Kirkham",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44866
|
What is the measurement of 1 cup?
This recipe requires 1 cup milk and 1 cup oats.
What is the measurement of 1 cup in milliliters?
@Aaronut Thanks for the helpful other question link.
A US cup is 237 mL.
It is more practical to use grams though:
256 grams of milk and 156 grams of oats.
WolframAlpha is the perfect place to look up these kind of things:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+cup+of+oats
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+cup+of+milk
I just have have the ml measuring vessel, not the grams one, so what should I assume w.r.t ml for both of them?
237 mL for both.
I seldom get in trouble using 250 ml as the conversion factor. It's wrong by a bit, but when a recipe calls for a cup of this and a cup of that, the ratio ends up correct. It's also easier to remember, and measure using metric cookware.
We Americans still haven't learned to cook by weight, for the most part.
@keshlam When a Carrington event takes out every electronic scale in Europe, they will be sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.878357
| 2014-06-14T08:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44866",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bruce Jones SEO spam",
"George Moy",
"Kb-Lock Key and Services spam",
"Kennedy Shah",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"keshlam",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43853
|
What is the best way to store loose tea to maintain its freshness?
This is the tea I use. Like Coffee needs to be stored in freezer, are there any storage restrictions for loose tea leaves also?
Tea needs to be kept away from heat, light, air, and moisture. The best way to store tea is at room temperature in an opaque, airtight container.
Your container should not be plastic, because odors from previous uses (even if its only been used solely for tea) could contaminate your current tea.
Do not store tea in the freezer or refrigerator. Opening and closing of the door causes rapid humidity changes that cause moisture to seep into the container and degrade the flavor of the tea.
Some cheap tea containers can be found here: http://www.specialtybottle.com/teatincontainersmi.aspx
Personally, I would go for one with a twist or latching cover rather than a slip cover, just to ensure that it's airtight.
References
http://www.uptontea.com/shopcart/information/INFOstoring.asp
http://www.teavana.com/tea-info/tea-storage-for-loose-leaf-teas
http://www.teavivre.com/info/proper-storage-of-tea.html
http://verdanttea.com/how-to-store-tea/
Do not store tea in the freezer or refrigerator. - reasons?
"Moisture is equally detrimental to fragile tea leaves. Like any organic matter, tea, when wet, begins to mold and decay—a wholly undesirable effect. For this reason, we do not recommend storing tea in the refrigerator or freezer because continual opening and closing of the door causes rapid changes in humidity. Modern freezers cycle through different temperatures and often create an icing problem. Moisture seeps into the container and robs the tea leaves of flavor."
http://www.uptontea.com/shopcart/information/INFOstoring.asp
Edit: edited answer to add succinct clarification
I use a tin that some posh tea came in. The lid fits pretty tight.
But anything airtight should do; a decent tupperware box or even a jam jar or a sauce bottle. I used to keep flour, sugar and everything in them when I was a student because the places I lived were always damp.
In my opinion the best way is if you take the tea into a hermetically sealed box (that can be found in almost every supermarket), the tea won't lose their smell and taste in a long time. But don't forget everything will go bad sooner or later.
The freezing isn't recommended, because the micro ice cristalls do harm the fibers of the foods, that's why the freezing makes more tastles the frozen foods (but not very much).
This is the reason why the meets can be frozen only once.
I didn't want to copy the above answer.
When I wrote my answer, I didn't see what Wayfaring Stranger had wrotten.
You must buy teas from some reputed shops .It should be placed in a very dry place with out any strong smells.Green tea requires more preservation than other teas If you keep it with vacuum sealer then it will be preserved for more days.
You can also see some different tea preservation process here:-http://www.teanaga.com/learn-about-tea/how-to-store-different-kinds-of-tea/
Keep it sealed under low light. If you can smell the tea, it's losing flavor. For large quantities I use 1L widemouth jars with screw on plastic lids. Plastic gives a tighter seal than metal for this sort of thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.878493
| 2014-05-03T11:28:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43853",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Dasher",
"Hoki1881",
"Kiers",
"MatinicusRock",
"Mirza Belal Ahmed",
"Nicole",
"Rebecca Klein",
"Rebel",
"SheUSA",
"Spammer",
"Sudarshan Rao",
"Top Heavy",
"adiga",
"blackcornail",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"lyxal"
],
"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
}
|
34417
|
What to use for a matcha whisk?
I want to make matcha green tea. If I just stir it in a mug with a teaspoon it doens't mix in very well so I know I need a whisk. The most popular ones are the traditional bamboo ones but it seems you need a bowl for them as well and I'd prefer to use a normal mug.
Has anyone used a normal whisk, does that work? Or I was thinking of trying a cooking brush.
UPDATE: has anyone tried with an electric whisk?
This barbaric American uses a fork; much better than a spoon, and usually handy.
Ive tried using a fork but it doesnt work that well for me. This is the first matcha ive brought and its been in my cupboard for a while, so maybe its sticking together more than normal.
I've actually used a spoon and a tine, super-fine strainer before, which is nice because I never used that strainer for anything else. I actually got that idea from a Cooking with Dog video. Can't remember which one.
The bowl isn't absolutely essential; it's part of the aesthetic. The shape does serve a purpose, as most of them have nicely curved bottoms that will minimize the chance of the powder from clumping near the edge of the bowl.
I've used a normal whisk when preparing "matcha latte" drinks for a client of mine back in the day. There's an advantage to having the 80-120 "tate" (bristle?) because they make it easier to break up beads that form as moisture contacts the tea. But a normal culinary whisk will do the trick, perhaps with a bit more work.
I don't see how the silicone brush would help whisking; they tend to be pretty floppy (and mine has occasionally had some of the silicone strands break off when I've used it for brushing food).
Yes, you can likely use a regular whisk, it should work fine - it's not much extra trickiness compared to other powders which threaten to clump up.
I tend to make matcha in paste-and-loosen form - a paste doesn't have enough liquid to let clumps slide around instead of mix in, and it's easier to loosen a thick paste to a solution rather than gradually than try to whisk a dry powder into a thin liquid. With the thinning a paste method, it is fairly easy to use spoon, fork, butter-knife, chopstick, or, well, whatever.
Since I usually like tea a bit on the cooler side, I sometimes loosen it up with cold water, so it doesn't over-steep before cooling enough for me to drink (and sometimes the reverse, use less hot water and add cold water for the rest to end up at drinkble temps fast).
As for your update, yeah, electric milk frother works. Pretty well, actually. I tend to use it if I miscalculate the initial mixing, and it smooths lumps really well. Just like an immersion blender, it works best if there's enough liquid, and enough room in the vessel, to let the contents slosh about rather than spatter all over the place - maybe liquid an inch over the head at a minimum, a couple inches is better, and a couple more inches of bowl-space to accommodate it sloshing or frothing up a bit? Or, given how tiny the head is, total of a half a glass or mugfull, mix well, add the other half of the liquid which mixes smoothly since the lumps are ded.
And if you are making matcha lattes, the milk forther is absolutely a time and energy saver!
If you're really into matcha, then you should be picky about getting a dedicated bowl and whisk. Those bamboo whisk can mix the powder more fine resulting in a more thick and creamy matcha. Round bowls also help, because it fits the whisk better. You can mix more conveniently in it compared to a mug.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.878795
| 2013-05-30T14:16:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34417",
"authors": [
"Evanss",
"Joslyn Fresay",
"Kaivalagi",
"Shelley Thomas",
"Spammer",
"Teri Wyatts",
"Uli Alskelung Von Hornbol",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80175",
"kitukwfyer",
"zidniryi"
],
"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
}
|
40563
|
Is it safe to eat chicken stored below 0c for about 8 days? If not what are the dangers?
Suppose I left some chicken in the freezer for 8 days and the freezer was set to go from 0c to -5c over those 8 days. Since the air temperature was still below 0, is it safe to eat that particular chicken? As far as I'm aware, bacteria only becomes a problem at higher temperatures. If not safe what might the problems be?
I think that in general, when the answer is "no", the dangers are "violent illness".
Are you sure it was 0° C and not 0° F? Most freezers shouldn't even have a 0° C setting, that's just barely above refrigerator temperature.
According to FoodSafety.gov, poultry can be stored frozen for 9 months or more, but frozen storage should be below 0F (-18c). The issue is that in a freezer set to 0c, there's still a good chance that the temperature fluctuated slightly above freezing in that time. The storage time for refrigerated poultry (below 40F/4c) is only one to two days, so your answer probably lies between those two somewhere. Due to the low temperature, but possibly freezing and thawing, I would think that you would face a decline in quality more than a biological threat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.879100
| 2013-12-24T19:15:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40563",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Arkhem",
"Daniel Vaillant",
"Franky",
"Pointy",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94741",
"sbotopcom6 spam",
"thelastshadow",
"user94741"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21787
|
Baking course online
I want to learn baking and have been reading recipes from the internet and trying them but, I want a more structured approach starting with the basics and going to the advanced. I don't feel that the ad-hoc method of reading recipes and executing them is very satisfying. In my country, we don't bake a lot except for the professional pastry chefs. So, I don't know of anyone who's a baker or any baking classes around my home. So, does anyone know of an online baking course?
It's not free, but rouxbe, which is a very high quality on line cooking school, includes baking lessons.
rouxbe is great, but their baking lessons are pretty basic
Just go to youtube . There are thousands of baking videos available. Not all are great, but some definitely are very useful. You also have a lot of video posters that refer to their website with more baking videos.
If there were a million of these and this was a survey, I could see this being a bad fit for us - but there really aren't very many, especially good ones, on the net.
It might be easier to find handbooks or informational sites than classes specifically, as the former can be put up once and left there, whereas the latter requires a teacher be present for each iteration of the course.
I found a good bread-making handbook at The Fresh Loaf; they also have lessons on specific topics. Prepared Pantry has a free baking cookbook as well, plus lessons, though their classes are done I believe at their store location.
+1 - Its tough to beat the Fresh Loaf for strictly bread stuff - its a great resource.
Try Carole Walter's on-line baking school. On-line courses are only as good as the people teaching them. Carole is a master of home baking and teaching. With four award-winning books and numerous other accolades -- Carole is a teacher above all else. You will learn to do things her way -- and that's delicious perfection!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.879241
| 2012-02-27T14:32:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21787",
"authors": [
"Au101",
"Fermin Arellano",
"Gaith",
"Mien",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48430",
"michael",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30
|
Pressure canning instructions
Where can safe and reliable instructions (including high and low altitude canning) be found for canning?
National Center for Home Food Preservation
The National Center for Home Food Preservation is your source for current research-based recommendations for most methods of home food preservation. The Center was established with funding from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (CSREES-USDA) to address food safety concerns for those who practice and teach home food preservation and processing methods.
The Ball Complete Book of Home Preserving includes a section that does just what you're asking. It also provides a large collection of excellent recipes and general tips and tricks.
My pressure cooker came with detailed instructions for canning.
Including high and low altitude canning?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.879432
| 2010-07-09T19:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30",
"authors": [
"Brant",
"Callum",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Garo Yeriazarian",
"Herb Caudill",
"Jay O'Flaherty",
"Joe",
"Tim",
"Zayenz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76",
"vitule"
],
"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
}
|
24523
|
Lemon vs lime in choc chip cookie recipe
Can I use lime instead of lemon in my choc chip cookie recipe? It calls for 1/2 teaspoon and I have no lemons. Would it be better to just omit or use 1/2 teaspoon of lime juice?
Well, welcome to the community. It would be helpful to provide as much information as possible (recipes for example). The people here are fairly active, but lie Jefromi said, you shouldn't expect a instant response. If you need an quicker response, you could try the chat room (requires 20 rep, but that isn't hard to get if you hang around here a bit). http://cooking.stackexchange.com/privileges/chat
It's really hard to say without seeing your recipe. (Why is there lemon juice in the first place?) In general, lime juice will provide about the same amount of acidity (good), and the flavor will be similar but not quite the same (probably okay, maybe won't go as well with the chocolate). If you've made this before and you can't really taste the lemon juice flavor in the final product, then don't worry about it. If you haven't, well, I doubt half a teaspoon in a whole batch of cookies is providing substantial flavor, so I'd say go for it, unless the cookies are for something really important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.879668
| 2012-06-17T22:23:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24523",
"authors": [
"Bob Durrant",
"Joy",
"Saizan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55876",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
24256
|
Too much water in box cake mix batter. Can it be fixed?
I added too much water in my box cake mix and I already mixed the 2 together. What can I do to save the cake? Could I add another box of cake mix to the batter?
Wait, if you have an extra box of cake mix, just discard the first one and start over. Its not like we're talking expensive ingredients here!
If (s)he added twice the amount of water, (s)he can just make two cakes, without adding water for the second one.
Step 1: Add second box box. Step 2: Adjust for water for two cakes. Step 3: Make two cakes. Step 4: Send me spare cake. :-)
I think what we need to establish first is whether the OP knows exactly how much extra water was added. If it was an accident and the OP has no idea how much extra then starting from scratch is prudent. If the OP knows exactly how much water added, then make a double batch by adding more water to double the batch.
If you don't know how much extra water you've added, but do have an extra box of cake mix, you could probably do pretty well by mixing up a fraction of the second box separately, then dumping the rest in the original batch and adding the remaining water until it's the same consistency as the small test batch.
And any water is too much water, IMHO. Use milk or, my favorite, melted ice cream
If you are only over by a small amount (¼ cup or less) just add half the volume of flour(±). If you added a moderate amount of extra water(½ to 1 cup) add half the volume of flour and ½ tsp baking powder and sugar equal to ⅓ the flour. Cakes fixed this way will be slightly dry but serviceable, particularly given that you started with a boxed cake anyway.
Beyond that point just make a double recipe.
If batter just looks a bit too loose then switching to a sheet pan should take care of it.
Sprinkling something absorbent onto the base of pan before pouring batter also helps: raisins currents even cookie crumbs (I save gingersnaps for baking) or fistful of fine semolina
I just did this this morning when making cinnamon chocolate swirl cake added 1 3/4 cups of water instead of 3/4 cups of water worried and not sure what to do I just added 1 cup of pancake mix the complete kind and hoped for the best. It took a little longer to cook but no one was the wiser and it was really good not too dry. I guess I lucked out on this one. Next time I will put my glasses on before mixing. Hope this works for you also.
Thanks for the answer! Complete pancake mix is a good idea if you have it; it will probably have leavening similar to the cake mix, along with some dry milk and maybe other things to make it less plain, so it'll be a little closer to the cake mix than just flour and baking powder. It won't be sweet, though; you might still find you want to add sugar.
1 1/2 cups all purpose flour,
1 cup sugar,
2 teaspoon baking powder,
1/4 teaspoon baking soda,
Whisk together. Add to cake mix until you get the right consistency. I use this recipe to actually get a bigger yield out of a mix and then add a bit more liquid. I keep the mixture in a mason jar. Cake mixes are less ounces today and really helps getting 2 dozen versus 18 cupcakes without having to get another mix.
I accidentally doubled the water to 1/2 cup but went ahead and baked it anyway. It turned out fine, more cake than brownie. My teen boys couldn’t care less. Picture shows what was left an hour after it came out of the oven.
Oh I can tell you what happens when you are old enough, distracted enough, not paying that much attention to what you are doing and dingy enough to not be able to remember if you added the water yet or not. I just did that and am the one who is guilty of all the above. I added the water called for ( 1 cup) as per the instructions on my French Vanilla Cake Mix and immediately knew the batter was too thin. I went ahead & poured it into my cupcake pan and baked it until the toothpick came out clean which was several more minutes than the box mix stated it should take. The cupcakes looked “off” but kind of ok. When they came out of the oven they were nice and puffy but as they cooled they deflated and shriveled up quite a bit. They look and taste spongy and kind of eggy too. But I like the taste, kind of soufflé-like. I had to make an entire new batch as they were supposed to be for a bake sale and they were far from picture perfect. But I have no problem polishing these little ditties off as a chef’s treat that is unique ugly but edible tasty blunder.
I just did this on accident. I added 2 cups when i was supposeda add only 1. What i did bc i was lucky enuff to have a spare box, was added a little bit of cake mix to my mixture and mixed until it got to the correct consistancy. All worked out thankfully.
I just used 1/2 box of a new cake mix box to save mine. I accidentally added an extra cup of water when it should have been only 1 1/4 cup. Came out good. Will try the pancake mix next time I make a mistake
Yes, adding too much water into a cake batter can be fixed. What you have to do is
ADD: "Cake Flour" (not regular flour) so that it can have a thicker, fluffy and floppy texture. Test your texture by stirring it with a fork (in a vertical, circular motion).
Also, because Cake Flour does not have a flavor nor taste, you'd want to either add some POWDERED SUGAR for more taste or some WHITE SUGAR (not too much of either) because the it'll make your cake hard and crispy and it'll stop from properly rising as it should. It'll come out flat and firmer, especially around the edges if too much sugar is added. As for flavor, depending on the overall flavor of your cake, you can use ingredients like Vanilla Extract, Almond Extract, Lemon Extract, Cocoa Powder, etc. To make your cake come together and add fluffiness to it, add some baking soda to it and let it sit for about 5-10 minutes. Allow the Baking Soda to work it's magic. Baking Soda, after left sitting a while in the batter, makes your batter puffy and moussey. When it gets like that, your cake will have a wonderful texture. Then that's when you begin pouring your batter into your pan or pans. Sometimes you may not want to wait but you must wait for the baking soda it do what it needs to do in order to get the results your looking for. In reiteration, Yes, too much water in a box cake mix batter can be fixed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.879810
| 2012-06-06T19:51:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24256",
"authors": [
"Barbara MacDonald",
"Becca Lanyard",
"Cascabel",
"Eamonn Joyce",
"Jay",
"Kevin",
"Melanie Thomas",
"Mien",
"Pablo",
"Ransom Meltzer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93758",
"peggy",
"talon8",
"user3649739"
],
"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
}
|
39718
|
Pan For Induction Heating
Is this pan compatible for Induction Cooktop?
I understand it's asking about a particular product, but I figured, you guys would be really experienced to answer this based on your experience.
You should be able to edit a previous post using the small link under the tags, maybe you missed it. There is a row of light gray links, one of them should be "edit". If the other question was on-topic, I would have edited this addition into it for you. In this case, I closed the other question, as it was a question asking for us to recommend a model of equipment, which is off-topic. The new one is not off-topic, so I am leaving it separate.
The production description doesn't mention it for some reason (maybe they think it is obvious), but this is a cast iron pan. Every cast iron pan, including this one, will work on an induction cooktop.
Many iron pans are not machined finely, so if you use cast iron on induction with glass surface (as are practically all modern induction heaters), you risk tiny scratches. I don't mind them and use a very similar pan, but if you want to keep your cooktop magazine-shiny, you should buy enameled or forged iron, or leave iron completely out and buy steel.
Cast iron is in general a good choice for induction cooking, as it is a ferrous material.
Depending on what type of induction cooktop (or burner or hob) you have, it may scratch the surface. Some people just recommend slipping parchment paper under the pan to reduce scratching.
I am against paper use. It works for stews, etc. but most food for which I get out a cast iron pan need high temperatures, and the paper chars, stinks, and leaves (cleanable) residue. For long-and-slow cooking, there are better material choices than a raw-surface cast iron pot, and they tend to have a smooth surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.880284
| 2013-11-24T21:10:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39718",
"authors": [
"Cannabis education Ventura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107817",
"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
}
|
42416
|
Deep-Frying stuffed mushrooms?
I got stuffed mushrooms at the butcher's today with minced meat inside them. Would it be a good idea to deep-fry them; and if so on how many degrees would you do so?
They are almost certainly better baked than deep fried.
I'd never heard of deep fried stuffed mushrooms until recently. They were breaded before frying. I love deep fried mushrooms, but I've yet to try it deep frying them. As long as their breaded, I think they'd be excellent.
If you try to fry them, you'd do well to coat them with breadcrumbs (using egg as an adhesive). Depending on the size of the mushrooms you may even need to do 2-3 layers.
If you don't coat them, they'll probably loose too much water and taste weird. I have deep fried coated muchrooms before (delicious!) at 170°C, however I never tried it with stuffed mushrooms. Personally I disliked them deep fried without coating, but I guess to each their own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.880449
| 2014-02-28T21:59:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42416",
"authors": [
"GDS Medianet Connection spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tim Nevins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99051"
],
"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
}
|
37871
|
What makes the Pillsbury canned biscuits puff up?
What is it in canned biscuits that makes them puff up immediately upon opening the can yet stops them from raising further? What kind of food voodoo is at work here? Please explain the food science behind this and what additives cause this effect in the "food".
I'd like to know too :)
I don't think this is a food additive or anything to do with food science: the cans are simply packed under pressure, so when you open them, they "pop".
It could be achieved with almost any leavening, but I suspect it's baking soda or baking powder, and not yeast.
You'd just need to package it before the reaction is completed, and let it finish in the container. This would create additional gas, which would pressurize the can.
As for why it doesn't continue to rise, it's because they can control how much leavening goes in, so they'll have a known amount of gas created. Once that gas gets to one atmospheric pressure (roughly, depending on how close to sea level you are), it'll expand appropriately.
It's effectively the same sort of process that happens with fizzy drinks -- when you open the bottle or can, you allow the interior pressure to equalize with the surrounding, which causes the bubbles to escape. The difference in that case is that the bubbles are dissolved in the liquid, and so may need some agitation or nucleation sites to escape. But there's still a fixed amount of bubbling that could happen.
I did check; there is no yeast in the ingredient list.
@SAJ14SAJ Does it list ammonium bicarbonate, or just say leavening agents?
@WayfaringStranger Enriched Flour Bleached (wheat flour, niacin, ferrous sulfate, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), Water, Soybean and Palm Oil, Sugar, Hydrogenated Palm Oil*, Baking Powder (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, sodium aluminum phosphate). Contains 2% or less of: Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil*, Salt, Vital Wheat Gluten, Dextrose, Whey, Mono and Diglycerides, Xanthan Gum, Propylene Glycol Alginate, TBHQ (preservative), Natural and Artificial Flavor, Color Added.*Adds A Trivial Amount Of Trans Fat
I used to make the store brand version of the Pillsbury canned biscuits. It was true that the CO2 is the gas that creates the pressure. The dough is made by measuring all of the "scaled" ingredients to get the proper mixture, which in turn controls the amount of gas created. It is then pumped onto a conveyor where it is sheeted. This is similar to rolling it with a rolling pin. This is how the thickness is determined. After that it is cut with a die similar to a cookie cutter. (although for mass production and varies based on what size and shape desired...Look up rotary die cutting for biscuits-- this was not the tool we used but is the most common way that bakery manufacturing cuts sheeted dough).
We did retard the gassing by keeping the production room cool until the product got to the canning process. Then we allowed the process to warm. This allowed the cans to "gas up" This process actually helps the can seat or seal. The metal lids are just crimped (rolled with cams) onto the cardboard side. The gas actual pushes on the can structure until it latches together.
My suspicion is that the dough is pressurized, which shrinks the gas bubbles in the dough and allows Pillsbury to make smaller, denser containers of dough. When you open the can, the bubbles can expand again, making the dough puff up.
I don't have any proof of this, but this Yahoo Answers page mentions it (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513195851AABE3vl) and the "Biscuit Bullet" myth (as seen on Mythbusters) seems to corroborate it also.
I suspect the leavener that does the initial puffing up is ammonium bicarbonate. Ammonium bicarbonate breaks down completely to CO2 + ammonia at temperatures above 30 some centigrade, is a common biscuit ingredient for that reason, and is featured in at least one of Pillsbury's recent dough patents.
This is likely not correct answer, as ammonium bicarb dioesn't appear on the ingredient list SAJ14SAJ provides.
My guess is that they are packaged in a vacuum which removes any air and other gasses. Upon opening, air rushes in and the dough pops out. Just like a sponge will when sealed in a vacuum.
That'd just destroy the structure and it wouldn't reinflate, like what happens to marshmallows.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.880570
| 2013-10-24T04:53:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37871",
"authors": [
"Buy Here Pay Here Clifton",
"Cascabel",
"DVillano",
"Diana Narvaez",
"Everstudent",
"Felicity Dicus",
"Joe Dodd",
"John Madden",
"Jolenealaska",
"JupiterPalace",
"Kaci",
"Marti",
"RHawkeyed",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93960",
"mithb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37138
|
Can a cream cheese cake be left out and for how long?
I have an awesome cream cheese and blueberry pound cake recipe that I love to bake. Can it be left on the counter and for how long?
If you have a true pound cake, it should be good at room temperature for 2-3 days, well wrapped.
The title of your question made it sound like you have a cheese cake, perhaps with a pound cake base. If that is the case:
Cheesecake is essentially a custard of cream cheese, eggs, and dairy.
None of these foods should normally be left at room temperature for an extended period of time, as they are all quite perishable.
I would recommend leaving a cheesecake out for no more than 2 hours or so, the same as any other perishable food.
See also: How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
It's a cream cheese pound cake (http://www.marthastewart.com/315556/cream-cheese-pound-cakes), not a cheesecake.
A lot of cheesecakes have pound cake cases... but will update.
Pound cake is good for a day or two on the counter, a week or so in the fridge, and indefinitely in the freezer...they freeze really well due to their high density. The addition of cream cheese doesn't make a notable difference in texture, though if you're using a frosting that will change things.
I tend to make mine in job lots, and freeze them...Stick 'em in a freezer bag, press out the air, and you're good to go. Best to eat it inside a couple of months, or it'll dry out a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.880961
| 2013-09-27T04:19:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37138",
"authors": [
"AzLimbiate",
"EinDeep",
"Liz Dawson",
"Prim Reaper",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sheila M Levin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93929",
"pglpm",
"user87288"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87412
|
Do potatoes and rice lose significant amount of fiber when overcooked?
I overcooked both brown rice and potatoes today, both boiling. The skin on the potatoes was intact even though I overcooked it but too soft. Does that mean the fiber is significantly reduced in both foods? Does the fiber leech out into the water?
Neither of these foods has much fiber to begin with, about 2 and 3 % fiber by weight, according to the first website I found with data. I don't think it was the fiber that was holding them together before they got cooked (but I'll let somone with more knowledge of the actual chemistry post a more definititve answer)
No, fiber is a very hardy beast chemically. There is no fiber lost at all, no matter how much you overcook them in a dish. You would have to throw them into a furnace and take out crisps of carbon no longer recognizable as food to change the fiber.
does this answer only apply to insoluble fiber or both fibers? I imagine, unlike insoluble fiber, if soluble fiber is boiled or steamed, it will be affected by the water?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.881124
| 2018-01-30T23:14:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87412",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22662
|
Will hard boiled eggs absorb salt through the shell?
In this America's Test Kitchen video they add salt to the cold water when hard boiling eggs.
Would the salt actually permeate the shell and flavor the egg? That seems unlikely to me and is just a waste of good salt.
(Apart from the salt, that method is not new to me. My old, Mom-gave-it-to-me-when-I-got-my-first-apartment Betty Crocker cookbook has the same instructions.)
They didn't say the salt had any effect on the flavor. I'm pretty sure the idea is to have some effect on how easy it is to peel the egg, but I don't know how effective it is or why.
It would certainly work if you puncture the bottom of the shell to prevent it from breaking.
Salt or acid is often added to the water when boiling eggs to denature egg whites faster should there be a crack and a leak.
I have not read anything that experiments whether this is effective. It also sounds like "don't wash mushrooms" or "pasta must be cooked in a ton of water" kind of old wives tales.
Oooh. I believe both of those wives tales you mentioned. I guess I have some reading to do. :)
Salt does permeate the shell and flavor the egg, but not the quantities you're talking about.
How do I know? I grew up eating Chinese tea eggs, which are made by soaking a hard boiled egg in a salty solution. They're normally cracked but not peeled before soaking, and are soaked for a number of hours, up to a few days. Over the years, we've accidentally made some without cracking, and after soaking, they weren't as salty, but they clearly had a salt flavor.
For a quick boil like this, I'm sure the flavor impact is minimal. Salt has other properties, like raising the boiling point of water and pulling moisture out of solids via osmosis.
It's possible that one of these side effects positively affect the peeling or how the egg cooks. Perhaps someone came up with this technique with one of those parameters in mind, but the goal was lost in translation.
It could also be, as Sobachatina said, just a myth. It's not for the flavor, though.
Ever heard of Salted Duck Eggs??? They are an amazing delicacy! The fresh duck eggs (Eggs that are not cooked at all and have no cracks) are soaked in salty water for a couple of weeks and once they are ready to be eaten they are hard boiled. The salty water is absorbed through the shell of the egg and flavours the egg to make these amazing salted duck eggs.
But it takes a couple weeks to be able to even taste the salt so I would say that if you are doing this to flavour the egg then it is a waste of salt, but salt increases the boiling point of water so that's probably why they did so.
Please feel free to test it out for your self, I generally put salt in hot water and mix it to dissolve the salt and then put the salty water in a container or jar with the eggs and let it sit for about 3 weeks, then boil them as usual to make hard boiled eggs. There are recipes you can find if you want specific measurements.
Duck eggs here. Boiled in salt water. Do have a light salty taste. This is for short storage. For long term they are placed in sea water. The longer they set. The more the salt soaks in to them. Hen eggs I have never had that way. S.Pacific here. Local food on the duck eggs that way.
Salt absolutely penetrates the eggshell while boiling. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the pink Himalayan salt I use or what but these eggs are delicious! I did 6 eggs the other day heavy pinch of salt covered with water brought to a boil then cover shut the heat off.... 15 minutes later they are done refrigerate and enjoy.
I boil my eggs medium and salt the eggs while hot and put them into the fridge. I do this because I believe it penetrates the shell, gives flavor and magnesium that I believe helps my bones :)
Eggs in Asia are stored in brime. Both duck & chicken eggs. Some are a little to salty for my taste. But like a salty hard boiled egg they are. Remove shell & enjoy a salty egg near like hard boiled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.881258
| 2012-03-30T16:58:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22662",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan Csharpster",
"Derouenson Banker99",
"J Bergen",
"Joanna YW",
"Preston",
"Remy Godwin",
"Robert",
"SierraMcCharlie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64588"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28086
|
What is the minimum ingredient to bake a bread?
I have the following recipe to make 1 -1/2 pound bread:
3/4 cup warm water (110 degrees F/45 degrees C)
1 cup sourdough starter
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1/4 teaspoons sugar
2 2/3 cups bread flour
1 1/2 teaspoons active dry yeast
So, I was wondering if these are the minimum ingredients to bake a bread or if there are other alternative to use lesser ingredients to achieve a good & tasty loaf of bread?
I wrote an answer assuming you're talking about trying to leave ingredients out, rather than reduce quantities. But this is a kind of strange, vague question - you might want to look at more than one recipe before asking more things like this.
In the future, you may also want to edit your questions when people are obviously a bit confused about what you're asking. It'll help you get better answers.
The minimum ingredients to make ("western") tasting bread are:
Flour
Water
You would also need, albeit they are not considered ingredients:
Time
Air (*)
A source of heat (usually an oven, but can also be a pot (such a Dutch oven), or some weirder for non so "western" breads).
When you give time to your mix of water and flour, you will get a culture of yeasts and bacteria. That culture has different names by different people: levain, starter, sourdough, biga...
It is important to note most of these yeasts and bacteria come with the flour, and they can perfectly rise your bread.
It wasn't until the identification of yeasts with microscopes in 1800s, when Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast was taken apart from beer maker's cultures, and grown specifically. Beer makers also fed their cultures with just flour and water.
When you add a packet or a cube of yeast to make your bread dough, you are adding a culture of yeasts selected to enhance the grown of the dough.
I marked Air with an (*) because I'm not sure it is really essential. It can give some yeasts and bacterias to the culture, but flour has enough of them initially. And yeasts can grow and reproduce in 2 ways: aerobically and anaerobically. That is: with or without air. I've seen pictures of doughs grown in vacuum, but I'm not 100% sure if you could do all the process of starting your culture and rise the dough with absolutely no air at all.
To conclude: you only need water and flour (whether wheat or rye) to make a traditional loaf of bread. It might taste strange to most people today as it has no salt. But salt wasn't added to bread until 200 years ago (or so).
Specifically, you do not need for making bread:
Salt:
Salt began to be used in bread less than 2 centuries ago. It began to be used not to give [salty] taste to the bread, but to make the dough easier to handle; due to its hygrostatic properties it makes the dough stiffer. Nowadays several traditional bread are made with no salt at all, like Mallorca (Spain) or Toscana (Italy) bread. And they are bread people eat every day.
See this answer on reducing amount of salt in bread, although I don't agree with him on taste. I think reducing salt brings up cereal flavours that were hidden. I guess it depends on the flour you use.
Sugar/honey/malt
Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts eat sugar. In fact that's what "Saccharomycea" means: "sugar eater". Flour has enzymes that decompose starches in glucose, but it needs time to do so. If you add a lot of commercial yeast, it might not have enough sugar to work. So some recipes add sugar to allow yeast to have plenty of food. Malt are enzymes, so the time it takes to break down starch in glucose gets reduced.
See What is the purpose of sugar in making bread and Making malt free bread
Commercial yeast
You can have enough rising power with just levain/starter/sourdough.
See What is a culture in bread
"Traditional" bread has salt. Also, iirc, the yeast used in bread does need air to survive and/or grow.
@Rob, salt is used today in most breads, as yeast is. But they are not mandatory to make bread.
Of course but I doubt he wants unsalted bread.
He wants bread with the minimun ingredients ;-).
I doubt that the OP wants to try making bread with no added yeast. It's of course possible, but making a starter like this is time-consuming, and a less experienced breadmaker is likely to have some trouble. (I could be wrong, and maybe it's a theoretical question, but my best guess is that he was looking for a simple recipe.)
@Jefromi as I understood the question, the OP didn't want an easy recipe. Not even he wanted to make bread. He just wanted to know if it was possible to make it with less ingredients, and what was the minimun (variety) of ingredients needed to make a loaf of bread. I think he was wondering it even in a theoretical plane, as he had accepted this answer that explains what ingredients do, and gives no recipe.
I guess most people didn't understand that way, and that's why this question has some negative votes.
@J.A.I.L. One of the primary reasons for downvotes is unclear questions (it says this when you hover on the button). Both interpretations of the question are decent, valid questions. Downvoting just means it's hard to tell which, so it's hard to answer.
What is your source for your assertion that salt was not added to bread until 200 years ago?
Are you trying to make sourdough bread? If not, you obviously don't need sourdough starter.
The most basic (Western) bread would just be flour, yeast, and water. You can use all-purpose flour instead of bread flour (though there are differences). Most people generally wouldn't think it tastes good without a bit of salt, and sugar is common for pretty much the same reason. But you could leave them out and still make bread.
But if you're not experienced with breadmaking, I would recommend following recipes exactly. (Ideally, you might even get a bread cookbook, but the internet will work fine too.) If you don't want to make sourdough, find a recipe that's not sourdough, rather than trying to modify this one.
The best way to think of it is in Baker's percentage.
If you have a recipe which uses for example
500g of bread flour
5g of yeast
2g of salt with 150ml of warm water
the converted percentages are as follows:
Bread is always 100%
so the yeast would be 1% (500/5 = 0.01 = 1%)
and 2g of salt is roughly 0.5% (500/2 = 0.005 = 0.5%)
By using this method you can bake for any quantity.
If you had to make 10 loaves of the above recipe then as long as you have the percentages correct your loaves will be great. Likewise if you wanted to reduce the flour quantity to 100g then by keeping the percentages as the same the loaf will taste the same but smaller.
You don't need the sugar. Bread is very bland without the salt, however. And you don't need both a starter and the yeast. One or the other will do.
Another note, 110F for the water is unnecessarily warm. 80-90 is better.
If you are looking for an 'unleavened' bread you can even reduce it further to something like a tortilla, with flour, salt, lard & water. It isn't a 'loaf' but it is a 'bread'.
Alton Brown offers a recipe for both flour tortillas and corn tortillas that each have a very short ingredient list.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.881632
| 2012-10-29T02:21:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28086",
"authors": [
"AP Mc",
"Brian Wells",
"Cascabel",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Juanita Krig",
"KERR",
"Marie Angelique",
"Marti",
"Napoleon",
"RDB",
"Rob",
"aidlien",
"ashwani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64628",
"marianne",
"motoflatdrag",
"user64589",
"user64616"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41826
|
How do I thicken my Japanese curry after the fact?
I made a lamb based Japanese curry in a slow cooker and unlike my previous efforts (using many of the same ingredients, though in different proportions), it turned out runny and underwhelming.
What techniques exist to "beef up" a curry after the fact? Would putting it back in the slow cooker with more veggies for another half-day help? Would adding another portion of curry mix help?
Several options, depending on the type of curry and the ingredients already present.
Japanese Style Curries
Using a commercial, packaged Japanese-style roux:
Add another brick or two from the package. This type dissolves nicely generally with minimal clumping.
Using a homemade, Japanese style roux:
You can prepare additional roux by melting fat (butter, beef fat, etc) in a saucier, foaming it if needed (as with butter), and whisking in flour (we usually use a 1:1 ratio). Allow the flour to brown to the desired level, keeping in mind that the thickening power decreases the darker it gets. If you prefer not to use flour, potato starch/katakuriko is a reasonable alternative. When suitably dark, take some of the liquid from your existing curry and mix in to the roux, whisking vigorously to minimize the risk of clumping. Add more of the existing curry liquid if you think there's a risk of clumping, then reintegrate it back into the main pot. (if you were starting this roux from scratch you'd also integrate fat-cooked spices into the roux, but your problem does not appear to be flavor).
Avoiding fussiness:
Mix cornstarch or potato starch (katakuriko) in cold water. Once reasonably dissolved, add it to the curry pot. This type of thickener can create a slightly odd texture in a Japanese curry, as the browned roux creates a more velvety texture, but that doesn't mean I haven't done it before in a pinch. The liquid will thicken as it boils.
Indian Style Curries
For more Indian-style curries, there are other options.
If your curry contains lentils, chickpeas or potatoes:
Smash some of them in a small bowl, or just against the edge of the pan. Allow the pot to boil a bit.
If you have almonds, cashews or similar nuts available:
Grind a small quantity of nuts in a coffee/spice mill, and incorporate them into the curry. These need to boil more gently, and I usually do this sauce more intentionally by making them the focal point (dum ki ghom, for example, which has mushrooms and tomato puree in a nut sauce) but can rescue an existing curry too.
In this case, probably adding more curry mix is the answer. You may also need to use a little cornstarch to thicken. It's worth bearing in mind that if you're using a recipe not designed for slow cookers, you should usually halve the amount of liquid it states.
You can always use cashew/almonds/freshly grounded coconut paste to thicken it up. In most of the indian cooking that what used. This will added up richness to your recipe. Yes, cornstarch is another good option too.
Rather than adding thickener why not reduce your sauce? Separate the meat and vegetables, put the sauce in a wide pan and then cook it down. It will thicken it up, and concentrate the flavors.
yes dissolve cornstarch with water then mix it. if the curry/spices flavour start to decrease, add more curry paste/curryroux. but i wonder how the the curry restaurant keep their curry thick as hell for their customer ? :/
Slow cookers trap moisture so frequently result in"runny" results. Easiest, non interventionist solution: take the lid off for the last (or an additional) hour - more or less depending on results - on high.
Just a warning -- if you do this, keep the cooker on high -- evaporation will cool the food, and could reduce the temperature below 140°F / 60°C, which can be unsafe if held for extended periods.
Try using flour or cornstarch.
Can you offer any more instruction on this? How should they be used?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.882582
| 2014-02-07T10:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41826",
"authors": [
"Anfelipe",
"Bbk",
"Captain Hat",
"Claude",
"Dale Reilly",
"Dia. Esq.",
"FasionPoliceNG",
"Flynn Fehre",
"Joe",
"Joe Kozlinski",
"Kevin Feeley",
"Kinard Spammer",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Syed mehdu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
605
|
Why is carrot juice so sweet?
Certain brands of carrot juice taste sweeter than any raw carrot I've ever eaten, yet are made only with carrots, with no added sweeteners. Are carrots sold in supermarkets just not ripe enough?
If you juice your own carrots you would see how sweet carrots actually are.
When you juice a carrot, you are extracting the liquid portion (which contains the majority of the sugars) from the cellulose. Since the cellulose is somewhat flavorless — it tastes pretty much like paper pulp — you are essentially creating "concentrated carrot" flavor, which is why it tastes so much sweeter than when you eat it whole.
You can also roast a carrot and see how sweet it is. Roasting drives off a lot of the water and breaks down the fiber. Try it; you'll see just how sweet a carrot actually is.
Also, the carrot is one of the only vegetables that contains that much sugar. Most vegetables consist of around 2 grams of sugar per 100g, while carrot is at 5 grams.
Not so. Using the USDA nutrient database, I checked out various vegetables. Some are used as juices too. 100 grams raw carrot contains 88.29 grams water and 4.74 grams sugar. 100 g raw beets contain 87.58 g water and 6.76 g sugar. 100 g raw parsnips contains 79.53 g water and 4.80 g sugar. Also containing more sugar than carrots are sweet onions, fresh corn and green garden peas. Carrots beat sweet potatoes and winter hubbard squash but not by much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.882915
| 2010-07-11T07:06:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/605",
"authors": [
"Eileen Wildgoose",
"Emma Reid",
"Jude",
"Lucas",
"Owen Jung",
"Tobias Furuholm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"mcshllymc",
"mskfisher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38
|
Does resting the dough for a long time reduce the need to knead the bread?
In this article by Chef Michael Smith, he mentions a recipe where leaving the dough to rest for 18 hours removes the need to knead the bread. Is this a viable alternative? I've tried the recipe and found that the bread was more dense than a properly kneaded dough.
Kneading does two things. First it mixes all the ingredients uniformly. You have to do this no matter what, but you only really have to do it enough to mix the ingredients.
If you keep kneading beyond the mixing stage, you are applying energy (which equals heat) to the yeast which makes it ferment, generating the tiny bubbles which make bread fluffy.
The yeast will ferment on its own, but kneading just accelerates that process.
Historically, dough was proved (left in a hot humid place) for about 18 hours allowing it to rise slowly in order to make bread.
In 1961 a process was developed in England called the Chorleywood Process. Essentially you work the heck out of the dough with high-speed mixers. The extra few minutes of high energy mixing applies heat to the yeast, which dramatically reduces the fermentation period required, allowing you to make bread much more quickly... at factory-type speeds. Factories can make bread in a couple of hours instead of having to prepare dough one day and bake it the next.
One other thing that kneading does is form the glutten links in the dough.
This answer is not correct. The creation of heat by kneading is almost entirely incidental. The primary purpose of kneading is to develop gluten faster than it would by just sitting. In my breads the dough cools significantly during kneading. Even in the wikipedia article linked the heat is an undesirable side effect that must be removed. The Chorleywood Process uses solid fat and whips air into the dough. Basically a flour meringue. Extra yeast has to be added to increase the rising speed. All this is done to compensate for low protein flours where normal kneading won't work.
The creation of heat by kneading is almost entirely incidental.
In fact in some areas people want to avoid heating from kneading. For example a lot of neapolitan pizzerias use double diving arm or fork dough mixers, because they create less heat than other types.
Allowing the bread dough to rest for the 18 hours will allow the bread to develop the gluten which gives the bread the chewy texture.
This will reduce the need for kneading.
Personally I have experimented with this method but with a shorter resting time (8 hours) and have achieved crusty, chewy-textured bread.
Note though that the crustiness of the bread is due to the use of an oven-proof pot and not the resting period.
Kneading a resting do different things to the structure of the bread. Depending on the recipe and the desired texture the kneading amounts may vary, but other than quick breads, it is necessary to evenly distribute the yeast and the associated gasses as well as develop the gluten. The gluten, or wheat protein, is what enables the dough to stretch instead of collapsing when the yeast grows inside it. If the gluten isn't developed, the dough won't rise well and will produce a heavy loaf - rather like a brick.
Can gluten develop itself without kneading assuming that the ingredients are properly distributed?
It's not quite correct to say that gluten "develops itself." But... yeast WILL ferment even without kneading, and will create the tiny bubbles stretching the glutens in the wheat into a spongy structure that makes soft bread.
In fact, even in the absence of yeast, the wheat itself will provide a little bit of fermentation, so a yeastless bread can still rise, albeit not as nicely as yeasty bread. (c.f. Matzo)
Yes it is a viable substitute. I make a loaf every day from 4 pounds of dough I make up at the start of the week and keep in the fridge, just pinching off as much as I need. Zero kneading, just stirring the ingredients until everything's wet (about 15-30 seconds).
I usually make a loaf after the dough has risen for a few hours, but it's never as good as the next day, or even 7 days later as a sour dough flavor starts to develop.
It's taken a while to get a good feel for how wet the dough best be (measuring with cups or scales is no good due to compaction and humidity, respectively).
The loaves are not as light as loaves in a commercial bakery using chemical leaveners and steaming ovens, but they're as light as you'd ever find in a good bakery.
I basically use the technique in Artistan bread in 5 minutes a day, but instead of cooking on a pizza stone and adding steam (finicky), I cook the loaf in dutch oven. The dutch oven traps in the moisture, stopping a crust forming prematurely and restricting rise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.883073
| 2010-07-09T19:21:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38",
"authors": [
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"Chris Simmons",
"Covar",
"Curry",
"Electric Monk",
"Gower Suen",
"Joel Spolsky",
"Jonathan Campbell",
"Piotr Sarnacki",
"Shah Hayat",
"Sobachatina",
"Zaphoid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94704"
],
"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
}
|
1182
|
Different ways for aging steaks
I'd like to know what techniques people have used for aging their steaks, i.e. dry or wet aging.
Steaks don't last in my house long enough to age!
I use a sheet pan under a cooling rack. Put the steaks on the rack and then cover with paper towel and slide into the fridge. Check the towel each day or so and replace if wet.
I've used this method for both steaks and prime rib and it has worked very well.
Bottom shelf please!
I have had good success with a really easy form of wet aging. I just buy the steaks a week in advance and let the package set in the fridge unopened. The next week, wash, pat dry, salt and a screaming hot grill.
This has worked excellent with the really thick boneless new york strip steaks I get at costco. Also I take a trick from Jeffrey Steingarten and trim off the fat around the edge. The allows me to put then on a screaming hot gas grill and leave it on high without the fat catching fire and burning everything. 5 min on one side, 1 or 2 on the other and that's it. The crust is great on the side that you see and isn't that what is important? I have never had success getting crust on both sides, either the steak is over done or there is no crust anywhere.
I think it's worth mentioning that whether you keep the meat in the packaging depends on how it is packed. You probably want to avoid this with styrofoam packed meats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.883499
| 2010-07-16T20:02:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1182",
"authors": [
"Barfieldmv",
"Benjamin Oakes",
"Janet Bearden",
"Jay Cummins",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lata Poulsen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"tomjedrz",
"tonylo"
],
"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
}
|
1469
|
How do you make peach soda?
I was at a local brewpub and they had made a peach soda. I have 5 gallon kegs to carbonate with, but how do you make peach soda?
Torani Peach Syrup!
It's readily available online or at coffee shop supply outlets. Amazon link
I've never seen a recipe, but I suspect it was made the same way most other soda is: peach syrup + carbonated water.
You can buy the syrup from places that sell it for making snow cones, but that might be more expensive than rolling your own (peach flavor + some acid + sugar).
Good luck.
When you say "some acid", what does that mean? What kind of acid? Any idea on ratios of water, flavor extract, and "acid"? Also do I need to add sugar?
You need sugar if you make your own from scratch. If you use the syrup, you just need to experiment with the concentration and you shouldn't need anything else. The acid is usually citric, see the Torianai Peach Syrup ingredients.
It's probably one of these mixed with carbonated water:
Simple syrup and artificial peach flavor
Concentrated peach juice (probably with added sugar)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.883670
| 2010-07-17T16:40:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1469",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Edward Brey",
"Fanzoo",
"James",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Loki",
"Mark Cidade",
"Tina Sharratt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8569"
],
"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
}
|
588
|
How to prepare stuffed peppers?
I've prepared peppers stuffed with beef and rice a number of times, but they never turn out quite how I would like. How should I cook the peppers so that they end up soft and flavourful, but are not overcooked to the point they are falling apart?
I pre-cook my peppers -- after I've cut them open, I let them roast in the oven for about 10-20 min, upside down (so they don't end up with a pool of water in the bottom). I then pull them out once they've softened up a little bit, fill them, and put them back in to warm through and melt any cheese, then switch it to broil to get them browned on top.
My filling is already cooked, as I typically use leftovers such as taco meat, rice & cheese. (my mom always insisted them were 'planned overs' as there are a number of dishes where we intentionally cook too much so that we'd have it as an ingredient for the next night's meal.)
When I've cooked stuffed peppers in the past, I typically cut the pepper length ways instead of just taking the top off. Once the filling has been added place tin foil over the dish for the first 15 minutes of the cooking time. This way, the peppers are allowed to soften a little through a steaming process and then allowed to gain colour during the remainder of the cooking process.
If you don't already, I'd also suggest pre-cooking the filling, this helps to reduce the overall cooking time and will help the peppers to retain their shape and not become overly soft.
I pre-cook the filling - it doesn't need to be cooked all the way, I usually just start the cooking process on the rice by putting in half the amount of water needed to fully cook it and letting it all boil out, before stirring the mince in to the hot rice - this is sufficient to bring the cooking time down enough that the peppers remain well formed and have a bit of bite to them, in a sufficiently hot oven.
I wrap each pepper individually in foil, and stand them up in the baking dish so as little as possible is touching the actual dish (I use small ramekins to stand them in).
I also pre-cook the filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.883797
| 2010-07-11T03:01:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/588",
"authors": [
"Amir",
"Daniele Santi",
"Joost",
"Mark Henderson",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"Noldorin",
"Russell Gallop",
"Satoshi Miyazawa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8681"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1457
|
How do you keep chicken breast juicy when grilling?
Most of the time it ends up dry. Are there any special marination tricks?
whole chicken or pieces?
chicken breast..
Brining is great to begin with. Use a bone-in, skin on chicken breast. Once it's done you can remove the skin and carve off the bone if you like.
Also, set up 2 heat zones in your grill (either by banking your coals or by turning off a gas burner). Brown it for a few minutes over the hot zone, then transfer to the cooler zone to finish cooking, until temp comes to 165-170 degrees.
Then remove from heat and wait at least 5 minutes to slice.
Don't over cook it. Aim for it to be a little under done. It will still be hot and will finish cooking after you've taken it off.
Meat thermometer helps here. Pull it at about 155, and you should be set.
The longer the pieces of chicken are in dry heat, the more liquid escapes.
To keep the chicken juicier without undercooking it.
Brine it (increasing the salt content inside the chicken helps it retain it's moisture more).
Decrease the temperature difference between when you put it on the grill and the final cooked temperature. At the very minimum, make sure the chicken is thawed all the way through, but consider starting the chicken in a crockpot or wrapped in foil in the oven.
Increase the humidity of the air around the chicken. "Beer butt" chicken works by steaming a whole chicken from the inside while it roasts from the outside.
I have had excellent results with beer can chicken. Start with a 4 to 5 pound fryer chicken, A large roaster (over 5 pounds) will burn before it gets done. Wash and dry with paper towels. I usually just coat all over with any rub I happen to have around. Season salt works good too. I have the grill preheating for 5 min and then on goes the chicken, the can and the two legs form a kind of tripod for it to sit nicely on the grill. The heat goes to low on all three burners and 60 to 70 minutes later it is ready to eat. No fuss, no hot kitchen, year round. I have played around with putting various things in the can, beer, water with "additives" but at least to my taste buds, an empty can works good. I just fish one out of the recycling bin: )
Trust me, if you haven't tried brining, you owe it to yourself. It is so quick and simple, and makes such a huge difference.
Brine your chicken about 45 minutes to 1 hour in a cold solution of 1/4 cup table salt, 1/3 cup table sugar and water enough to fill a larger mixing bowl. Do this as your first step in preparing your meal, before you light the grill, cut the veggies, etc.
As far as preparing the brine: boil enough water to just dissolve the salt and sugar in a large mixing bowl and stir together with a wisk until dissolved. A cup or so of boiling water is usually enough. Next add a generous number of ice cubes to make the brine cold. Add the chicken and enough cold water to fill the bowl, and place it in the fridge, or add another generous helping of ice to let this brine on the countertop while you get the grill ready. The important thing as that the brine is kept cold.
==TIPS==
Don't brine chicken longer than 90 minutes, otherwise you are wet curing it, and it will start to taste like chicken ham - blech. Longer brining times also make it so the chicken will stay pinker, even when fully cooked, which might gross out you or your dinner guests.
You can add ingredients to change the flavor a bit, and for chicken, I like to add a few sprigs of fresh thyme, and sometimes substitute brown sugar for the table sugar. I avoid dried and ground spices because of how they stick to the meat - dried thyme leaves are heinous to pick off a raw chicken breast!
Use Kosher salt only if you have to - the flavor difference is imperceptible, and table salt is not only cheaper, but generally has iodide, which you need in your diet.
Be creative and try adding other things to the brine: slightly crushed garlic cloves, a tablespoon of peppercorns, lime skins, chunks of hot peppers, etc.
You can marinate, or brine it, but you don't need to.
I tend to grill pieces (breast, legs, etc) over direct heat to start and get grill marks, then move it to a cooler part of the grill to finish and cook through. I've also heard of people doing it the other way ... I assume to render out more of the fat.
If you're cooking chicken breast -- bone in, skin on will help -- taking the skin off robs you of a protective layer of fat.
For whole chickens, you could use a "beer can" chicken technique (and you can use other liquids besides chicken)
+1 for Bone in Skin on! Brown the skin, and cook bone down until done. Yummy.
A simple brine of kosher salt and water has never let me down.
Re-coat in marinade a few times during cooking. And don't pierce the skin and let all the juices run out.
Oh, and make sure you start out with good chicken in the first place too.
+1, that's what I would advise too :) Cook in lower temperatures and pour marinade on top once in a while.
Re-coating in marinade has the potential to introduce bacteria to your cooking chicken... I'm not a fan.
If you do this, reserve some of the marinde before putting the chicken in, so you're not putting chicken-tainted marinade (that might've been sitting out while grilling) on a couple of minutes before you serve it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.884023
| 2010-07-17T16:24:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1457",
"authors": [
"100rabh",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Andy Tinkham",
"Chase Seibert",
"Chris Cudmore",
"CodeToGlory",
"Jerub",
"Joe",
"Kirill Strizhak",
"Lev Bishop",
"Luke Drummond",
"Marcin",
"Mike Caron",
"Tristan",
"aukaost",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/924"
],
"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
}
|
36
|
Is it safe to leave butter at room temperature?
Is it safe to leave butter at room temperature? If so, for how long is it safe to keep it out?
Does it depend on whether it is salted or unsalted butter? In my experience, salted butter can last quite a while at room temperature.
@Judd, I leave all of my cooking/baking butter in the fridge until I need it, but I keep a stick of salted butter on the counter so it can easily be spread onto toast or whatever. I'm not the original poster, but personally I need quick access to room temperature butter :)
It depends on the room temperature where you live. At 65F (18C) or below, butter is often barely spreadable and will last for weeks on the counter in a sealed container. At 80F (26C), it starts to get overly soft and doesn't last more than several days.
Our family goes through about a pound / week and we've never had any issues with keeping a half-pound block on the counter at any given time - we finish it off before it has time to lose any quality or flavour. The rest we keep in the fridge until needed.
The most important thing is to keep it in a covered container - I'm sure a butter crock would do a great job, but even just any old small glass container with a lid will do.
You're right but I would advise against using a plastic container as it would overtime keep an unpleasant smell. Any ceramic, porcelain or glass container will be a satisfactory choice.
I just don't understand all of the excitement over the butter crock. I keep butter just like you mention, in a simple closed container, on the counter. I've done this for 30+ years and have very rarely had to toss it.
@wdypdx22 - Where do you live? In Southern California, we can keep the butter out on the table (for a few days) between December and May; at other times of the year it barely lasts a day. So for most of the year, it's rock-hard slabs straight from the fridge, or no butter at all.
and what about an clay pot? Does that work too?
and does the container have to be air tight too?
We also use a sealed glass container. IF we do not leave crumbs, etc. in it, then it usually lasts a couple weeks. Having kids, we quite often have to toss it in about 1 week...
The question seems to have been more about food safety than whether it seems palatable.
When the fat in butter decomposes (i.e. when the butter becomes rancid), it produces an unhealthy acid that actually inhibits mold growth. So, don't wait for your butter to mold to determine if it's gone bad.
To follow strict food-safety guidelines, protect butter from heat, light, and air; store it up to two weeks in a refrigerator, below 40 degrees.
It can also be frozen for 6 to 9 months.
Did you look at the butter crock in the accepted answer? It's been around since the Middle Ages and seems an exception to the rule. (It does protect from light and air).
@hobodave - I did, and I will definitely be looking into one. I had never before heard of a room-temperature way to store butter safely. I may own one within the week!
@hobodave - my butter crock is on the way!
Exciting! Let me know how it works out. I haven't bought one yet, but plan to.
As long as you use salted butter it will keep in a covered container at room temperature for at least 2-3 weeks without getting mouldy or rancid, in my experience. If you use unsalted butter there are more microorganisms that can live on it so it spoils faster, but there aren't any common contaminants that can grow on salted butter other than moulds, and even they grow very slowly on it.
+1 for being the only person with an answer who recognizes the importance of salt on the table life of butter.
Yes. Butter is cultured cream, meaning there are good bacteria fighting off the bad bacteria. Cover it in a butter crock or similar and it should last a couple weeks.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. I'm pretty sure no bacteria are involved in the churning of butter.
It is in half of the world: https://www.vermontcreamery.com/cheese-and-butter-blog/what-is-cultured-butter/
I keep my butter in a covered dish next to the toaster. When it gets hard on the outside I toss it. This doesn't happen very often as I am now using 1/8 pound sticks. Usually the sticks last about a month in the summer, longer in the winter. If it has been a while I'll smell it before using it or just toss it.
When I first got a microwave oven I tried to use it for warming the butter when I took it from the fridge. I found that the butter went rancid if you did it two or three times.
Although just microwaving a small portion to use was OK, it was difficult to time the warming so the stuff didn't melt. Now I just keep it in a butter dish at room temperature, except in high summer.
I have always kept my butter, 1/4 pound at a time, out on the counter in a covered, pottery-type butter dish (Fiestaware) or a covered glass dish. The latter is probably less desirable because of light exposure, but either way, I have never had a problem, and I am picky about food freshness. We use the 1/4 pound within about a week, I'd say.
The exception is in summer, when it sometimes gets hot enough to melt the butter in the dish. At those times, I put the butter dish in the wine refrigerator, which we keep at 55 degrees F. If you happen to have a wine refrigerator, it's a great compromise - the butter doesn't spread as easily, but it isn't rock-hard either, and it's better than having it melted.
Fun fact: Fiestaware used to use uranium for their orange pottery pigments. What color is your dish?
I have left butter out on the counter uncovered for as long two or three weeks or more. It has never gone bad are tasted any different . We do eat butter everyday so we use it quickly. Sometimes I microwave it when I first take it out of the Frig. if I'm going to use it right away. I come from a family that has always left the butter out and we never noticed a difference in the taste or had butter go rancid. The only time I had mold on butter is when there was a hurricane and the electricity was out for weeks and we had to throw out every thing in the Frig. I use salted butter but occasionally unsalted with no problem.
Room temperature is the best for maintaining the shelf life of food materials. We also have to maintain humidity. It should not be more humid because it can produce a favorable environment for bacterial growth. Lower the temperature more will be the safest.
With the increased corporate production of our food stuffs, we are seeing an uptick in foodborne illness and changing/mutations of infective bacteria. Listeria in butter is an area of concern that is increasing and it is controlled through time and temperature control. Cooking is not a control measure for Listeria. Refrigerate your butter people! This is not "the good old days" anymore in regards to foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.884612
| 2010-07-09T19:20:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dave",
"David",
"Harish Chandramouleeswaran",
"Jason Chen",
"John Donne",
"Josh Leitzel",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kevin Davis",
"MT_Head",
"Nathan Koop",
"Rosemary Corner",
"Ruz",
"Sushma",
"Wizard79",
"djangofan",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/944",
"stephennmcdonald",
"tamberg",
"tobiw",
"wdypdx22",
"yacomink"
],
"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
}
|
692
|
How to peel peaches?
What is the best/easiest method to peel peaches?
By far the easiest method is to use a pan of hot water and a bowl of ice water. Essentially, bring a pan of water (enough water to cover the peach to a boil. Meanwhile, with a sharp knife, make a small 'X' shaped incision in the top and bottom of each peach.
When the water is boiling gently place a few of the peaches into the water and simmer for around 20 seconds, just until the skin can be seen coming away. At this point use a slotted spoon to remove the fruit from the boiling water and place them in the ice water. After 20 or 30 seconds you should be able to remove the skin with your fingers.
The same technique is used with tomatoes
I know of two techniques: you may blanch the peaches or you may use a serrated peeler. Blanching the peaches makes it easier to peel them. Make a cross on the top of the peach, dip it into hot water for 30 seconds, remove to ice cold water, pull off the peel. Blanching may impart a slight cooked flavor to raw peaches.
Another technique is to use a serrated swivel peeler. These look like the regular peelers, but with serrated blades. Peeling a soft peach or tomato with a serrated peeler is just as simple as peeling a potato with a regular peeler.
Very sharp knife.
Poach first, then peel. (Briefly plunge into boiling water.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.885156
| 2010-07-12T01:34:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/692",
"authors": [
"Denise Crandell",
"Donnie Wilkins",
"Edan Maor",
"L.R.",
"Pyrolistical",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153538",
"mhmhmhmh"
],
"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
}
|
12
|
How can I make my Ice Cream "creamier"?
My ice cream doesn't feel creamy enough. I got the recipe from Good Eats, and I can't tell if it's just the recipe or that I'm just not getting my "batter" cold enough before I try to make it. I let it chill overnight in the refrigerator, but it doesn't always come out of the machine looking like "soft serve" as he said on the show - it's usually a little thinner.
Recipe: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/serious-vanilla-ice-cream-recipe/index.html
More fat!
Your recipe has two dairy components (half and half and whipping cream). The half and half is half cream, half milk. To increase the fat, experiment with using more cream and less half and half.
Also make sure your churn container is not too full or else, as the volume increases with freezing, it will bind the beater and not fully churn.
Try churning longer, making sure that your churn container is thoroughly frozen.
Given that he's apparently not hitting "soft-serve" consistency, I'm leaning toward this. BarrettJ: check your freezer temperature - it needs to be consistently cold (well below freezing) for the duration of the freezing process, or you won't get the tiny ice crystals and air mixture needed for that creamy texture.
+1: There's a video out there on where the guys on some science program made ice-cream with liquid nitrogen. The faster it cools the smaller the ice crystals, and the smoother it is. Apparently scientist's ice-cream is incredibly smooth. I couldn't find the video I saw, but this girl seems to be doing the same thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqoxvy7gESs
Longer and more frequent churning will break up the ice crystals that form and the smaller the ice crystals, the smoother the texture.
Eggs!
Try a recipe with eggs (especially freshly plucked from the chickens you have living in your back yard as we do). My wife and I discovered this butter pecan recipe a few months ago and were quite pleased. We subsequently tried a chocolate recipe with eggs (as well as melted chocolate instead of powdered) and were quite pleased with that as well. Better than previous batches made sans egg.
If you've got a frozen bowl type ice cream churn (like a Kitchen Aid) then the unwritten rule is to nearly freeze your batter before churning.
I like to keep the batter in the freezer until crystals form on top. Then I'll take it out, and give it a good stir to raise the temperature just a wee bit to break up those crystals.
Then, and only then do I take the churning bowl out of the freezer.
There is enough "cold" in the bowl to absorb the latent heat of fusion, but not if you have to drop the temperature 5-10 degrees before it freezes.
I'm not sure what you're finished ice cream product looks like, so this answer is based on conjecture, but I do have a few recommendations.
I think the main issue here is that the recipe calls for too much sugar. If I were you I would reduce the sugar to about 3/4 cup. Large amounts of sugar drastically lower the freezing point by interfering with recrystallization during freezing. This would explain why you are unable to get the soft serve consistency that you are looking for. It also explains the lack of creaminess because the ice cream is not able to freeze around the air, which is where the volume and creamy feel come from.
If that doesn't work, then I second the notion to try an egg custard base or to add more cream, but honestly it looks like the recipe already has plenty of fat. Altering the fat content could be more damaging to the recipe because the proteins in dairy are essential to stabilizing air bubble formation in ice cream.
Check to make sure that your running it long enough, and also that your container is cold enough at the start. If it's too thin, likely you're not getting the ice cream cold enough while churning.
Make sure you put the container in the back of your freezer (often a little colder back there).
If it's still getting firmer, let it keep churning, you might just not be there yet.
Lower the temperature in the freezer (or use a deep freeze if you have one), to better chill the container.
Remove the container from the freezer at the last possible second.
Add 1 ounce of alcohol or extract containing alcohol. This makes it creamier.
simply use 2 cups of cream & only 1 cup of WHOLE milk. this should help. make sure freezer bowl is SOLID, no loose liquid inside.
Existing answers already talk about making sure to freeze it well and adding more fat. I don't think you're offering anything new here.
It takes heavy whipping cream, half/half 1:2 ratio ( no milk), sugar, eggs and a freezer that has a strong motor to run longer and firm it up. Also chill mix and canister before starting freezing process.
-1: You can make creamy ice cream with milk just fine. The existing answers are a lot more clear about what you actually need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.885330
| 2010-07-09T19:12:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Binary Worrier",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"Daniel Moura",
"Guildencrantz",
"Hippo",
"Kait",
"Mike B",
"Painting Contractor NYC",
"Rok Strniša",
"Shog9",
"Tim Sullivan",
"andersoj",
"cgp",
"colethecoder",
"dvide",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92"
],
"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
}
|
9999
|
What is a nutrient for yeast?
I was looking at a recipe and it said I needed to add sugar, ginger, yeast and yeast nutrient and other stuff.
I would have thought that it would be referring to the sugar, but can anyone confirm for me please.
The recipe is for Ginger beer, if it helps.
There is perhaps a better Q&A site for this: http://homebrew.stackexchange.com/. You can buy yeast nutrient from wine and beer supply sites.
They're likely referring to di-ammonium phosphate, which is used in wine making and mead brewing, as it provides nitrogen to accelerate the yeast growth.
I found a site giving instructions for using egg whites as a replacement, but it might be easier (and safer) to just go to a shop that specializes in brewing or wine making supplies and getting the right stuff. (I have no idea how expensive it is, as I've never done it)
Your other option would be to find an alternate recipe that doesn't call for it ... it might take longer to brew, though.
I make hard cider from time to time. Like Joe said, you can buy yeast nutrient at a home brewing supply store, particularly one that caters to wine makers. If you don't want to do that, a cider maker's trick is to add a handful of raisins instead. They'll release nitrogen into the wort as they break down.
Whatever you do, don't just skip it. During fermentation, the alcohol produced by the yeast helps prevent other nasties from growing in the wort. If you leave out the yeast nutrient, then your wort will be sitting around at room temperature for a long time without a lot of protection. You can end up with ginger beer vinegar due to bacterial action.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.885755
| 2010-12-11T15:55:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9999",
"authors": [
"Ali Willis",
"Nancy",
"User",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20766",
"justkt",
"shuttle87",
"user2826136"
],
"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
}
|
26167
|
What to do with too-bitter sorbet?
I made cherry sorbet according to a recipe, only to find that the cherries I'd bought have a strongly bitter taste to them (not unusual for cherries in my experience). Now the sorbet tastes strongly of cherries I'd prefer not to eat :/ what can I do to improve the flavor, either as a last-minute addition during churning (too late for this batch but useful for the future) or a topping? I'm looking to make it sweeter.
If you are looking to make it sweeter, adding more sugar or syrup would be the obvious answer. Also, on a side note, you can always let your sorbet thaw, make the necessary corrections and just churn it again.
@HenrikSöderlund That is indeed useful! I was worried about adding granulated sugar while churning, as it might not dissolve well. Thawing, adding sugar, then re-freezing sounds like a good answer, if you want to make it one
Recently, I've started hand-blending the sorbet. The result is amazing. So, just add more sugar/syrup to taste and blend.
If you're worried about the sugar not dissolving, you can add golden syrup to the thawed sorbet. It will also make your sorbet softer. I've only tried making sorbet a couple of times but when I used golden syrup, its consistency was softer than when I used sugar.
In the US, other sugar syrups (your own simple syrup, honey, corn syrup, etc) are a lot easier to come by. And yes, golden syrup doesn't really crystallize (same goes for corn syrup) so it'll be softer.
+1 Golden syrup is worth getting for this, it is a powerful sweetener and harmonious flavour to match, unlike simple syrup, corn syrup etc. Maple syrup is good too, but a little too distinctive and may hide the cherry flavours
We thought maybe some honey or a simple syrup were worth trying :)
Personally, I don't like the flavour of honey and it has a more distinct flavour than golden syrup. But, if you like that flavour, go for it. One more thing, honey does crystallize, so I don't know how it affects the sorbet consistency
Tried adding honey tonight... and it didn't freeze up. :| I'm going to let it chill overnight again, but it might be a lost cause.
Oh dear god! Now it's still nasty, and grainy, and with a chaser of sickly-sweet. I think... I think I'm going to chalk this up as a failure and stick to sweeter fruits to start with.
Salt counters bitterness. It may seem a little odd to add salt to a sorbet, but I can assure you that it is not unusual to use salt in desserts. Adding salt will also enhance the perceived sweetness of the sorbet.
You won't need much salt. Maybe a small pinch per serving would be enough. Just be sure to note the total amount of salt you add to a batch so that you can adjust up or down in subsequent batches.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.885933
| 2012-09-14T17:31:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26167",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Ogi the Yogi",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"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
}
|
40536
|
Eggnog: After adding egg yolks, does chill time make a difference, before having added the egg whites?
I am following Alton Brown's Eggnog Recipie (following the procedure for cooked eggnog).
Currently the bowl has Egg Yolk, Sugar, (non-pasturized) Milk & Cream, Bourbon, & cinnamon, allspice.
I am now about to chill the eggnog before adding whipped egg whites, and then it will be ready to serve.
What kind of difference in the finished product could arise by varying this initial chill time? I could wait anywhere from 1 hour to 1 day before adding the egg whites.
The real issue, I think, is that you want to add the egg whites immediately before service, as they will begin deflating once they are whipped and mixed in.
So instead of holding the mix a certain period of time, instead you hold the mix until prior to service, and then fold in the whites, which should be freshly whipped.
Letting it sit longer before serving could change the flavor slightly, as the nutmeg and alcohol would have longer to do their thing. It might mellow out the bourbon a bit and extract a bit more flavor from the nutmeg, but the changes shouldn't be drastic.
Other than that, I agree with SAJ14SAJ. The waiting time isn't really to let the mix rest, it's to be sure that the egg whites are freshly beaten when you serve the drink.
An update! Serious Eats aged some eggnog for a whole freaking year! The rundown is that it does let some flavors mellow, but some continue to extract.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.886171
| 2013-12-24T01:17:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40536",
"authors": [
"Andy Jordan",
"DoMakeSayThink",
"FlipTheSwitch",
"Himanshu",
"Molly OW",
"Ned Ruggeri",
"Tos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94432"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.