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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7098
|
Does marinating break down proteins the way brining does?
Brining makes meat tender because the salt (and some sugar) breaks down proteins. Shouldn't a salty/sugary marinade do the same thing?
Brining does not technically "break down" proteins in meat. At least not the way marinating does.
Brining actually involves osmosis which carries salt and sugar inside the cell walls. This denatures the proteins causing them to unravel and interact with one another. This forms a matrix which traps moisture in the meat.
Marinating on the other hand actually does "break down" the proteins using acidity. The acid literally does consume the proteins and break down the texture of the meat. If the marinade has salt in it, then osmosis will occur as well and the marinade is also serving as a brine.
So, to answer your question: Yes, a salty marinade will brine your meat, but the protein breakdown that occurs is due to the acidity of the marinade.
Marinating doesn't tenderize either. Harold says on page 155: "The acid in marinades does weaken muscle tissue and increase its ability to retain moisture. But marinades penetrate slowly, and can give the meat surface an overly sour flavor". Alton Brown in "I'm just here for the food" pp 182 says: "Sure, acidic liquids... can dissolve proteins... but the effect is localized to the surface of the food..." He goes on to say that the reason it seems to tenderize is because the strong flavors stimulate saliva.
The point of brining is not tenderization- It's juiciness and flavor.
When brining, initially dissolved substances inside the meat cells leave into the brine. When the solution reaches equilibrium they start to move back and forth, in and out of the meat. Any flavors in the brine move into the meat as well. The salt denatures enough protein to lock some of the water inside the meat causing more water to get pulled in. After a little while the meat is super charged with water that won't even cook out.
In order to work, the solution has to have relatively a lot of salt in it. But even then, the salt is not able to break up the collagen fibers that make meat tough- it takes heat and time for that to happen.
In order to get the super-charged-juiciness with a marinade it would have to have a lot of salt and water- more than marinades usually do. And then you would have made yourself a brine.
So really I should make a brine, then add something flavorful.
@user1575 - I wouldn't say that you should make a brine. It depends what you are trying to do. If the goal is extra moisture- like when roasting a turkey- then definitely brine. If the goal is a quick boost of flavor then a marinade is good. If you are trying to tenderize a tough piece of meat there are other methods of course: papain, smoking, braising, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.947411
| 2010-09-11T00:17:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7098",
"authors": [
"Aaron Kurtzhals",
"Emily Anne",
"Eponymous",
"Joan Coyle",
"Richard",
"Sam Hastings",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"user1575"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29951
|
Substituting for Madeira wine in a mushroom stuffed with sausage recipe
The recipe calls for Madeira but I am thinking about using another wine. My choices are: Pernod, Calvados, pinneau du Terrier or dry sherry. What does anyone recommend on this subject?
I would say dry sherry was the closest equivalent to Madeira wine. I sometimes use dry sherry in place of dry white wine in cooking, I just use slightly less of it.
Unless you for some reason require any distinct taste from the Madeira, Sherry should be similar enough to be used as a substitute.
I am not sure why you suggest Pernod (anise flavoured liqueurs) or Calvados (apple based brandy)? "Pinneau du Terrier" is unknown both to me and to Google.
I think the OP means Pineau de Charentes which is a white wine fortified with cognac from the cognac region of France and makes a great substitute.
Have used sherry instead of madeira in a mushroom risotto which tasted horrible. A better substitute was dry white wine but this does not have the same flavour as when I have used Madeira. The Madeira adds a beautiful depth which the white wine lacked. Hope this helps.
The only close substitute in my mind would be a Fino sherry, as it is the only one that offers the nuttiness that a Madeira does.
It doesn't really make a sense to me to use an anise flavored spirit like Pernod, or to a lesser degree, an apple brandy like Calvados. An obscure and not inexpensive wine like a like a pinneau is odd too. White wine also doesn't seem good, as it is light years away from the taste and characteristics of a wine like Madeira.
These aren't random suggestions, these are what the OP had on hand and the OP is wondering which would be the most appropriate substitute.
...and the OP has dry sherry, so it also seems odd to suggest a specific sherry, implying that other sherries won't be good.
An old chef's trick is to use vermouth, you can get bianco if you want sweet end or Rosso for closer to wine, the green dry vermouth is ok too. Start with a little and work up to desired strength, maybe add a little brown sugar too.
If it's a dry sherry, I'd add some sugar to it ... around 1 teaspoon per 1/2 cup. Light brown sugar would be best. Madeira is significantly sweeter than dry sherry. A Ruby Port would be a much better substitute.
None of your options is really going to taste like Madeira, though, so if the wine is a major flavor component of the dish, you're about to be very disappointed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.947805
| 2013-01-10T16:36:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29951",
"authors": [
"Alex H.",
"Anne Blake",
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"LeAnne",
"Marco",
"Nikhil Manapure",
"Rob ",
"Teri Taylor",
"Tony Eyre",
"Wendy Nicholss",
"Woody",
"Yolanda Allen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"user12318832"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33633
|
Using kalpasi (which is also known as Black Stone Flower) in a biriyani?
Can we ground kalpasi (also known as Black stone flower) be added to a masala for marinating chicken/mutton for making Hyderabadi Biriyani?
Will it taste really good; does this spice add good flavoring and aroma to the Dum Biriyani?
Are the results better if you first cook the kalpasi in oil before adding it to the marinating mixture?
Kal Pasi or Dagad ka Phool or Patthar ka phool / Black Stone Flower / Kalu Pacchi / Ratthi pavalu / Kallu houvu also known as Parmotrema perlatum is a particular variety of lichen ( fungus in a symbiotic relationship with algae or cyanobacteria - per Wiki). Used extensively in Andhra / Kannada / Mahashtrian Godu Goda masala / Tamil -Chettinad cooking.
It is available in the USA in South Indian grocery stores. It looks like blackish-brown dried paint flakes - has no smell ( well, hardly any - ) or taste, when raw. Unfortunately, it cannot be easily powdered, since it has the consistency of a thin paper confetti.
You either roast it in oil / tadka, with cinnamon sticks or bay leaf etc. and use it in the cooking OR you can put it in a cloth (tea?) bag and leach it into the curry. I prefer the former - the oil saute-ing method. It gives the final cooked dish product a pleasant earthy taste and an indescribable freshness to it.
It costs about 5 USD for 50 grams, which will last you 10 years. Since it is a lichen, which is scraped off of bark of trees and stones, you will want to clean it, especially the portion that you are going to tbe cooking with. Remove all bits of dirt, and bark pieces and extraneous roots.
I just started cooking with it - and I used it very extensively both for veg and nonveg cooking - and my results have been nothing short of miraculous - and I would give it 5 stars. I wish I had known about this earlier...
Kalpasi is type of lichen, usually used in spices for typical Chettinad and West Indian (Maharashtrian) Cuisines.
Dry ground kalpasi has little or no smell and should be roasted in little oil to get its actual and full aroma.
It has a distinct smell, which it would impart, if used properly i.e. after roasting (also depends on how and for how much time you marinate).
Its generally used in combination with other spices like cardamom, cloves, bay leaves, cinnamon, nutmeg, star anise, saffron, peppers etc. for flavor.
On its own, it can't add much flavor.
Dagadful (Kalpaasi) is a beautiful aromatic spice in western and south indian cooking, however many people don't know much about it. While making your Goda masala (for Maharashtrian) or Curry masala (for south indian) if you use Dagadful, it gives you beautiful but little strong smell. I can definitely advice you to use this as I am in masala making business for last 7 years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.948045
| 2013-04-20T09:37:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33633",
"authors": [
"Paul Cumbo",
"bazm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78493",
"jill Mae Connet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32789
|
I left creme fraiche out of fridge for 2 hours it turned bad
How long can you keep creme fraiche out of the fridge before it gets spoiled
In most cases, you would have about 2 hours of time in the "danger zone" before the food should be considered irretrievably unsafe.... obviously this was not the case for you. If the ambient temperature is especially high, or the product was close to turning anyway, you might get less time.
The day was very cold - degrees with snow flakes.Thanks for the answer.
the FDA link, fwiw
It might go sour before it actually gets unsafe in terms of bacteria. 2 hours is just the margin for safety. It's generally the "good" bacteria that cause sourness in cultured products (i.e. the culture) but then again, if it's sour, why eat it even if it's still safe...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.948274
| 2013-03-18T21:35:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32789",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dobariya Parth",
"Kristen Herring",
"Priscilla",
"Rick Tr",
"Trúc Nguyễn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75800",
"tdammon",
"user75798",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29515
|
Watery potatoes
I boil my potatoes and drain them, set back on burner a while and they are still so watery when I mash them I don't have to add any liquid. They are so transparent looking -- just not appealing. These are red potatoes.
What can I do to prevent this?
It sounds like they are being overcooked.... try cutting the chunks about 1 inch (2 cm) in size, and cooking only until fork tender--about 20 min after the water begins to boil (start the potatoes in cold water).
I agree completely that it sounds like they're simply overcooked. You need the potatoes to still have some firmness to give them a nice texture when mashed. @SAJ14SAJ should copy his comment to an answer.
@CareyGregory I appreciate it, but there just wasn't enough substance for a full answer. Still, I think that is the core of the problem.
I imagine the problem is that the cells of the potatoes have absorbed too much water.
There are a few ways you can help avoid this:
Boiling the potatoes with the skins on reduces the amount of water absorbed (and adds some of the flavour from the skins).
Get the starch of the individual cells to gel before fully cooking. The method I have used involves keeping the potatoes at 70ºC (158ºF) for 30 minutes, cooling them and then boiling until cooked. There appear to be other methods.
Use baked potatoes. This is the simplest and most reliable method if you don't have the equipment (or patience) for the previous method. Unfortunately it takes 2-3 times as long as boiling.
Update 1 (Overcooking): Although what I have written will help avoid water logged mash, the simplest answer is in the comment from SAJ14SAJ: the potatoes were overcooked. Here in Sweden it is common to use a thin metal skewer to test potatoes for doneness (see image). The skewer is about 6 inches long and 2mm thick. This makes it long enough to reach the center of pretty much any potato and thin enough not to crack or otherwise visibly damage the potato when testing (not that this matters for mash). In Swedish these are called potatisnålar (literarily potato-needle).
When the skewer can be pushed into the center of the potato without resistance, it is done.
Update 2 (Potato Variety): Some potato varieties have a higher water content, and the water content can differ within a variety. With that in mind, red potatoes are not necessary a good choice for boiling unless you try the starch gelling tip above.
You should look for potatoes with a medium to high percentage solids. The potato varieties available differ widely from country to country so I won't recommend a specific variety, but you can do a simple test to check the solid content of your potatoes using a saline solution with a 1:7.5 salt to water weight ratio and a clear container. If the potato floats about the middle of container, it is around average solid content. If it floats higher, it has a high water content. If it sinks lower, the solid content is above average.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.948387
| 2012-12-28T16:29:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29515",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Crystal",
"Jeff Ery",
"Marissa",
"Michael Sapp",
"Roel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stacy Baun",
"brightspark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user68646"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39573
|
Why is my Mango Pickle foaming with Gas after 3 days, it is beginning to overflow, even though I left 2" from the cap
We made a mango pickle with green mangoes. Below is the typical recipe that was used:
20 small tender green mangoes
200g salt
2tsp. turmeric powder
2” asafoetida (rock type)
1 tbsp. peppercorns
3 tbsps. Mustard seeds
¼ tsp. fenutgreekseeds
2 tbsps. Mustard dal
100g red chilli powder
1 sp. Turmeric powder
500ml sesame seed oil
Preparation :
Wash and wipe the mangoes thoroughly. Slit them into fours. Chop 4 or 5 mangoes into cubes.
Sprinkle the salt and turmeric powder on all the mangoes, mix them well ands place in a plastic or wooden vessel. Keep heavy weight over the mangoes and leave them for 4 days.
Daily, turn the mangoes gently, upside down to ensure that the natural green colour of the mangoes has changed. Drain out the grime and salt if any into a pan and boil it. Cool.
Meanwhile remove the soft seeds from each of the mangoes carefully. Remove the black skin too if any. Should there be any hard seed, do not remove it. Next, heat a tablespoon of oil in a small pan, keep the flame low and toss in the asafoetida. Remove it after a minute. Repeat with peppercorns, mustard and fenugreek seeds. Cool the spices and grind fine. Do not use nay water. Heat the remaining oil in another pan and cool thoroughly. Now mix the chilli powder with mustard dal, turmeric powder and the ground spice, add salt (the mixture should be slightly salty). Mix some cooled oil into spice mixture. Stuff each mango with a small lump of the spice paste. Place all the stuffed mangoes in a wide mouthed jar. Pour the grime and the remaining heated and cooled oil.
Now 3 days later this pickle is foaming with gas. How can I prevent this from happening. What am I doing wrong. I have seen some of your posts and you seem to have a lot of experience in this area.
I imagine someone here will be able to help, but I hope you don't mind if they answer here instead of an e-mail. It's kind of the point that we all get to learn! :) Interesting first question! Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
BTW: There should be a checkbox you can check to have answers emailed to you. If you so elect, that'll happen automatically, without other visitors even needing to know your email address.
... actually, it appears that only shows up when you first ask. After that, you need to go to your preferences to turn it on. (That link is will only work for Anna; you can also get there by clicking your name up top to get to your profile, then clicking preferences there)
This "pickle" has no acid whatsoever, which is needed to pickle preserve the mangoes.
I can only infer that it is intended to be a fermented pickle (perhaps akin to saurkraut, given the high level of salt), where bacteria break down the sugars in the mangoes and produce acid (typically lactic and acetic), and carbon dioxide. The off gassing of the carbon dioxide can be seen as bubbling as the mangoes ferment, and would be a normal part of the process.
The fermentation process would normally take several days to a couple of weeks (depending on temperature, mostly, and the size of the mangoes). Is that what your recipe suggests?
If this is not meant to be a fermented pickle, then you are seeing signs of very aggressive spoilage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.948680
| 2013-11-19T17:20:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39573",
"authors": [
"Afzal",
"Alasdair Macdonald",
"Jolenealaska",
"Melissa A",
"derobert",
"heaven potter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91896",
"schade96",
"stratofax"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35721
|
Why were my banana muffins hard?
The top of my muffin came out a little hard, and the whole muffin wasn't soft enough. My recipe had
3 cups flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
2 cup sugar
1 cup of vegetable oil
3 large eggs
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
4 ripe bananas.
Without seeing the recipe for clarification, it's a little tough to say. But it sounds like the oven temperature was too high, and they were baked for too long. Would you mind posting the recipe?
Baking time and temperature? Did you mix for a long time? Were they overbrowned or just too hard?
In the given recipe, assuming generously that the bananas came out to 1 3/4 c, the total water is:
Approximately 12 oz from banana
Approximately 3 oz from eggs
With three cups of flour, assuming a 4.5 oz cup of flour, this is a ratio of 0.9 : 1 flour to water by weight.
Compare to a similar banana muffin recipe (this one from the Food Network):
2 1/2 cups unbleached all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
3/4 cup dark brown sugar
1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
2 cups smashed bananas (about 4 to 6 bananas)
1/2 cup vegetable oil
1/2 cup milk
2 large eggs, at room temperature
1/8 teaspoon fine salt
1/2 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
3/4 cups chopped walnuts
The water content of this recipe is approximately:
4 oz from milk
2 oz from eggs
14 oz from banana
Again, with a 4.5 oz cup of flour, the flour to water ratio is 0.56 : 1 flour to water by weight.
Note that the recipe used has a much higher flour : water ratio, making a much drier and stiffer batter. It sounds like nearly a dough. It also has a relatively huge amount of sugar and oil.
My guess is the original recipe was not well designed and tested. It is highly likely that:
The recipe you have used simply has a very low hydration of the flour, which would contribute to poor texture
The low hydration encouraged overmixing, which developed gluten and created toughness
You have not indicated time or temperature or muffin size, but it is also likely that they were overbaked.
I would suggest finding a quality recipe as a base. Also, chocolate chips are great in banana muffins, but that is a separate issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.948990
| 2013-08-01T03:44:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35721",
"authors": [
"Anton",
"Augusto Santos",
"Cascabel",
"Dan U.",
"Jessica Mahoney",
"Tim knochel",
"Velani Mabuza",
"William Tracey",
"ganache",
"goldenegg-iepf spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37939
|
Ammonia in food
Are there processed foods (traditionally processed or in a modern factory) where we, or the manufacturer, deliberately add ammonia into it, so that we ingest the ammonia with the food?
If so, what is the purpose of having more ammonia in food, besides the amounts that are already naturally occurring?
Do you mean the pure compound ammonia, ammonia, NH3, nomrally a gas at room temperature, or any of the wide variety of chemicals containing this as a portion of their makeup such as NH4Cl, ammonium chloride, E510. If the latter, you may need to narrow down the question.
I think I should have said ammonium compounds or salts, since that is the viable way to introduce ammonia into food.
In that case, there are a number that are generally recognized as safe, some of which don't have to appear on labels. Can you narrow down the question to make it more answerable as to why they might be included?
The principle question is, why add ammonia to food? What is the purpose off increasing the ammonia content? Is it because ammonia is a catalyst/medium to support the solubility or effectiveness of the radical in the compound or is ammonia the intended radical/ion to be inserted into food?
There is no single answer to "why add ammonia" probably; it would depend on the specific characteristics and purpose of each individual additive.
You probably want to find a forum where the health (and possibly food regulatory) aspects underlying this question are not off topic to get satisfying discussion.... or even come into our chat...
I wouldn't know because there might be some culinary aspect to using ammonia.
Does anybody know for a fact that it kills bacteria? Because that is often the "rationalization" for pink slime.
Ammonia (generally ammonium salts) is found in most naturally occurring foods, as is a product of growth and decay
Ammonia gas is used in some food processing line machines to ensure cleanliness of the machines and the food passing through it. The naturally occurring level of Ammonia in many foods is in the 10 or 100's of ppm, so the trace amounts left behind from the processing line would not be noticeable in most cases
Ammonia dissolved in water (Ammonium Hydroxide) is used in some food processing plants (ice makers, milk and beer bottling etc) to clean the rooms, machines, and handling equipment. There will always be trace amounts left over from this process but it should be below 1 ppm
Salamis and fatty cheeses often have the Ammonia level around 1000 ppm; these sorts of foods are often labelled by government food agencies as a "sometimes" food
Some wild game meats may also have Ammonia levels around 1000 ppm, this is one of the reasons some people cannot eat game meats (taste/smell)
Some cultures use Ammonia salts in their food. e.g Ammonium Carbonate as a heat activated raising agent (Greece, Germany etc.), or Ammonium Chloride in salty liquorice (Netherlands, Nordic, Baltic areas etc.). But that is not really adding Ammonia, just adding a salt of it
This is great info, but does it answer the question about intentionally added ammonia?
@SAJ14SAJ It does?
@TFD Most of your answer sounds like you're suggesting that it's naturally in things, not that it was added.
@Jefromi It mentions why you find additional ammonia in food (cleaning), and the common ammonia additives. which are not usually pure ammonia, just salts of ammonia
Ammonium carbonate is used as a leavening agent:
Baking with Leaveners
Ammonium carbonate or ammonium bicarbonate, which we know as baker’s ammonia, is an old-fashioned leavener not usually available in stores, although it can be found in some pharmacies, baking supply companies or catalogues. The positive attribute of baker’s ammonia is that, unlike modern baking powders, it leaves absolutely no chemical residue at all in finished baked goods, neither smell, taste, nor color.
More: Ammonium carbonate
If you don't cook the stuff long and hard enough you will end up with Ammonia (or at least ammonium hydroxide) in your food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.949210
| 2013-10-27T22:10:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37939",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"GAMING e.X",
"Grandtour",
"Jen Evans",
"Josh C",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sabs",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Venkatesh Gotimukul",
"bic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89311",
"klau",
"nakia",
"ทัศณีญา วังขวา"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40249
|
What happened to my cake?
I have used the same pound cake recipe in the same pan for years. The last two times I made it; the cake was a hot mess. The cake overflowed the pan onto my my freshly cleaned oven. It was very giggly. I continued to cook it, and when finally done, it sank.
6 large eggs
1 cup butter
1 cub buttermilk
3 cups all purpose flour
1.2 teaspoon baking soda
2 1.4 cups sugar
2 teaspoons grated lemon peel
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1 teaspoon vanilla
Beat butter, then add sugar, add eggs one at a time and beat for one minute after each/scrap sides, add lemon peel, juice, and vanilla, add flour and buttermilk alternately, start and end with flour. Bake 55-60 minutes at 350 degrees.
The question is: What's changed? Same oven? Does the oven work correctly? Do you use the same tray in the oven? ...
Over-rising and then sinking sound very much like a cake made with too much leavening.
Since you cake is made with the creaming method, and baking soda, there are two sources of leavening:
The baking soda, as a chemical leavener, will react with the acid from the lemon juice and butter milk. Have you changed brands or amounts of any of these items that might change the acid ratio?
Creaming the sugar with the butter causes the sharp edges of he sugar to cut air bubbles into the solid butter phase, which serve as the seeds of the leavening. Has anything changed here, such as starting to use a stand mixture?
Everything is the same: same brands, same oven, have always used the same stand mixer. My oven is only 5 years old. I have an oven theometer that did read the correct temperature. If an element is out, and only heating from the top or only from the bottom impact the baking?
@Donna even if we are stumped as to why the cake is suddenly overleavened when you changed nothing, the symptoms are very clear: the cake is overleavened. Reducing the baking soda and lemon juice will solve the problem, if not the mystery.
In addition to what SAJ14SAJ said (good comments all) could it perhaps be the size of your eggs? Going from medium sized to extra-large eggs (US standards) can add the equivalent of an entire egg when the recipe calls for six eggs. An entire extra egg could easily cause the problems you describe.
I have always used just large eggs from the store.
Hmmm...I don't think you could lose an element and not know it, but to be sure, broil a piece of bread then bake a piece of bread. Beyond that, I concur with rumtscho in her comment above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.949560
| 2013-12-15T01:14:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40249",
"authors": [
"2xB",
"BaffledCook",
"BlueBlaze",
"Dawn ",
"Donna",
"Jolenealaska",
"Moxie",
"Phil Hord",
"Tee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93564",
"mcflygoes88mph",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37125
|
Crumbly cookie dough
My cookie dough is falling apart. What should i do? I have tried everything! Including more flour, more milk, more everything but its exactly the same!
You might want to provide a recipe.
Usually when cookie dough falls apart, it is because the flour is not sufficiently hydrated, that is to say, it has not absorbed enough water.
There are two factors at play:
The ratio of liquid in the recipe (from eggs, milk, water, juice, coffee, or any other source) to flour (by weight)
The amount of time that the dough has had to rest and absorb the water.
Typically, when you are saying your dough is crumbly, it is going to be a rolling type cookie, like a sugar cookie. These often benefit very much from a resting period of at least four hours in order to fully hydrate the flour.
Another common cause is measurement. Flour, especially when measured in a measuring cup, is very easy to mis-measure, and the ratio of flour to liquid is extremely important. I strongly recommend weighing flour for all baking purposes. Quality recipes and cookbooks will indicate flour by weight, or tell you how much their standard cup weighs. If you cannot find this information for a particular recipe, using 4.25 ounces of flour by weight for each cup is a good guess.
What you don't want to do is add flour to the recipe; that will only exacerbate the problem.
See also: What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
In a cookie recipe, the culprit could be too little butter as well (though that would be much harder to add later).
@sourd'oh And a less likely mis-measurement....
Yes, the ratio would probably be off due to mismeasuring the flour. I was just mentioning it as the butter adds a lot of "moisture" to the cookie dough without most people thinking of it as a liquid.
There are many reasons.
Add a little milk or water until it reaches the right consistency. Add a very little at a time. When making cut out cookies try not to overwork the dough as it tends to become tough.
Bake Cookies on a SILICONE MAT.
Bake them frozen (I cut out the pieces a few days in advance).
Add more flour. My recipe is about the same .. it's 4 whole eggs but I put about 6 cups of flours. And I don't have that much flavoring.
Not enough liquid - try adding another egg, or some more butter, or golden syrup.
Your numbers 4 and 5 are essentially opposite of one another.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.949915
| 2013-09-26T21:08:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37125",
"authors": [
"Bert",
"Cat",
"Chris M.",
"DGendreau",
"John99",
"Josh Russo",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Seasons01",
"Simona ",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89647"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36797
|
Chopped onion versus dried minced onion
Can I use dried minced onion instead of chopped onion? I don't have onions and I have more than enough minced onion in my seasoning rack.
Can you give us more information? It will all depend on what you're using it for.
Just don't think of them as onions, and they'll work OK. The pieces tend to be too small to notice as actual onion bits, but an onion-like flavor is there. If you add them dry, they'll also suck some of the excess moisture from whatever you put them in.
Yes, you can. Here are the ratios of fresh to dry:
Fresh : dried = 4 : 1
1 cup : 1/4cup
1/4 cup : 1 tbsp
1 tbsp : 3/4 tsp
1 tsp : 1/4 tsp
I would suggest you put the dry in some water for a few minutes to rehydrate (similar to the proper usage of dried minced garlic).
Hmm, I wouldn't try to use it in French Onion Soup! For a Thursday night family meatloaf? Sure, that's why it exists. Follow the instructions on the jar regarding hydration.
I have to disagree with one of the lower posts
, if you put dried onions on a steak, unless it in the juice on bottom for about 10 minutes, you are going to have crunch onions.
Also, the primary use, is when you want to have onion flavor, and still have a visible piece of onion, unlike just using onion powder.
I also find they have onion flavor with less onion stink and less of the bad onion flavor that makes your breath bad"
Also, I buy mine at Sams Club, and not in the little high priced jars at the regular supermarket and they are MUCH cheaper, they never rot in your drawer, nor, do you have half onions laying around getting moldy.
Don't get me wrong, I am not serving liver and onions with dried onions but for cooking purposes, meatloaf etc, they work well, and folks who are otherwise onion phobic, don't see big onion chunks, which makes them go yuck and refuse to eat the food.
It depends.
Dried minced onions are more expensive than fresh raw onions.
Raw onions should not be cooked to perfection. They should be put in ten minutes before serving, when the heat is just turned off. That would remove the biting taste without collapsing the body and crunchiness of the onion slices.
This probably does not apply to your situation, but just in case. Dried roasted onions should not be cooked or boiled with the food. They are to be sprinkled onto the steak after the heat is turned off, and sprinkled onto warm, but not hot, soup. That is to retain the flavour of the oil and roast of the onion slices. Some people have home roasted onions which they roast in chicken (or pork) lard and garlic. Recooking the onions would destroy the roasted lard flavour.
However, if you really do have a large amount of dried minced onions and you don't mind losing the flavour of the roasting (if they are also roasted) - my experience is that you will get a soup that is similar to having over-boiled/overcooked onions. My kitchen tradition (afa my mum was concerned) calls for onions to remain crunchy in soups and stir-fries. If that tradition is not yours, I guess it would make no difference flavour- and texture-wise.
I think maybe you are thinking of fried onions, not dehydrated ones, based on #3.
I am thinking of both.
I use minced onions ALL THE TIME. My youngest doesn't like to see fresh onions on his food even if they're cooked. He has some sort of phobia.
I always used minced onions when making meatloaf, spaghetti, chili, etc. You still get the onion flavor without the look of the onions.
I usually use some minced onion and then FINELY chop fresh, raw onion in the food processor and add it to the mix. My son is none the wiser.
I have tried using dried onions in spaghetti sauce and the result was pretty disappointing. First I rehydrated the onions, then sauteed them in oil to (hopefully) tenderize them, added them to the sauce and let it simmer for several hours. The dried onions didn't really tenderize like fresh onions do. They were too crunchy and just got in the way.
Dried onions might be OK in a solid-food recipe such as meatloaf as suggested elsewhere, or dip, where you don't mind a little crunch, but they were just not right for this sauce.
I got myself an electric chopper -- they're not expensive -- and it makes the task of chopping up fresh onions a LOT easier, so it's fresh all the way from now on for this recipe.
How long did you rehydrate for? I find best results when you rehydrate overnight in plain water.
Trying to saute re-hydrated onions sounds like a doomed endeavor. They are really soft when they are re-hydrated, so you'd probably just have to go with that, if you wanted to use them.
Some people have digestive problems from onions. Most onions give me gas, but the problem is much less if I cut the onion and run the product under running water.
For those who don't have fresh onions hanging about the house and don't like the results gotten with dried, there is a product 'Sauteed Glazed Onions' frozen in cubes, made by the Dorot company. I've not tried them yet, but you can see through the packaging and they look good.
Sounds like the problem is with the sulphur-based compounds that give onions their "sharp" odor and flavor, because a cooking tip I saw for taking some of the bite away from chopped onions is to run them under cold water to rinse away some of those compounds. Do sweet onions (like Vidalias) give you less problems? If that's the reason, they should be better for your stomach, if you must have onions.
I don't really know if sweet onions are better for me. I know that for my whole life I could not eat raw onions without horrible stomach aches. Cutting them and then rinsing them before frying seems to help a lot.
I'm certainly not a medical professional, so if you have a system that works, don't risk that unpleasantness based on my idle speculation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.950159
| 2013-09-14T18:08:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36797",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Sandford",
"Cynthia",
"Jenny Lottering",
"Paulb",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"goldengrain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34191
|
How long to store slow-cooked chicken in liquid in fridge?
I cooked some chicken in the slow cooker and stored the leftovers in the fridge. I put it all into a sealed tupperware container, but I put the chicken in with the liquid.
It just occurred to me that storing the chicken in liquid might have been a bad idea. It's been about 4 days now, is it still ok to eat? Does the liquid or the slow cooker change how long it could be stored for?
Thanks!
Assuming it has been treated appropriately in all other ways (not being left out at in the "danger zone" of 40-140 F / 4-60 C for more than about two hours commulative over the entire life time, raw and cooked)) cooked chicken should last 3-4 days in the refrigerator.
See for example, the example of fried chicken per South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control. It is the only example of cooked chicken in the list, but should be well representative. Similarly, Still Tasty advises 3-4 days on chicken broth, which would represent the juice or gravy—they indicate the same for chicken Parmesan.
You may be noticing a trend here: all chicken based dishes have about the same storage lifetime.
The fact that it is stored with the juice or gravy, or that you cooked it in a slow cooker is not really important.
That's good info. For some reason I just always assumed chicken went bad faster in liquid...I'm not sure where I got that from. Thanks mate!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.950601
| 2013-05-18T17:31:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34191",
"authors": [
"Chef booker",
"Daniel Chapman",
"Kar",
"Olalere Michael",
"boolean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79563"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32898
|
Cheesecake in rectangular pan
Can I make a cheesecake with cookie crust Ina a parchment lined rectangular pan so I can cut it in little squares?
Did you mean "in a rectangular pan", not a "recycle pan"? I am going to edit for you, but if that isn't what you meant, you can roll back the edit.
You can of course, try this.
The largest challenge you will face is that cheesecakes are notoriously difficult to release from the pan, and they are not very strong. The traditional crumb crust is also not very strong, so it doesn't provide much support or structural integrity to the slice.
This is why spring form pans are normally used for cheesecakes: they let you leave the cheesecake on its base plate, and just remove the ring. The crust sits on the base plate until service.
If you want to try it in another pan, to facilitate getting it out, I suggest that you:
Consider using aluminum foil instead of parchment, as it is easier to shape. Make a sling for the cheesecake, so that the foil comes up the edge of the pan. You will want to do this in both directions.
The sling will be used after baking to lift the cheesecake out of the pan. You should then be able to carefully peel the foil back from the edges, and slice it. (Many brownie recipes recommend this technique.)
Consider a sturdier crust than a crumb crust, perhaps a full shortbread, that will survive the lifting from the pan, and be strong enough to support the pieces when you cut them.
Changing the shape of the pan may change the surface area of the cheesecake, and thus its depth, which will affect the cooking time. You want to choose a new pan that is as close in area to the pan anticipated in your recipe as possible, so that the baking time and temperature do not have to be adjusted too much. Getting the perfect balance of time, temperature, and thickness of the custard is a tricky matter.
If your original recipe calls for a 9" spring form pan (which is fairly typical of cheesecakes), that is approximately 64" square inches. So you would choose an 8x8" square pan to have approximately the same area.
A complication is that spring form pans tend to be taller than square cake pans, and cheesecake recipes often take advantage of this fact. If all of your filling will not fit (with some reasonable room for a tiny amount of expansion (cheesecake should not really expand when cooked), you are going to have to adjust the baking time and possibly the temperature.
Your cheesecake should be done when it jiggles slightly at the center, and has an internal temperature measured in the center of approximately 180-185 F. You will need an instant read thermometer to measure this.
If you are changing the depth or the area, you will definitely want to monitor your cake closely for when it is done.
Another approach would be to make individual cheesecakes or tartlets in a tartlet mold.
You should easily be able to google many suitable recipes.
They do sell rectangular cheesecake pans:
Fat Daddio's Sheet Cheesecake Pan with Removable Bottom Anodized Aluminum, 9 x 13 x 3 Inch, Silver
Springform Pan Cheesecake Pan Leakproof Cake Pan Bakeware Rectangle Nonstick Removable Bottom Black (14" x 9.3" x 3")by Meleg Otthon
Line the Pan with light film of Butter, using a Paper Towel, Run the Butter all over the inside 1st, then Flour and shake Pan till Flour is evenly distributed and dump the remainder. Should be a Powdery even film all through the 9x13 Pyrex Dish.
YOUR CHEESE CAKE WILL NOT STICK WHEN USING A PASTRY CRUST.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.950762
| 2013-03-21T19:28:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32898",
"authors": [
"David Martin",
"Don't Panic",
"Julien Lopez",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76056",
"vsz"
],
"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
}
|
42338
|
How do I know by taste, if ham is bad. I have had pre cooked ham cooking in a slow cooker on warm for 3 days
My boyfriend has been using this idea, for a long time. He makes bean soup, with just ham and beans.. maybe a onion, then it sits in the crockpot on warm until digested, by us. LOL. well today. I grabbed a bowl.. and noticed a faint sweet taste to the ham.. I have been digging for suggestions since, to know if I should throw it away or, continue eating it.. It still taste amazing. Just nervous is all. I am going to stick a thermometer in the soup to see what temperature, my crock pot is on, while on warm. Then, I will know if its cooking at at least above 140, safe area. We do this to chili too, and deer meat.. It actually, taste better the second day.
Sign.. a bit unsure.. lol
Rose Dubois
Food service rule number 2: when in doubt, throw it out.
I fully endorse the "when in doubt, throw it out" doctrine, although I personally wouldn't consider a sweet taste to be doubt. As rfusca wisely points out, you can't taste or smell several kinds of contamination, and the ones that you can taste or smell, are usually sour, bitter, or generally pungent.
I suggest you have a look at the following question:
Is it bad to leave the crock pot on “warm” (not low) all day?
If your crock pot has really been on the whole time, then it might be perfectly safe. You need to ascertain what the "warm" temperature is. Assuming you still have it running, just stick a thermometer in and see for yourself.
Anecdotally, I've heard reports of crock pot "warm" temperatures ranging from 150° F all the way to 220° F. Very unlikely that newer crock pots are anywhere near that high end, but anything above 140° F is cooking temperature and will kill bacteria rather than allowing them to breed. So if your thermometer test reads higher than that, it's probably still safe even after all this time. I can't speak for the quality of something that's been cooking for 3 straight days, but there's no accounting for taste...
On the other hand, if your thermometer reads anything lower than 140° F, then you should throw out what you have and stop doing this from now on. A truly "warm" but not "hot" temperature like 100° F is practically a giant incubator, even worse than just leaving it at room temperature.
P.S. You should read the manual for your particular crock pot, because even though it might be safe for the food, I'm not sure if it's safe for your pot. Many of them come with recommendations not to use the warm setting for more than 4 hours, and don't really explain why. Possibly, they think the temperature might not be enough to guarantee food safety, although another (to me more likely) possibility is that it can stain, corrode, or weaken the pot.
How do you know, by taste, if anything is bad? You don't, you can't. The bacteria that grow and make you sick may be odorless and tasteless. "When it doubt, throw it out."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.951057
| 2014-02-26T18:36:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42338",
"authors": [
"Dr.Carlos Navarrete spam",
"Houses at Costa Rica Spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"TheSmartestNoob",
"gloo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98878",
"joshwize",
"kata 1844",
"matteroffact",
"phil ellis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33432
|
What is the science or chemistry of the creaming method in baking?
Please help me understand the chemistry of fat in baking as it applies to the creaming method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.951301
| 2013-04-13T08:59:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33432",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10824
|
Is there any substitute for saltpeter / sodium nitrate in corned beef brine?
I realize there is another question about corned beef from scratch, but the answers don't really cover my question. Many recipes for making your own corned beef still refer to the use of saltpeter (potassium nitrate) or sodium nitrate. From what I've been able to find out saltpeter is never used anymore nor available to the home cook, and sodium nitrate is not commonly available.
Sodium nitrate in the brine gives cooked corned beef its classic reddish color (without it corned beef comes out gray), and it kills botulism spores. I like my corned beef pink (the gray color is somewhat unappetizing), but more than that I'm concerned about the flavor of the corned beef. The last time I made corned beef I tried to use Morton Tender Quick. The cooked brisket turned out beautifully pink and almost inedible. It was terribly salty and actually made my tongue numb.
So, is there anything that can be used in place of the sodium nitrate, if used in the proper quantities does its absence or presence have any effect on the flavor of the corned beef, and is there any good place to get it?
@sarge_smith: Are you sure your edit is correct? Sodium nitrate (saltpeter) is used as a preservative, and in fact some curing salts use a combination of nitrate and nitrite. Yes, it's also used in explosives, but lots of food ingredients/additives have alternate uses...
It looks like an edit did change some of my nitrates to nitrites. I'm sure saltpeter is potassium nitrate (not nitrite). I'm not sure whether sodium nitrate or nitrite is more appropriate for corned beef. The other corned beef question (entitled Corned Beef - From Scratch) mentions sodium nitrite. FYI, Tender Quick lists both sodium nitrate and nitrite (in that order) in its ingredients after the (I'm sure much greater) quantities of salt and sugar. I'm just wondering if it's possible to obtain or substitute the nitrate/nitrites by themselves.
as far as i know, sodium nitrite is sold mixed with salt and died bright red for the purposes of curing meat. The couple of quick searches I did on google backed that up but it is always possible that I am wrong.
you can buy both compounds from any chemical supply house but I would watch the quantities you order to avoid those pesky watch lists.
Rolled back edits. Saltpeter is potassium nitrate (see my answer).
Saltpeter is potassium nitrate, which does not directly cure meats. Bacteria convert nitrate into nitrite, which is the real preservative. Saltpeter can be replaced by a smaller amount of nitrite to get the same curing effect (most commercial cured meats do this), though a prolonged cure that converts nitrate into nitrite can develop more flavor.
Tender Quick is not a direct substitute because it contains mostly salt. I've heard that you can replace the salt in your recipe with Tender Quick, and drop the saltpeter, and have a success. You would have better luck finding a recipe that was meant to use Tender Quick, though.
It is definitely possible to buy (food-grade!) saltpeter. I would check online, or at specialty stores. It's a little more difficult than picking it up at your local grocery store, of course.
(Chemistry lesson, courtesy of McGee: nitrate (NO3) is converted to nitrite (NO2), which then reacts to form nitric oxide (NO), which bonds to myoglobin in the meat, which turns it pink and prevents oxidation. Nitric oxide is also present in smoke, which gives that "pink ring" around the outside of smoked meats.)
Saltpeter is also available at the drug store (chemists in the UK). Your drug store may or may not carry it, but I was able to have mine order it for me.
thanks for the chem lesson! I always wondered exactly what made the smoke ring. I needs to get me a copy of McGee's book.
Regarding the Tender Quick, I replaced the volume of kosher salt and sugar in the recipe I was following with Tender Quick, making no other adjustments, and it came out awful. I wouldn't recommend using it outside of a recipe that specifically called for it, as you say.
I decided to do some more of my own research on this with the nitrate/nitrite confusion. Thanks to the other answerers, that definitely helped give me a good starting point. I'm writing my own answer so I can include some links. I made it a community wiki (seemed like it might be good for this one).
Firstly, from everything I've been able to find online (wikipedia has remarkably little info about nitrates/nitrites as applies to meat curing) there is no substitute for the nitrites. They occur naturally in many vegetables, so when used appropriately they don't pose an undue health risk. Nitrates/nitrites are added to meat cures (at least historically) largely for their preservative qualities. So, in a corned beef brisket that is going to be brined then cooked and consumed immediately the nitrites are unnecessary.
Also, nitrites do make the meat turn reddish when cooked. Opinions seem to be split as to whether there's a significant impact to flavor in meat brined with nitrites for a relatively short time, say around a week. But since the flavor development is unmistakable in longer curing processes, I doubt there is zero effect on flavor even with a short brine.
As Bob explains in his answer, nitrites are the preservative, and potassium or sodium nitrates are converted into nitrites during the cure. I'm guessing that saltpeter (potassium nitrate) was used more frequently than sodium nitrate/nitrite in the past because it was more readily available. From what I've been able to find online, it's no more available now than sodium nitrite preparations, which are more appropriate for this kind of meat curing.
The sodium nitrite preparations are often called by the generic name "pink salt" because they are colored pink to avoid confusion with regular salt. The brand names I've found online are Insta Cure #1 and DQ Curing Salt #1. The #1 indicates a preparation of 6.25% sodium nitrite and 93.75% regular salt. Pink salt #2 indicates the preparation also includes sodium nitrate. #2 is only necessary when dry curing like pepperoni and dry salami, which are not cooked or refrigerated. Pink salt is used in small quantities in addition too, not instead of, regular salt. (Most brine recipes I've seen use 2 cups kosher salt and 4 teaspoons pink salt.)
It seems like there are two widely available books that people recommend for meat curing: Charcuterie, by Ruhlman, and this one (which seems to get the hardcore purist vote), by Rytek Kutas. I don't own either, so can't recommend one, but Ruhlman does have a blog where he posted the corned beef recipe from his book. Best of all, the blog post has a link where you can mail order the pink salt, and it's way cheaper than the small handful of other online sources I've been able to find.
Finally, note that saltpeter is poisonous and flammable (it's used in pyrotechnics and to burn out dead tree stumps). Sodium nitrite itself can be fatally toxic if a human were to ingest an amount equivalent to 4.6 grams (citing from wikipedia), which again is why they make the curing preparations pink. Given that, there is no way I'd use the 99% pure form of sodium nitrite even if it is labeled food grade. I'm no where near good enough at math to be sure I wouldn't kill myself with it. (I found a hunting supply website that sells that stuff to use in curing fishing bait.)
To sum up, it seems like sodium nitrite is worth using but can be omitted, it has no reasonable substitute, and it's unfortunately not easy for most of us to come by. Thanks again to the commenters and answerers.
Good points. We had associate whom made some sausages from one of our animals and we tried some. He had put in pure saltpetre instead of the usual 5/95 mix by mistake. They cooked up great and smelt and looked good. But after about the third bite I was throwing up violently. I never knew it could have killed me!
I've been making fresh and cured sausage for years. Here are the details on what you are asking. There are 2 types of cure. Commercially, they are now known as Prague Powder #1 and #2. You can find them on any website that sells sausage making supplies (casings, stuffers, etc). #1 is also known as pink curing salt, and is a mixture of 1 oz sodium nitrite per pound of salt. This cure is typically used for short term curing/smoking, (ham, smoked sausage, bacon, etc), providing both the appearance (pink color of ham as opposed to pork) and preventing botulism during smoking. Botulism thrives in an oxygen depleted environment where the temperatures are in the 105-115 degree range (read smoker here). Typical amount to use is 1 tsp per 5 pounds of meat. I use it frequently to smoke kielbasa, chorizo, salmon, pastrami, etc. Other then the conversion from pork to ham, the use of cures is only required for smoking/curing at low temperatures, not when smoking pork/ribs/brisket at temps of 250 degrees and up, as you see on BBQ Pitmasters.
Prague Powder #2 is designed for dry-cure products, like proscuitti, capicola or sopressatta. These not smoked/cooked, but age over time, up to 6 months or more. #2 contains the same sodium nitrite/salt solution plus .64 ounces of sodium nitrate per pound of salt. This would be the equivalent of saltpeter. The sodium nitrate acts as a time release, breaking down into sodium nitrite, then nitric oxide over an extended period of time. This supplements the sodium nitrite, which can deplete by 75% over a two week period, far too short for products that cure over an extended period of time. It should be noted that Cure #2 should NEVER be used to cure bacon, as it has been found that the combination of nitrite and nitrate in bacon has been found to produce nitrosamines (cancer causing cells) when fried at high temperatures. Seems to be a problem only with bacon.
I bought some from my local pharmacy. I just took in my grandmother's recipe, showed it to the pharmacist and he ordered me a bottle; the bottle was really too big for my needs but it keeps really well in the cupboard
I get mine from the local butcher if you only need small amounts the local butcher may give or sell some of his curing salt
As has already been noted here, the Nitrites are in fact not needed if the meat is to be consumed shortly after a short brine no longer than a week or so.
As I am on a Sodium restricted diet due to high BPH, I had thought that Corned Beef was merely a very fond memory for me. I found out that this is in fact NOT the case.
Trader Joe's sells both a Pastrami and a Corned Beef that are NOT brined in Sodium Nitrate nor Salt. The lack of Nitrite formation means that this does NOT have a long shelf life and there are warnings all over the package to KEEP IT REFIGERATED and a CONSUME BEFORE DATE is noted. The company apparently figured out a way to create the Corned Beef without nitrites nor sodium, and they extend the shelf life by vacuum sealing the packages and keeping it refrigerated from immediately after packing to when you buy it. (Note: I have also found that due to the vacuum packaging, this product freezes very well and extends the shelf life almost indefinitely).
This means I can now make my own 1000 Island low-sodium dressing, rinse the sauerkraut to remove the brine and use the Trader Joes Low Sodium Corned beef to make Reuben's that only have about 340mg of sodium instead of the usual 1000+mg (which on a 1250mg of sodium a day diet is a no-no).
What I plan to do here, is get the Potassium Nitrate from the local Chinese store (Actually think the local Korean Grocery is more likely to have it), and make my Corned beef with a nice round beef roast, use the method noted here of slow cooking it, and then split it into a dinner and the other half will go into a vacuum sealed bag in the freezer for dinner another time.
Thanks for the information! :)
If pharmacy is uncooperative, or too expensive, but you're lucky enough to have an asian store (Chinese, Vietnamese etc.) in your area you'll find that most of them sell 'Nitre Granules', also called "muoi diem". It's pure granulated potassium nitrate. My little 2 ounce bag of Panda Brand cost all of 49 US cents.
Yes, pink salt is often used in food preparations. Sodium nitrite is the chemical name.
Be careful here, there are some nasty uses for the other forms of the chemical.
you can order it online, usually in quantities far more than you would ever need at home. It is hard to find, but not terribly expensive.
Yes you can omit it from your preparations. But the final result is never quit the same. Th texture and Colour is dramatically different. Unappealing without it. Flavour can also be affected. In my experience, without is yourv preparation tastes more like "cooked meat" and with it it tastes like "deli meat"
I have made several of my own corned beef not using any nitrates. I just use a simple pickling recipe and inject the meat then soak it in the brine for 3 days. Rinse off and cook as usual and this turns out very good. The recipe I got was from an old time butchers book. You can also make your own bacon and hams with no nitrates (I have not tried but have recipes) using the Virginia Ham style recipe you can find by googling Virginia Hams.
The taste is surely good. But the safety is not up to modern standards. The book may well have been created at a time when ptomaine was the most promising theory in food illness (that's as recently as WWII).
@rumtscho Assuming refrigeration and that the beef is going to be eaten before it goes bad, nitrates are optional. Cook's Illustrated's recipe for corning beef is just dry-brining for 5-7 days with salt and spices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.951382
| 2011-01-07T00:50:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10824",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anderson Neo",
"Bob",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"Dee",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Fountain Health Insurance",
"H. Aguilar",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lester Peabody",
"Matthew",
"Nicole",
"TFD",
"Zalel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kaptan",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"user22199"
],
"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
}
|
34741
|
How to make chunky salsa like supermarket jarred salsa?
I've watched a lot of videos on YouTube: 90% of people doesn't know anything about cooking. What they do is they make salsa in a blender (not in a food processor)!!! As a result, their salsa is not salsa, it's sauce, puree, disgusting foamy substance (I've tried to make in a blender). Salsa must be chunky!
I want salsa like in jars from a store.
So, I have a few question:
1) How to prepare tomatoes? Tomatoes in jar salsa look like diced canned tomatoes. I can buy diced tomatoes and make them myself. How to do that myself? Should I roast/boil them and then chunk?
2) Do I have to simmer tomatoes/salsa? If I simmer tomatoes/salsa, should I add all ingredients at the beginning or at the end.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7668/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2903/67
I agree that a blender is the wrong approach, but I think food processors are also too much. Use a grinder or maybe a ricer instead.
Salsa means sauce, but there are a great variety of salas to be had.
It sounds like you would like a fairly chunky tomato salsa.
There are many approaches to this, and an infinite variety of recipes. There is no single answer to how you would prepare your tomatoes.
Choose your preparation method based on the the outcome you like. Many tomato salsas are uncooked, so you would simply use raw tomatoes. You can also roast your tomatoes to intensify the flavor, or even put some dried tomatoes in with your salsa—there are no rules.
Some common options:
Use diced or whole canned tomatoes, further chopping them to your desired size. In the winter or when good tomatoes are not available, this is a good option.
Dice fresh tomatoes (and other vegetables) to the consistency that you desire.
You can also pulse some (or all) of your tomatoes, either fresh or canned, in a food processor, to get the consistency you desire.
You can also combine these methods, for example by pureeing part of the salsa for the body, and adding diced or chopped tomatoes and other vegetables in for texture.
Some salsas are cooked in which case you might only rough chop the tomatoes before simmering, and let them cooked down to the consistency you like.
Since you specifically mentioned jarred salsas as your model, I imagine that you may desire a lightly cooked salsa modeled after typical Mexican restaurant salsa. One easy way to do this is to start with canned tomatoes which are already cooked:
Take:
Whole canned plum tomatoes (or diced if you don't have whole)—depending on your taste, you may want to drain the excess liquid from the tomatoes
Diced onions and or garlic
Chopped fresh, roasted or canned chili peppers (roasted pablano are especially good here, or perhaps a jalapeno or Serrano)
Other seasonings to taste, such as dried chili powder (I like ancho), cumin, maybe some Mexican oregano, perhaps a pinch of cayenne. Cilantro is evil, but put it in if you must.
Salt to taste
Place it all into the bowl of a food processor, and pulse until it is chopped to your desired consistency. If you let this sit for an hour or two in refrigerator, the flavors will blend and mature.
Pioneer Woman has a very similar recipe, in detail, with a great number of photographs. Note that you do not have to pulse yours as finely as she shows.
Note also that restaurants also often serve pico de gallo, which is essentially just chopped tomatoes and onions, perhaps with some chili peppers and other accents (probably including evil cilantro) that have been allowed to sit together a bit to marry. It has almost no sauce like body, but is more like a chopped salad. This is typically made from chopped, squeezed, fresh tomatoes.
If you do decide you want cooked tomatoes, but want to use flavorful fresh ones instead of canned, roasting them is a pretty good way to go about it - it concentrates and enhances the flavor, and gets rid of a bit of the liquid so your salsa's not soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.952508
| 2013-06-18T00:54:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34741",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diana Peters",
"Joe",
"Kamryn",
"Kevdog Cleveland",
"Mona",
"Theodore Pirkle",
"Thiago",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81057"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28807
|
Squeezing excess water from seaweed
I was making seaweed salad for the first time tonight and had just finished soaking my wakame for some time. I rinsed it and put it in a colander, but just couldn't squeeze out very much water. The pieces stuck to my hands, squished, and made gurgling noises; but for the most part remained sopping wet, and later tasted completely waterlogged. Am I missing something here? I know there's a way to get water out because I've tasted wonderfully light and refreshing seaweed salad before, but my wakame (even hours later) is just a slimy bowl of sopping seaweed. Thanks!
Most guides I've seen recommend a salad spinner after the initial draining/squeezing. I've never had trouble with that method.
Failing that, I guess you could blot or squeeze it with paper towels; that's what I used to do with lettuce before I had a spinner, and it works... sort of... but not as well, and you'll go through a lot of paper towels that way.
Given that we are talking about seaweed here, I wouldn't try to get it perfectly dry. Restaurants actually use specialized (and very expensive) automatic "vegetable dryers" that I believe operate on a similar concept as a clothes dryer. You're not going to get that kind of result at home. Just squeeze or spin-dry enough to get it past the "sopping" stage.
It's also possible that you soaked it too long. More than a few minutes and it will just turn to mush, which may have been your problem. I've seen at least one ridiculous recipe for seaweed salad calling for a 5-minute rinse and a 15+ minute soak, which is pretty much guaranteed to give you slime.
I haven't tried it with wakame myself, but wrapping something like blanched chard in a towel and twisting the free ends to squeeze it works extremely well.
True, you might be able to use a tea towel in place of paper towels... less absorbent but also less wasteful.
Ok, I'll take that into account next time. I'll definitely try a salad spinner, but I do think I probably soaked it too long. Would 5 minutes be a good time in general?
@Walker: 5 minutes may even be too long, although it's hard to be exact with variations in seaweed products (not to mention the water). You really just want to soften it; don't let it go completely limp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.953097
| 2012-12-02T06:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28807",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Manya",
"Mistique 2470",
"Owloid",
"Taha Magdy",
"Walker",
"fantasy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66773",
"jscs",
"stevekrzysiak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29017
|
How to store homemade bread?
I made a bigger batch of bread than I was initially planning on, and I don't want it to go bad before I get a chance to eat it. Having it go stale isn't an issue (french toast, bread pudding), but having it go moldy is.
What do you consider the best way to store homemade bread?
EDIT: It's a No knead Sourdough bread. I wanted to double the recipe and ended up tripling it.
What kind of bread is it?
The recipe you linked isn't sourdough. Should it be another link?
@J.A.I.L. - I'm just going by the recipe title. It does have a slight twang. But yes, you are correct in that it doesn't use a starter.
@Chris I just wondered because sourdough bread, being sourer is less prone to get mouldy (moulds won't like low pH).
When I make home made bread, I decide how much I'm going to eat in the next day or two and leave that out on the breadboard, usually just covered with a tea towel. I usually put the cut side down on the board to help prevent it from drying out.
The rest gets pre-sliced, put in a zip-top bag, and stashed in the freezer. A few minutes in the toaster oven, and the bread is good as new. Pre-slicing it allows you to just use what you need instead of thawing the whole loaf. It lasts pretty much indefinitely in the freezer.
I'm going to have to give this a try. It should also keep me from eating half the loaf in one day.
Excess moisture is your enemy; a bit of condensation between loaf and plastic bag is loved by bread-mold. Sliced bread goes faster than whole.
Wrapping in papertowel before bagging is an option but that may also dry out the loaf some. A good bread tin/box is perfect if it is regularly sterilized so that spores don't pounce on new arrivals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.953304
| 2012-12-07T19:58:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29017",
"authors": [
"Allan Tisdell",
"BruceG",
"Chris",
"Chris Marotta",
"ElendilTheTall",
"IAmGroot",
"J.A.I.L.",
"L. Potts ",
"Spruce Traold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67324"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28894
|
Baileys ice cream stabilizer
I'm planning on making Baileys ice cream from the recipe given in Larousse Gastronomique, which calls for 1 tsp of stabilizer. Ice cream stabilizers are briefly listed in the preceding paragraph as edible gelatine, egg white, agar-agar, and carob but are not discussed any further. I find the stabilizer reference vague and the 1 tsp measurement further puzzles me because I wouldn't expect them to be used in the same ratios.
Please help.
150 g egg yolks
1 tsp ice cream stabilizer
1/2 cup castor sugar
2 cups milk
1 cup heavy cream
175 ml Baileys
Is this a custard ice cream or simple dairy? Could you perhaps post the full list of ingredients?
Truthfully, I would try the recipe without any extra stabilizers, or make it using the custard method and only egg yolks (for the lecithen and the custard thickening), and only worry about additives if that first batch is not successful. Home made ice cream is pretty forgiving. The only trick I know is to let the mix sit in the refrigerator overnight before freezing--this seems to really help the flavors for some reason.
Updated with full list of ingredients. I believe the reason for the stabilizer is due to the Baileys. None of the other ice cream recipes listed on the same page call for a stabilizer. Your advice about letting it sit is well taken, SAJ14SAJ, as it's even recommended here to let the mixture stand for 4 hours before transferring to ice cream mixer to let the flavours develop.
According to your update, this is already a custard mix. According to my super secret google conversion search, 175 Bailey's is about 3/4 c. That is a lot of liqueur. I could not easily find out what percentage of that is actually cream, and how much is essentially water or alchohol, which is probably the resaon for the stabilizer. I still think it is worth trying without the stabilizer--the nice thing about ice cream is that if you let it melt, you have custard sauce. You could then add stabilizer and refreeze if the results were not good. If you do use one, I suggest the egg white.
So, I tried it with 1 tsp of xanthan gum as stabilizer. The results were interesting. It took about 10 minutes less churning than called for, which I attribute to the stabilizer. Also, and I'm not sure if I should attribute this to the stabilizer or the fact that it's a custard-based recipe, but for my personal taste it didn't have a milky enough tactile sensation. Next time I will indeed leave out the xanthan completely in order to compare, and may also focus on simple dairy recipes in the future.
I've used xanthan gum with great success. You can get it in powdered form at places like Whole Foods and health food stores. You might find guar gum also, although I haven't tried it. The teaspoon measurement is about right for a standard home recipe that makes a quart of ice cream, although you can add a quarter teaspoon at a time and stop when the consistency looks about right. Add it while spinning the mix in a blender to prevent clumps. If you add too much, it'll become thick and sticky like peanut butter.
I'm assuming they're calling for some kind of stabilizer because Baileys has a lot of water in it, but you may find that you don't need the full teaspoon.
Can you elaborate on what the "right consistency" looks like, and why you're putting the base into a blender?
The xantham gum itself, I infer from the answer, is ironically the reason for the blender :-)
The "right consistency" is something pretty close to heavy whipping cream. Presumably, the Baileys will water it down a bit, and the recipe is compensating for that with the stabilizer. And yes, the blender is needed to keep the xanthan gum from clumping as you add it. Another idea is to reverse the quantities of heavy whipping cream and milk. A lot of recipes use 2 cups cream and 1 cup milk, and that extra butterfat will help with the iciness as well, and possibly reduce the need for a stabilizer.
The recipe calls for adding the stabilizer to the egg yolks and sugar before mixing with the milk/cream. In this case I'd be blending the yolks, sugar, and xanthan together in the blender before adding to the milk/cream. Sounds OK to you? Also, are you sure about the 1 tsp? Most references I've seen call for about 1/8 of this.
Xanthan gum powder needs to be dissolved quickly to avoid clumping, so it should be added to a large amount of liquid in the blender. I make the mix normally first and then put it in a blender to add the xanthan gum at the end. I've done it several times that way with great success. As for the amount, I did several experiments with it once, and found that it started to make a difference at about 1/2 tsp per quart, and a full tsp was about right for recipes with a lot of water or fruit juice. Add it by the 1/8 or 1/4 tsp to be safe - let it blend a few seconds, and then check the consistency.
I'm not a fan of Xantham gum for stabilizing these mixtures because I think it makes for a slimy mouthfeel and changes the texture. In the past, I used a blend of Carboxymethyl Cellulose and glycerol monostearate, which both emulsifies the mixture and stabilizes it. You can find these ingredients on Modernist Pantry.
There are several resources that dig into the amounts to use and the blends, etc. This post covers it to an extent:
GMS and CMC ratios in Ice Cream
Frozen Desserts by Francisco Migoya also has information about stabilizers.
You can also find a bunch of information in this link:
http://icecreamscience.com/stabilizers-ice-cream/
I'm also not a fan of xanthan in ice cream (it's great for a million other things). Even so, a teaspoon of xanthan is too much. If you were to use it, you'd want to use under 1g per liter. If you're hoping to use easy to find ingredients, try 1g gelatin plus 0.4g xanthan gum. Mix these with the sugar in the recipe.
Other stabilizer blends will be more effective, but you'll have to shop for some new things. You could try to find a reasonably sized jar of Cremodan, or roll your own ... check out this article.
Someone mentioned carboxymethylecellulos ... this is very effective stuff, but beware that there are many varieties, some of which will strongly influence the texture of the ice cream. You don't need any GMS in any ice cream that has 150g egg yolks. That's a crazy lot of eggs. You could cut that by 3/4 and still have plenty of emulsification.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.953496
| 2012-12-04T20:15:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28894",
"authors": [
"King_llama",
"Person",
"Russell Gilbert",
"Ryan",
"S. Simple",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66923",
"ithan J",
"joe",
"jscs"
],
"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
}
|
30703
|
How do banana peels reflect its ripening state? Can we influence that in our kitchen?
Recently our commercial kitchen got some bunches of bananas with a curious feature. On the inside they were firm and delicious (no jokes, please), but on the outside they looked incredibly sickly. Specifically, they had this grey/green/brownish yellow with lots of black spots, some of them with depth. I've been told that some bananas, such as those from the Canary Islands, look like this, but ours are Cavendishes*. Over a chilly weekend, neither the peels nor the inside seemed to change very much.
What sorts of things can we do to make healthy-tasting bananas look ripe at the appropriate times? We actually had to post a sign explaining the situation so that people would eat them!
*Cavendishs? Cavendish's?
It sounds to me like they were refrigerated. Cavendish/dessert bananas will develop a sickly grey-green hue when refrigerated. It doesn't affect the flavor or texture, though.
Don't Cavendishes always get spots when they're very ripe?
These are spots I'd normally associate with bananas so overripe that they could only be used for cooking or with diseased bananas. For example, the spots on these bananas often have depth to them.
Alright, I'll go ahead and post this as an answer.
The fact of the matter is the Cavendish/dessert bananas should not be refrigerated. They will develop a sickly green/grey tinge to their skin. This does not really affect flavor, texture, or to the best of my knowledge, nutritional value, but it makes them look like ass.
Now, to the crux of your issue: you say this is a commercial kitchen. And herein lies your problem: your produce almost certainly gets delivered in a refrigerated truck. What the delivery drivers should be doing, but almost certainly aren't, is wrapping the bananas (and tomatoes, but I digress) in a nice heavy blanket. But let's be realistic, no truck driver is going to waste time doing that. So your bananas (and tomatoes!) are showing up, pre-refrigerated by your produce purveyor. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Or is there?
There is something you can do. But it won't be easy, or particularly fun, unless you're a sadistic bastard who likes yelling at people. Get yourself a laser thermometer and meet the delivery truck when it rolls up. When the door opens, temp the bananas. (Actually, you should do this with every time/temperature sensitive product you receive.) If the bananas are less than ~50° F, send 'em back. Demand a fresh case. Refuse to pay. Keep doing it until you get the bananas you want. After a few rounds, your driver will make damn sure the bananas are perfect.
Thanks! I was hoping there was a nicer way out, but this seems to be the consensus.
@rsegal If you haven't read it, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Kitchen Confidential. Not only is it a great read, particularly for people in the industry, but he also shares his techniques for getting deliveries on time and correct.
As you mentioned the bananas were delicious,so there is no problem with the fertilizers and watering of plant. As my parents used to do it they pluck the half ripe bananas from the banana tree,but atleast bananas have grown to its normal length and thickness,there after you just keep the plucked ones in your home it will ripe by self within 2-3 days.but before plucking,you must consider some points regarding the texture of it peel & smell
it should not be properly green.
it must have slightly sweet smell of ripening,which shows that its about to ripe properly after some days.
dig your nail in its peel(not with pressure)its just to check whether it is in ripening state,if you feels it soft then you can pluck it.
this is here i am sharing by my experience and what i came to know by time.hope it would help you out.
in last you mentioned that it usually have spots, they indicate that the starch inside the fruit has turned to sugar. here is the link you can refer http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question20531.html
http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/full-ripe-banana-with-dark-patches-combats-abnormal-cells-and-cancer.html
i also experienced the same that it results in delicious bananas,so i keep it in mind while purchasing from grocery stores.
http://recipes.wikia.com/wiki/Cavendish_banana
@Mong134 says ,in case if you refrigerated,that what you shouldn't with banana.it results in damaging its sweetness as well as smell. which will not be as delicious it should be naturally.
http://recipes.wikia.com/wiki/Cavendish_banana here is the link might be help out you.
We get regular deliveries, so this answer is interesting but doesn't yet contain the information we'll need to prevent this sort of occurrence in the future.
@rsegal what is the key points you are seeking for?as you mentioned in question about the texture improvement and patches on the bananas peel.what else remaining,as here in above comments i provided you link to your cavendish .
What we could do about it. I always didn't come away from having read your answer understanding where the sickly peel color came from. Because those were the core parts of the question, I couldn't accept your answer without them.
@rsegal i mentioned in my answer that spots, they indicate that the starch inside the fruit has turned to sugar.so it excess might be giving the peel so sickly texture but as you mentioned its not affecting the quality of your bananas and taste so its not that big issue,it happens i consulted about this to my granny.
infact if you keep a fresh banana without any spots or sickly peel after some days it will attain a sickly kind textured peel.which will not affect it nutrition value but make it more sweeter and softer gradually by itself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.954019
| 2013-02-04T20:36:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30703",
"authors": [
"Al Morris",
"Cascabel",
"Grref",
"Lucas Cerro",
"Lukas",
"Robert Sargent",
"Shar",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"User1000547",
"cholick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71824",
"rsegal",
"user2752467"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70933
|
Nutrient composition of cheap cashews/nuts
Is there a difference in the nutrient composition of cheap (home brand) raw/salted cashews sold in supermarkets like Walmart/Costco/Coles/Woolworths etc compared to other branded cashews ? Similarly, is there a nutritional difference between organic and non-organic raw cashews ?
Edit : I am interested to know the calorie value, the constitutional values of copper, zinc, phosphorous, manganese and magnesium.
Hi happybuddha, while the question does meet our rather specific nutrient-composition guidelines, you did not specify which nutrient you are interested in. This makes it way too broad and unclear, you have to define which nutrients you are interested in.
@rumtscho Does it make more sense now ?
Negative voter - care to explain ? If you google, there is no way to know if the home brand cashews are healthier than the branded ones/organics - this information is simply not available- So I don't know what research this question is lacking - or how much more clarity can be put into it.
@happybuddha Kind of pointless to ask the downvoter to explain; they've already voted and moved on. That said, I can take a guess... the voting tooltips list three things: research effort, clarity, and usefulness. As you've said, the research effort is probably fine here, and it's clear enough what you're asking. But it might not be the most useful question; I doubt it's ever very helpful in practice to look for variation in micronutrients like that, and if you're worried about getting enough of those minerals, you can just take a multivitamin.
@Jefromi Thanks. But no thanks. I am against synthetic supplements.
@happybuddha Okay, well, you can also eat foods that you know have enough of the nutrients you care about even if you get unlucky and yours are 10% below average. It's not like you need to get exactly 100% every day of everything.
The contents are printed on the package. You really think it changes that much from from cheap to expensive. It is nut from a plant.
@Paparazzi I am sure the contents (cashew) are printed on the package - and so are the carbohydrate and protein values. If you have read the question, I am specifically looking for values of copper, zinc, phosphorous, manganese and magnesium. Thanks
Why do you need that? Why do you think it would vary from expensive to cheap? Do you think they would even check?
Never died from off brand cashes where they forgot to stir the nutrients into that batch?
There's no reason to expect any systematic difference. The store-brand ones and the brand-name ones might well be the same cashews in different packaging. And the FDA (and other agencies) are perfectly content to let everyone put the same nutrition facts on their cashews without any sort of individual testing, whether or not there may be underlying variability.
For what it's worth, the FDA does report nutritional information based on two trials for cashews (not exactly high confidence) and the minerals you're interested in don't vary much between the two: copper by 7%, zinc 5%, phosphorous 10%, manganese 1%, and magnesium 2%. That's all just relative percentages between the two trials - converted to daily values, copper varies by 2%DV, zinc 1%, phosphorous 2%, manganese 0.2%, and magnesium 0.2%. (Note that some things do appear to vary more, e.g. sodium changed 50%... but it's still only a 0.2% daily value change.)
So I'm sure it's possible for cashews grown in different places to have slightly different mineral content and so on, but there's no way to tell by the time it's all packaged to sell to you.
So in the end, based on that admittedly low-confidence data, the variation isn't that much to begin with, and you don't have any way to find out anyway, so might as well not worry about it. There are better ways to make sure you're getting enough of a given mineral.
I think half of your answer is incorrect. There is quite a bit of variability in natural products' nutrient composition. The data the USDA database has on cashews comes from only two datapoints, so it shows very little: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3645?fgcd=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Stats&new=&measureby=. But even in this case, there are nutrients (like sodium) which differed by 50% between the two samples. So, the variance is probably unrelated to price, but it certainly exists. Nutrient labels are rough averages.
@rumtscho On the other hand, a lot of things didn't vary that much. But it's not that important to the answer so I just removed it.
Would you know, what makes the cashews taste so different ? Is it just where and how they were grown ? Or the difference is because the oil from the seed of the store brand cashews has been extracted rendering the seed void of nutrients ?
@happybuddha I wouldn't assume that taste is correlated with nutrients, or that "good" or "bad" processing is associated with good or bad flavor. The cashews themselves could vary, sure, or the roasting could be done better or worse, or they could be stored in more or less ideal conditions, or they could've been at the store for longer or shorter, and so on. But I certainly don't think anyone is deliberately extracting flavorful oil from cashews and leaving them tasting worse - I don't even know how you'd do that.
@rumtscho I think I've addressed what you mentioned and the answer should be mostly correct now. Let me know if you have any other suggestions!
In calorie value they would be the same. In minerals the same (if the origin is the same). But as you know other nutritional as omega3 can be oxidate easiely if the product not be handle carefully (for example away from air and sun). Also the branded ones can be more carefully selected and maybe can be bigger in size.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.954499
| 2016-06-25T08:23:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70933",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112670
|
How to stop erythritol crystallisation?
While making a "sugar" syrup reduction with erythritol, I have noticed that the liquid crystallises upon cooling. Google-fu says two parts of water and one part of erythritol will not crystallise.
The two challenges with this are : One, upon boiling, the water content is sure to reduce so the ratio is out of the window and the important one is that the sweetness is diluted and hence reduced. The solution to bumping up the sweetness is to add in a few Stevia drops.
I now have access to some sunflower liquid lecithin - will adding 23 milliliter to one cup of water and one cup of erythritol avoid crystallisation? First time using lecithin - from reading on the internet lecithin will hold on to water and oil. There is no oil in this recipe. But people have used to stabilise xylitol based sugar syrups - hence the question.
How do I make a sugar syrup with erythritol that doesn't crysatllise?
(serious curious) What is the end product ? what are you trying to do food wise ?
@Max Two end products : One was tutti frutti (raw pawpaw cooked and soaked in sugar syrup) Think of it like gummy bears that can be used in baking. And the other was a rose petal jam (Indian recipe for "Gulkand") - basically rose petals cooked in sugar syrup - end result is a preserve/jam like product made from roses.
This is simply the nature of erythritol. In my testing, I wasn't able to create any kind of viscous, syrup-like consistency by mixing it with water and heating it to reduce; rather, it would always form a hard crystalline structure. This most likely has to do with the fact that, unlike regular sugar (sucrose), erythritol is not hygroscopic at all. (Things that are hygroscopic like to hold onto moisture for dear life; erythritol simply lets go of the moisture and you end up with a hard crystal).
If you are in the US, I'd recommend looking into allulose. It's extremely hygroscopic and I've successfully used it to create a syrup-like consistency. (On a scale from 1 to 10 — 1 being the least hygroscopic and 10 being the most — if erythritol is about a 3, allulose would be a 9 or 10). Be careful, however, as it burns much more easily than regular sugar does. Some downsides of allulose are that it's more expensive than erythritol and it isn't approved in the EU.
I have less experience with xylitol, but I believe it is also hygroscopic enough to be able to form a syrup, but I'm not positive. (Just a note in case anyone wasn't aware: xylitol can be fatal to dogs and cats). I did one test with xylitol but had problems with it crystalizing, but after reading the guidelines at https://willamettetransplant.com/xylitol-simple-syrup/, I realized I likely wasn't careful enough in creating the syrup. It seems any undissolved crystals or stray crystals that come in contact with the syrup can serve as seed crystals to hasten re-crystalization.
Thank you for replying. Allulose is not available in Australia. One can't even order it from the US sellers (iherb). Xylitol is available and is more expensive than erythritol - but am happy to give it a go. You reckon Xylitol can be used 1:1 in place of sugar for a 'stringy' sugar reduction? Would it need some citric acid to avoid crystallisation or will xylitol and water be ok?
Updated the answer; check out that weblink, it seems like it has some pretty good tips.
Distilled water helps reduce crystals. Using powdered erythritol added at the end of boiling the water does too. Mixing a bit of xanthan gum helps (spruce eats simple syrup but make sure you mix it with the powdered erythritol first).
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
I made candied yams and discovered that adding a scoop (about 1 tbs) of collagen protein prevents crystallization. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it thickened the syrup and once it cooled in the fridge there were no crystals!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.955047
| 2020-11-16T01:09:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112670",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Max",
"NSGod",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112224
|
How do I substitute almond flour for all purpose flour?
I am trying to make a few cookie recipes and want to reduce their carb content and make it suitable for a low carb consuming person. Most of the cookie recipes call for all purpose flour.
In one of the recipes which specifically knead the dough with butter and no moisture (so as not to form gluten) I substituted almond flour 1:1 but haven't had great results (the dough is crumbly, cant be rolled, etc). Even 1.5:1 and still was the same. I added a pinch of xanthan gum and was able to get the dough to bind. However I wanted to ask here how people have gone about replacing all purpose flour with almond flour.
My next attempt is going to include some Vital Wheat Gluten along with the almond flour.
Edit: I have used Erythritol(powdered) as a sweetener.
One of the sample recipes :
from https://www.archanaskitchen.com/shrewsbury-cookies-recipe-butter-cookies
The other one is a video recipe : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4U0M8JZG8&ab_channel=CookingShooking - I did mention my findings to the chef in the comments - but he's clearly a big enough celebrity to ignore a novice such as me.
The recipes I've seen call for a 4:1 replacement of almond flour to plain flour.
What sweetener did you use? It would also help if you provided the full recipe you tried, so we know how much moisture is included.
@NSGod - Updated question. Added two recipes I was trying to lower carb on. Used powdered eythritol.
@GdD Do you have a link for such a recipe please?
What do you mean with "so as not to form gluten"?
@Davidmh - I suspect it means the flour is to be introduced to the butter very slowly and in a moisture free way so it doesn't form gluten. Those are the exact words of the chef (from the linked youtube video) - sorry dont know more than that.
@happybuddha I was asking because gluten is a protein present in wheat, you don't "form" it. What I think he was referring to is a "gluten network", the connections between different strands of gluten.
I haven't done extensive experimentation (because I got really frustrated right away), but I did not have any luck mixing wheat gluten and low-carb flours... The gluten particles all managed to find each other and formed little rubbery lumps of stuff. It reminded me of nothing so much as chewing gum.... Anyway, just sharing past trauma. Hopefully you can make it work!!
Since you going for low carb/high fat you may see if adding "keto"/"keto diet" to your current google searches leads to any useful info as keto is exactly about it... (make sure not to equate carbs to calories - almond flower has at least as much calories as all purpose flower, just from different source)
I don't have a recipe but I've had delicious flourless cookies made from peanut butter and sugar and butter and chocolate chips. So maybe putting in almond butter instead of some of the almond flour would help. Also a web search for flourless peanut butter cookies might give you some good ideas.
@kitukwfyer: I'd agree, VWG does not mix well with coconut flour or almond flour, but it does with flaxseed meal, oat fiber, lupin flour, and resistant wheat starch; see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/110881/54812 for some more info.
There is no general replacement. Almond flour has very little in common with all-purpose flour, and behaves very differently in baking.
Your idea of adding gluten is very interesting - many flourless recipes are actually made with the intent to be gluten-free, which is a very difficult restriction to work around. It is certainly something to have in your toolbox.
However, you cannot just find some kind of mixture which will behave as a good substitute in different circumstances. Rather, you will have to redesign each recipe separately, and some things (e.g. laminated dough) may not be possible at all. For others, you would probably need to learn what the flour's role is in each, and experiment how to match it well - here, food science books will be helpful. It is quite an interesting project!
In addition to totally lacking gluten, almond flour contains way more fat than AP flour, around 50 times as much. That's another reason it's popular in vegan/gf baking, it adds plant-based fat. So you will need to cut down on the fat elsewhere in the recipe. You will also need to adjust your expectations of what the finished product will be like.
I suggest that instead of starting your low-carb baking project by attempting to substitute almond flour for AP flour in recipes written for AP flour, try some recipes that are written specifically for almond flour. You'll get a better idea of the textures you can expect to get from baked goods which rely on it without the variable of your own modifications.
Sorry, I had to give a downvote. The fat in the almond flour behaves nothing like fat added during the baking, so attempts to cut down the fat elsewhere will usually make the recipes work worse, not better.
@rumtscho : still a way better suggestion to start with a recipe that's designed for almond flour, though.
So an analysis of the original recipe gives the following (I've omitted baking soda & salt for brevity):
2 cups AP flour 100.00% 250.0 g
½ cup sugar 24.00% 60.0 g
80 grams butter 32.00% 80.0 g
1 egg 20.00% 50.0 g
3 Tbsp milk 18.40% 46.0 g
water(b:13g,e:38g,m:40.3g) 36.52% 91.3 g
As you can see from the baker's percentages, the sugar and butter are quite low for a cookie (cookies usually tend to have at least twice as much sugar and butter as specified here). A cookie with a relatively high sugar content (say, 80%+ of the weight of the flour) has a crystalline structure and the sugar plays an important part of holding things together (see this answer for more info). In this recipe, though, with the lower sugar and butter levels and added moisture in the form of milk, it's likely that the gluten network and starches play a somewhat larger role in also providing structure.
Translating this recipe to almond flour and powdered erythritol gives the following analysis.
2 cups almond flour 100.00% 224.0 g
½ cup powdered erythritol 37.05% 83.0 g
80 grams butter 35.71% 80.0 g
1 egg 22.32% 50.0 g
3 Tbsp milk 20.54% 46.0 g
water(b:13g,e:38g,m:40.3g) 40.76% 91.3 g
Right off the bat, I can see there's several problems you're going to run into.
Almond flour has very little built-in structure-building properties when compared to wheat flour, so it will need to rely on other ingredients. While erythritol can provide structure, it'd likely need to closer to 80% (180 g) to do so. While you could do that, that would likely alter the taste quite a bit. The second issue is the milk. While I'm sure it plays an important role in making the original cookie what it is, it will only hurt things here by watering down the egg proteins. Mixing the milk with almond flour will have no effect like it would with regular flour. At 40%, the liquid level is pretty high, and since the binding power of the egg has basically been cut in half, it's understandable why you had a crumbly mess.
The sugar in the original recipe is hygroscopic (water-loving) and will help retain some of that extra moisture from the milk. Both erythritol and almond flour are "moisture-neutral": they don't really hold onto moisture during baking. So that extra moisture has nowhere to go and evaporates. While doing so, it tends to push the butter fats out with it, leaving a greasy puddle under the baked cookies (though it may not be as bad here because the amount of butter is pretty low).
Your best bets to create an adaption that retains most of the characteristics of the original are as follows: First, since erythritol is roughly 75% the sweetness of sugar, you could consider increasing it to 110 g, which might help provide better structure. Alternatively, you could use xanthan gum as you found. Inulin may also help provide structure and sweetness, though can cause digestive issues if you're not used to it. Vital wheat gluten would be interesting to test. You might also try unflavored gelatin to provide structure once the cookies have cooled.
EDIT
So I did a small scale test using 0.5% xanthan gum and some of my other suggestions and it worked fairly well. Scaled up, the recipe would look like this:
2 cups almond flour 100.00% 224.0 g
3/8 tsp xanthan gum 0.50% 1.1 g
~⅔ cup powdered erythritol 50.00% 112.0 g
¾ tsp baking soda 1.54% 3.5 g
1 g salt 0.45% 1.0 g
80 grams butter 35.71% 80.0 g
1 ½ large eggs 33.93% 75.0 g
water(b:13g, e:57g) 31.25% 70.0 g
You'll notice I left out the milk: after adding the egg to the mixture, I found it had the right consistency as it was then. Adding milk at that point would probably have been too much moisture. I upped the powdered erythritol to 50% which helped provide some structure when cooled. You could probably try to see how low you could push the egg while starting to incorporate some milk, while trying to keep the moisture level about the same.
EDIT 2:
Regarding the role of an egg: they really are a versatile kind of magical ingredient if you will. In a general sense, they are a structure-builder, a source of moisture, an emulsifier, a drying agent (the egg white proteins), and act as an edible glue. It can act as a leavening agent when it's used in higher quantities (not like in this cookie recipe).
Cookies tend to have very low moisture content (from say, 15% - 40% moisture by weight compared to the weight of the flour). In most cookie recipes, eggs serve as a primary source of moisture. They are also a structure builder in that once the egg proteins reach a high enough temperature, they "set" and keep their shape. In this Almond Flour adaption cookie recipe in particular, it acts as a kind of sticky glue that holds everything together before baking (and somewhat after baking as well). Egg and milk are quite different in that regard: when it comes to almond flour, milk has little gluing power compared to an egg. As a result you'd need to use gums or other polysaccharides or proteins to do the job of the egg.
While I love baking with flaxseed meal, a flax egg here would be out of place. An egg is very neutral in terms of flavor and texture, and a flax egg is anything but. Psyllium husk powder is somewhat similar to the soluble fiber in flaxseed meal and is a more neutral taste, though too much of it can cause the texture to suffer. I would probably try upping the xanthan gum to maybe 1.5% (3.4 g) and add milk slowly to see if you can get things to come together. It'd also be interesting to see if vital wheat gluten could work. So after doing another test, I'd try the following to start with:
~1 ¾ cups almond flour 90.18% 202.0 g
~2 ½ Tbsp vital wheat gluten 9.82% 22.0 g
1 1/8 tsp xanthan gum 1.50% 3.4 g
~⅔ cup powdered erythritol 50.00% 112.0 g
¾ tsp baking soda 1.54% 3.5 g
1 g salt 0.45% 1.0 g
80 grams butter 35.71% 80.0 g
52 g milk 23.21% 52.0 g
water(b:13g, e:47g) 26.68% 60.0 g
(By the way, I'm also interested in these results, as I've experienced similar issues trying to adapt a Boterkoek (Dutch butter cake) recipe to use almond flour).
Thank you very much ! I I had to make this egg free, you reckon I could just up the (full fat) milk quantity? Or? I dont like subbing flax eggs unless am making cake. I don't fully understand what an egg does really to a baked product. Google-fu says its a leavening agent - provides texture. What if I didn't care about texture, wouldn't the 'taste' still be the same?
As an aside, how did you like the cookies ? A bakery in India sells 250 kilos of this on a Saturday! That too at a premium price. When I was there 20 years ago I had to elbow my way in to lay me hands on a kilo of them. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/shrewsbury-not-a-cookie-that-will-crumble/articleshow/61795295.cms
@happybuddha: updated the answer with some eggless suggestions.
I gave the first Edit a go. Made a batch of cookies and they were no where close to what I was expecting - taste wise. Not faulting your construction - just reporting the result. I also put in a single egg and a tea spoon of milk. I have never baked with egg - the resulting cookies were very eggy in taste. I will give the Edit 2 a go when I can lay my hands on VWG - as its not sold in stores in Australia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.955389
| 2020-10-21T05:47:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112224",
"authors": [
"Alexei Levenkov",
"Davidmh",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"NSGod",
"Todd Wilcox",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81668",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33429
|
What should one look for in the license terms of a crowdsourced recipe website?
I'm looking into uploading my recipes to "the cloud" via a crowdsourced-website. I have been trying to understand the ramifications of the licenses and terms of service. As I do not currently have that many truly unique recipes (yet!) my question is somewhat about principle...I just have been increasingly skeptical of lock-in like with Facebook and wanting to "take back my data". So despite wanting to share, I'm skeptical even of something as "innocuous" as a recipe site. (Not as skeptical. But still skeptical. :P)
My goal is mostly to help vet the information for other people who might be in the same situation, so they can understand what they're getting into. So what I'm mainly interested in is making sure that any sites I join have fair licensing terms. Because websites are always being bought and sold, there is always the chance that I could put a bunch of recipes online and then they might disappear if the site changes hands. Or, I might have to pay to access my own recipes someday if the policy changes.
Are there any specific things one should be on the look out for in the terms of service? Are there certain things that should be non-negotiable from a user standpoint? Are there things that you cannot reasonably expect any site to have? (I am sure no free site will guarantee they will not go out of business, and compensate you if their web server and your recipes stop being available.)
Sorry if this is more of a legal/software question than a cooking question. But I thought there might be a fair amount of cooks on here who are also interested in geekery. :)
(Sidenote: My first try was uploading a few recipes to a site called Key Ingredient: e.g. Lizzie's baked breaded oysters, Howard's kickin' salsa. The site works well and I like to share these recipes from friends with a broader audience than typing them into Microsoft Word. But how do I make sure I don't lose them? What else can go wrong?)
@Jefromi Thanks for the welcome. No problem, I've updated to be more about the license terms themselves and not something that would be interpreted as a "what website is best" survey. Hopefully that helps...!
One more thing that'd really help people answer: clarifying your goal in publishing your recipes. Without that, you might get advice from people based on different motivations. (Are you saying crowdsourced because you want them to be part of a bigger collection of recipes? Or is the important thing just publishing so everyone can see them?) I'll go ahead and reopen it assuming you'll get around to that, and delete the obsolete comments above!
do they use (or propose) any of the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons licenses? Those are pretty well understood and give you a clear idea of what you are giving up and what you are retaining.
Depending on what precisely you're looking for, one approach which guarantees that you don't lose your recipes is to set up a github repository to store them in Markdown or reStructuredText format. That gives you a local copy and also lets you track how you've modified and improved the recipes.
This question appears to be off-topic for Seasoned Advice because it is about copyright and on-line content licensing rather than cooking. We could replace "recipes" with "poems" or "winning football strategies" and still have the same basic questions.
It doesn't look like anyone's made any moves to close this question, but should it come to that, I'd propose it be moved to http://opendata.stackexchange.com/ . (disclaimer, I'm currently a moderator over there)
Quick Version
Good question
Read a few EULA, privacy policies and terms of service to get a full answer, but generally:
You are expected to have your own back up of anything you upload
Whether or not the site says you have the rights to the data, they cannot track whether or not users give you credit for what you have shared
Answer for yourself:
What kind of credit are you looking for?
What website features must be minimally available before you'll even bother checking whether or not their terms of service live up to your requirements?
Full Version
I think this is a great question and needs to be addressed in areas far more broad than just cooking and recipes. "The cloud" is a unique and interesting place to store and share data, but brings up a whole host of issues like:
Who technically owns the rights to the uploaded data?
Who should be responsible for backing up that data?
How is the data accessed?
Who can access it?
And then there's the additional question of, do you want to crowd source feedback on your recipes, or just have them available for people to look at? And probably a whole bunch more questions.
General Advice
A good rule of thumb when using any cloud service, is that you and you alone are responsible for backing up your data. Even if a company has the financial resources to back up everything (and most of them do back it up), they're not going to guarantee something like that because all technology is fallible and there is usually someone with a fantastic lawyer around every corner, just waiting for a guarantee to fail. Read a couple EULA (end-user license agreements) and/or privacy policies/terms of service and you'll get a clear picture of just how often they guarantee your access to your data. Usually accessing your data isn't a problem (if it was, why would people use the cloud?) and as such, it's something you shouldn't worry about beyond having a copy of your recipes on a computer at home somewhere in addition to sharing them in the cloud. (That being said, back up your home computer too.)
Another good rule: don't ever expect something stored in the cloud to actually be secure. Generally with recipes it's not an issue if your data is stolen (like it could be if you were storing tax returns), but all of the marketing around consumer electronics does a really good job of making people forget that even PayPal and the US federal government were hacked. Cloud storage is not secure storage. In fact, think of the Internet as the Wild West: we're still trying to figure out who is here and who has enough power to actually enforce laws.
Every EULA, privacy policy and terms of service document I have read states clearly somewhere deep in the pages of legalese that they have the right to modify or change their policies whenever they see fit. Aka, no guarantee on anything, although this usually doesn't lead to the problems you mentioned. The few times I have had data uploaded to a cloud and the policy was changing in a way to prevent me from accessing (or having to pay for) my data, I was informed of the change months before it ever started affecting me, with the whole purpose of giving me the chance to download any and all of my data onto my home computer, where I could access it whenever I wanted, even after the change in policy.
My Experience
I have uploaded a few recipes to a Dropbox account to share with a relatively small group of friends. We all have access to upload, read and download, but there is no place to leave comments or feedback on any of the recipes. It's also kind of a clunky method of sharing if I ever wanted to give the entire world access because it's just a link, not a webpage full of brightly colored photos that people can click on. I believe that Dropbox's terms of service state that I am the legal owner of the data in my Dropbox account, but I'd have to double check that, and I have no idea how it works if a friend uploads a recipe to my account. Whether or not my friends give credit if they re-post any of those recipes, is up to whoever does the re-posting; both Dropbox and the new site won't have a way to track if credit was given where credit was due.
I tend to find recipes on allrecipes.com, although I have yet to upload any of my own. It's a great place to for people to share recipes, leave feedback, suggest modifications, upload pictures, etc. I can't even remember if I read their EULA so I don't know if it claims the rights to the recipes, or if they belong to the original poster. Either way, allrecipes.com can't give credit if a user copies and pastes your recipe onto another site; the only way to give credit is if a user posts a link back to your recipe on allrecipes.com.
Credit vs. Copyright
Credit and copyright are not the same thing. Credit would be me saying "I got the idea write this answer because of a question that mmcghan posted." While that is nice and generally what people are looking for when they post stuff intended for sharing, it's not going to hold up in court. If copyright protection is what you're after, you probably don't want to post your recipe on a crowd sourcing site, but you would definitely want to read the EULA, terms of service and the privacy policy (and likely involve a lawyer who specializes in this) before posting or uploading anything you want to protect.
For that matter, "credit" could be all sorts of things, although I am by no means an expert of how recipes can be legally protected. In the open source world (think Linux if you aren't very technical) there are actually several different kinds of licenses, which do hold up in court, unlike generic "credit." I'm not deeply familiar with a lot of them, but here are a couple examples of the differences:
You can use and modify anything, but you cannot make a profit off of any of it
You can use and modify anything, but you have to share your modifications with the world and credit the original writer(s)
What's Next?
It's great that you are thinking about all the legal junk behind sharing recipes (or anything really) because we don't do it nearly enough. But you'll also want to think about what you mean when you want to "share" your recipes.
Do you want to share them with just friends, or the whole world?
Do you want feedback or comments on your recipes?
Would you like to upload pictures, tips, etc.? Or just the recipe itself?
Do you want to be able to upload a bunch of Word files you already have written? Or would you rather have to type each of them into the website by hand?
What kind of credit do you want for your recipes? How enforceable does this credit need to be?
Being able to answer these questions will help you greatly in your end goal.
regarding your comment about things being confidential (you use the term 'secure') ... cloud storage would fit the description of 'third party storage' which means they can sopoena the company without ever informing you (giving you a chance to contest it). I've brought this up to a few few lawyers who outsource their email (as they would lose client/lawyer confidentiality protection)
@Joe, oh you are right! I completely forgot about that aspect. I was just thinking about bad guys hacking in and stealing data like credit card numbers, etc.
To answer the questions at the end :
Are there any specific things one should be on the look out for in the terms of service? Are there certain things that should be non-negotiable from a user standpoint?
I'd look to see that the clearly spell out what the ownership of the recipes posted are. (eg, do they say 'non-exclusive rights' (ie, they're allowed to use it how they want, but you're still allowed to post it elsewhere), or 'exclusive rights'. I would avoid granting any site exclusive rights. They might require that all content be released under a specific license ... if you're just trying to share it with a few friends, and not with the whole world, that might be a problem, as would a 'non-exclusive rights' clause.
And in the world of online stuff it's always possible that they'd change the terms of service in the future ... and some don't necessarily announce that they've made changes.
If you're just looking for it so you can share a few recipes, and they're not family secrets **, you're probably okay.
Are there things that you cannot reasonably expect any site to have? (I am sure no free site will guarantee they will not go out of business, and compensate you if their web server and your recipes stop being available.)
As MtWoRw mentioned, you need to make your own backups. Based on the number of photo-sharing sites that have gone under and taken people's pictures with them, you're going to want to make sure that they don't have the only copy. I'd recommend at the very least using a 'print to PDF' or 'save web archive' feature of your browser to save something that you can archive yourself.
There are also a few different interchange formats for recipes. If the website allows you to export as MasterCook or one of the other formats, I'd go ahead and do it. It's possible that they've also encoded info into the webpage so that google or others can determine that it's a recipe. If so, you might want to save the raw HTML (or the 'web archive' if your browser supports it).
** okay, so the family secrets thing -- my great grandmother had a recipe that we were told never to give to anyone outside of the family. My mom made a family cookbook one year (after my great grandmother had died) as christmas gifts ... and it went over so well, that she did a re-print ... and then decided she could sell them ... well, the third printing she didn't pay attention to where the recipe fell, and it wasn't on a page that could be easily removed. So years later, my mom's living out of the country, and the cases of books are stored at my house, and my cousin gets married ... so I brought some cookbooks to give away. It turns out that my cousin's wife's grandmother lived in the same block as my great grandmother, and it was their family's secret recipe, so they were really pissed off that the recipe was out there. So if you've got those types of recipes, don't put them up on a website.
Not sure why the other reply got voted down - it's true that a bare-boned recipe is public domain since it can't be protected. there's some self-regulation and unwritten rules among chefs (started in France, I think) where if you change, add or remove three things in the recipe, it's no longer considered a copy. it can be as simple as changing the type of mushroom, or doubling the amount of wine or adding an ingredient, etc.
But this is not about copyright, this is about the ego of a participant on a community site that wants to be associated with their creation (if they can prove it, etc etc.) - and that means that a person wanting credit on what they publish should have some basic promise of "ownership". You can offer that all recipes are published under CC-by-SA, which is what I promise on all the Wiki sites I manage, and so does Wikipedia. It may be meaningless for "plain ingredient list" recipes, but it will sort-of protect the users and the owner when it comes to recipes with a more personal touch that can be copyrighted.
The thing about recipes is that they don't seem eligible for copyright, and unless you can demonstrate to a Patent Examiner that your recipe is so unique and not obvious or otherwise derivable by conventional cooking, you probably can't patent it either. That is, you can't really own your recipe, and the food industry flourishes because of it, but a website can own all its content.
For help searching through a TOS for content ownership in general, ask an attorney, not here.
interesting link. I happen to have a food blog, mostly family recipes. When I cook (including some discussion and multiple images) a recipe from a cookbook or magazine, I do my best to give them credit. I trust a magazine publisher is going to appreciate readers who, in effect are promoting the mag by citing good recipes.
What country is this supposed to be addressing? Where do patent examiners have any role in copyright administration?
-1 That document doesn't even say recipes can't be copyrighted. It says "Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients." then goes on to say "Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook." So an actual recipe, the kind that'd appear in a cookbook with instructions and recipe notes and so on, would appear to be quite eligible for copyright.
Additionally, this isn't really a law question - it's not about nitty gritty details of a particular situation, but rather what general things you might want to look for. This is quite analogous to the handful of stack overflow questions about various open source licenses - the questions are really about qualitative attributes, how you choose them, and so on, not specific legal questions.
Here is another article on copyrighting recipes. Basically, the ingredients list can't be copyrighted. The narrative parts can be if they're particularly creative--a rote description of the muffin method wouldn't suffice, for example. Even if the narrative is creative enough, the copyright only covers that particular writeup. Someone could rewrite the instructions in their own words.
@Jefromi IMHO the biggest issue of the answer is the question asked. When the question is borderline to off-topic or not-constructive, the answers can hardly be good, no matter how hard the answerer tries. (This goees to your 2nd comment.)
@tohecz Well, the question may not be perfect, but that's not a reason to write an answer which incorrectly interprets its sources, which is really the biggest problem here.
I'm not sure why the prior answer was marked down. It's an important point that recipes are not copyrightable, per se. What is copyrightable is the narrative which might accompany the recipe. But the actual combinations of ingredients and preparation are not. Whether this matters in your search for a crowdsource repository, I don't know, but this is nevertheless important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.956244
| 2013-04-13T02:49:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33429",
"authors": [
"Aaargh Zombies",
"Cascabel",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Kenster",
"MtWoRw",
"Parker",
"Peter Taylor",
"Reneethebaker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91593",
"mmcghan",
"moksham spa",
"some ideas",
"user85464",
"yo'"
],
"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
}
|
46989
|
Can I sterilize homemade mustard jars in the oven?
I make home made mustard and sell at market stalls. It's been interesting - and growing. I am trying to fine tune my process. The mustard is a fermented product (can be sitting doing its thing for anything up to 6 weeks) so when I get to bottling, it's cold. I oven sterilise my jars and boil my lids. Then I spoon the mustard into the warmish jars and put on the lid. I've then been water bathing the jars, but that's getting a bit cumbersome. Small jars, lots of jiggling around in the water and too many breakages and bad seals.
I want to know: can I put the filled jars back into the oven and do the final sterilization that way?
Mustard is a very long lived product, but I need to be certain. Oven sterilization would be so much better - sitting on trays, no movement, etc. This looks like a neat go-to site and I'd appreciate your input.
If you're selling it at a market, you need to ask your local health department what their acceptable procedures are. Advice from strangers on a website won't save you if something goes wrong.
What you are doing is not sterilizing the mustard. You just pasteurize it.
If you just want to pasteurize the mustard: Yes, you can put the jars into the oven instead of water-bathing them. Jars, lids and the content are heated up to 100°C, so it's quite equivalent to water-bathing the jars - if not even better.
Friends of mine put the jars with the lid loose on onto the baking tray with some water (for the moisture in the oven to not to damage the gasket) and then "bake" this for 30-120 minutes (I can't remember how long exactly) at 150-200°C. Then the jars must cool down slowly, therefore the jar must stay for another 30 minutes in the oven which is turned off. I think the lids are closed when the jars are taken out of the oven (but I'm not sure).
After reading this text 1 I don't know whether to preheat the oven or not.
Note: In Germany people often can raw food! Since your mustard is not raw, you just need to sterilize the content of the jar and don't need to cook what's inside. Therefore the cooking/baking time should be decreased.
If you want to sterilize your mustard, you need weck jars with rubber seals and steel tension clips. When baking the jars with the contents and the lid on, secured with a rubber seal and the tension clips at more than 120°C, the contents are sterilized like in a pressure cooker. The rubber seal and the tension clip act as a valve. After baking, the contents are vacuum-sealed. See wikipedia article about home canning.
image by Alupus.
1
Das Wasser darf nur langsam erhitzt werden. [...] Je nachdem, wie weich das Einweckgut ist, dauert das Einkochen zwischen 10 und 120 Minuten. Danach dürfen die Gläser wiederum nur sehr langsam abkühlen. [...]
Statt auf dem Herd kann man auch im Backofen einkochen. Zum Einkochen im Backofen die Fettpfanne mit Wasser füllen, auf die unterste Schiene schieben und die Einweckgläser, wie oben beschrieben vorbereitet, hineinstellen. Obst bei 150 bis 160 Grad einkochen, Gemüse bei 190 bis 200 Grad. Die Gläser danach noch 30 Minuten im Ofen stehen lassen und anschließend zugedeckt abkühlen lassen.
translated freely:
[The first paragraph deals with canning with a water bath] The water must be heated slowly. [...] Depending on how soft the food the be canned is, the canning takes 10 to 120 minutes. After that the jars must cool down very slowly.[...]
Instead of canning on the stove you can also do this in the oven. Put the jars onto the baking tray and pour some water into the tray. Fruits are canned at 150°C to 160°C, vegetables at 190°C to 200°C. After that, the jars stay another 30 minutes in the oven [note: which is tuned off] and afterwards let these cool down covered up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.957704
| 2014-09-08T23:46:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46989",
"authors": [
"Barbra Ellis",
"Dennis Roberts",
"James Thompson",
"Joe",
"Jules Porter",
"STEPHON KING",
"Simon Redding",
"Stacy Weaver",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kay catslave",
"kristy taylor"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49394
|
How to roast garlic on low temperature grill
Going to smoke some pork ribs on the grill, with a smoker box, planned temp with closed cover is about 90C (194F), but for sure less then the boiling point. This will probably take about 2:30 - 3 hours.
Is there anything I can do to use the space on the grill for roasting some garlic while ribs getting done? I am used to add some oil and cover them in foil, then roast on high temp for about half an hour. But now it is going to be relatively low temps.
Thanks,
UriR.
Just do the same thing - cut the ends off, drizzle on some oil, wrap in foil, and leave them.
Thanks :) For how long? same 3 hours on low temp? will it get same result as the 30 mins on high temp? will they be even cooked at this 90c temp?
They'll certainly be cooked. Generally speaking slower cooking is better, so the results should be even better. It may require some trial and error in terms of timing and placement, but garlic grows on trees (figuratively speaking) after all.
Update - FULL SUCCESS :) 3 hours of garlic with olive oil inside closed foil, for low temp (90-100 C) - great taste!
Excellent. Another win for low and slow!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.958033
| 2014-10-31T04:19:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49394",
"authors": [
"Dan Wilson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mark Thornton",
"Natalie McDonnell",
"The Baroness Speaks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"michele mahurin",
"urir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35678
|
What part of the squid is edible?
Is the part of the squid right above the tentacles edible? I think it's the bottom of the body, I've never cooked squid before. I washed it under cold water and felt it carefully with my fingers and I think the beak had been removed.
Very nice video explaining the process: http://video.about.com/culinaryarts/Cleaning-Squid.htm
The tentacles and the muscular body of the squid are edible.
To clean squid, pull the head and tentacles off the body and remove the skin and fins from the body. Turn the body inside-out, remove the central bone, wash out the inside of the body, and turn the body back into its original shape. Cut the tentacles off of the head, and discard the head and beak. Summarized from: Jacques Pepin's Complete Techniques
Get rid of the beak, internal shell, and the innards. The rest is edible, tentacles and all.
Are the innards actually inedible, or simply unpleasant?
@SAJ14SAJ- I think in the context of non-starvation, unpleasant==inedible
@Sobachatina I don't know, by that standard, crabs are entirely inedible. :-) I took the word at its literal meaning.
Do you have any pictures so I know what to look for?
I'm not an expert, but I'd think unpleasant. I've never seen any warnings about innards on squid, but unless you are pretty desperate I would guess they are pretty awful. Squid ink is the exception, it's sometime used in very chefy ways, like squid ink ice cream. Edible and apparently not much flavor.
@GdD: not much flavour??? It tastes actually extremely [unsurprisingly] fishy! Fantastic with (or within) pasta.
Should this be read as "get rid of (the beak, internal shell), and (the innards and the whole thing) is edible" or "get rid of (the beak, internal shell, and the innards) and (the whole thing) is edible"?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.958182
| 2013-07-30T07:00:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35678",
"authors": [
"Amc_rtty",
"Celeritas",
"Clone",
"Emmeline Theresa Capel",
"GdD",
"Lars Viklund",
"Margaret Harvey",
"Rick Sarvas",
"Riley Guerin",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83723",
"nico",
"riddleculous"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46699
|
Can I use garlic leaf for cooking?
I planted a garlic clove and now I have a nice garlic plant. The question is: Can I use the leaves to season food safely?
The leaves smell like garlic and I wonder if it's okay to use them dried, like oregano and other seasoning herbs. I don't know if will taste like garlic, or if it is dangerous to eat.
When we have had garlic in our garden I have used the garlic leaves. They do have a garlicky flavor but are milder than garlic cloves. I tend to use them more as I would chives or garlic chives as in addition to having the milder flavor than the cloves they make for a quite nice presentation.
Regarding drying them, I have never tried it. Off the top of my head I can't think of any reason not to dry them for later use but there may be issues that I just don't know about.
I was going to say the same thing so I'll just give you +1 instead. I love garlic greens. I don't imagine that drying them would be worth the work. Regular garlic powder would have the same flavor but stronger. The grassy subtlety that makes garlic greens interesting would be lost.
The green tops of garlic are called 'garlic scapes' (or sometimes, just 'scapes').
They are edible (a kind of garlic/chive mix) and there are plenty of recipes available online that use them.
An anonymous user left this comment: "This is incorrect. The scape is the flower stalk of the garlic plant. The rest of the leaves are not scapes. As others said the leaves can be used like chives or garlic chives. Garlic scapes are good as a pesto!"
One reason I love to plant garlic (In October in the NE US), is that I can use it 3 times during its life-cycle. After planting garlic sprouts. These sprouts (what you might be calling a leaf) can be cut back to ground level before winter and used in cooking...garlicky chive-like flavor and application. Then in the spring, they sprout again. After a while the scape will emerge. The scape is identifiable by a bulge at that top and the stalk is cylindrical, but tends to spiral after a while. Again, the scape can be cut off. These are best sauteed, but have other applications as well. Finally, the mature garlic head can be unearthed, dried/cured and used. Save a head and separate in to cloves for planting again the next fall!
my question was regarding the leaves, not the sprouts, but I'm glad to know that I can use them as you suggested. I will certainly plant more next year. I'm from Brazil, so December will be summer, I planted the garlic on July and didn't cut the sprouts, can you tell how long I should wait before it's mature?
The garlic sprout (or as we call it in persia, leaf) is very popular cooking ingredient in northeren Iran. The northeren Iran cooking style and speciastylehe city Rasht has been aproved by the Unicef as a influencial city in field of cooking and one of our very popular ingredients is the garlic sprout. We take it fry it and then use it in various kinds of omlettes, stews, and so many things. It is very tasteful and uplifiting. I recommend it to all.
I just started growing garlic, and I tried the greens. They are very good. Chive like, but, a bit more flavor and it definitely has a subtle garlic taste. I just keep cutting when I need them. I am assuming the bulb is not hampered in growth.
We make good mixed stir fry potatoes and green garlic leaves. We often use fresh leaves in different days (soup) , use as toppings on pizza, make green garlic chutanies.
Air dry garlic leaves after cutting, wrap in a cloth and then refrigerate or freeze in off season.
You will use the fresh garlic leaves in any (mixed in ingredients) dumplings. Most popular is Gyoza of Japan. This is likely similar to Nira Leaves.
Yes, you can use the "leaves" of growing garlic. The subtle flavor is perfect for chicken gravy. In fact, I use them much more than the actual garlic itself simply because of their refined flavor.
Thanks! I appreciate your answer. What about drying them? Does it keep the flavor?
Yes, you can dry them and the flavor will keep. It is like using dried green onions.
I cut the stalks off and take out the hard center part then dehydrate the rest of the leaves.I then put them in the blender when dryed and put it through a sieve.They are milder tasting then garlic but we love it in soups ,sauces etc.Also good to sprinkle in salads etc.Why waste the stocks when you can put them to good use.
It's good to keep in all vegetables and non vegetables. We gring it with other spices including salt and make powder to put in salads etc. Its so tasty. We use it in potato vegetables too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.958399
| 2014-08-27T18:22:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46699",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bill Gree",
"Daniel Roussel",
"David Pierce",
"Janice Irwin",
"Jodi Wojtczak",
"Jody Cole",
"Johnny",
"Jose Lozano",
"Shahid Latif",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Wootton",
"Tammy Ford",
"ethalfrida",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"robert goebel"
],
"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
}
|
87846
|
How can I fix hollow cream puffs?
I'm very proud of how my cream puffs turned out. I followed this recipe although I did NOT use any xanthan gum at all. I also substituted Earth Balance for butter.
They rise beautifully and they're only half hollow. They're soft on the inside, possibly slightly undercooked. I'm concerned that if I bake them any longer they might burn. Here are some pics: https://i.sstatic.net/wRBWR.jpg
Which ingredients or steps are responsible for the hollow anatomy of these delicious beauties?
Does anyone have advice for either tweaking the recipe or my cooking time or some other part of my technique to ensure a nice hollow shell?
Recipe details:
1/3 cup + 1tbsp gluten free flour
2 Tbsp cornflour/cornstarch
2 xl eggs
50g Earth Balance in place of butter
1/2 tsp powdered sugar
Place 1/2 cup + 2tbsp water in saucepan with butter and heat to a boil that can’t be stirred down.
Add flour mixture of all dry ingredients and mix with spatula until smooth
Remove from heat and allow to cool for 2-3 mins
Add 1 egg and mix until incorporated
Incorporate the second egg
Pipe and bake in a 425°F preheated oven for 25 mins
You might want to include a picture of one cut or broken open (without filling) so that folks can see in the internal structure you have now, not just the outsides.
@Ecnerwal added pics to the question (also here: https://imgur.com/a/mglMU)
This recipe uses a substitution for a key structural ingredient (gluten), which is always likely to lead to compromises. If you omit the xanthan, it is even less likely to work, basically it has nothing to hold the structure. Some bakers are happy with the results of such substitutions, but for you the final structure seems to be quite important.
The first thing you should do is to use the xanthan. If that doesn't help, there isn't much else you can do except try to be perfect in your temperature at every step (while still using the xanthan).
@cfx sorry for the tone I used at first, I reworded it now. Didn't want to delete the whole paragraph, as I find the information to be relevant to the answer.
Thanks for this, would like to avoid using the xanthan gum if possible. Posted pics to the question if that helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.958829
| 2018-02-18T16:57:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87846",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"cfx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
45670
|
Homemade sport drink
I'm trying to develop a recipe for homemade sport drink as Gaterade and the like contains unhealthy and/or unnecessary ingredients that I dislike. I found a base recipe I'd like to work with to variate and tweak: http://wellnessmama.com/2575/natural-sports-drink/ . Is there any obvious aspects in this recipe that need modification and/or can be improved? One particular question is if the tea liquid will be chemically reactive to the calcium tablets and be health-wise unviable? The goal is to make the drink all at home and let it be healthy and well suited for drinking during performing sports.
Can you be more specific? This is a food and cooking site, not a nutritional site, so if you're asking about nutritional benefits that's off topic. And if you're asking how to make it taste better, that's pretty subjective and wide-open, and we don't take questions like that either.
Where's the potassium coming from in that recipe? Gatorade requires 14g sugar, 110mg sodium and 30mg potassium per 8 oz: http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-Your-Own-Damn-Sports-Drink/step2/Whats-in-a-sports-drink/ -No Calcium need apply. I just make up a 20X stock of the two salts, then mix 150 ml up w a pack of Koolaid (any flavor) and water to 3 quarts. Tot of 1/4 cup Sugar, or Stevia as desired to make it more palatable.
I put your question on hold, because it isn't clear what you want to change in the drink (or not change). As the question stands, it already had attracted a nutrition based topic. If you edit the question to tell us what you are trying to achieve, and it is a culinary (not nutritional) goal, we can reopen so you can get answers about tweaking the recipe.
Detaching nutrition from cooking seems hard. But I'll try.
In many cases, detaching nutrition from cooking is not hard. But I think that the problem here is that your question is in its core a nutrition question and not a cooking one. You want to know what makes your drink healthy, and taste is a secondary consideration. But we cannot tell you what makes the drink healthy, and therefore it is off topic for the site :(
This recipe is essentially sugar and salt added to a "normal drink," so the rest of the recipe ought to be fine assuming good quality ingredients.
Sorry, but we have a policy to not discuss nutrition here. Your ideas about calcium absorption might be correct, but they are off topic, so I have to remove that part of the answer. The simplest rule is: if it is about human physiology, it is off topic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.959033
| 2014-07-17T18:37:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45670",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"qazwsx",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74575
|
Handles on pots loosen over time - can I loctite them?
The handles on my pots loosen over time and I have to occasionally tighten the screw that attaches them.
Is there any reason why I can't or shouldn't use Loctite (screw locking compound) on them to secure them?
And if that's the case, why not send them from the factor pre-Loctited?
The bigger question here might be why some manufacturers use screw-on handles rather than welded handles or some other non-hardware method. An indicator of low cost cookware? To me it does not make sense, since the screws either come loose or rust to the point where you cannot tighten them.
These are Fissler pots, so not cheap. :-(
Just my guess at a possibility, maybe it is wrong. From an assembly point of view, using hardware would be easier with lower equipment costs. I am not sure if Loctite would be sturdy enough under the operating conditions of cookware. My problem has been with screw rusting, as water gets into the exposed surfaces. Loctite would not help this.
@user3169 : it could also be seen as a sign of longer-term durability, if it meant you could change/replace handles over the long term, rather than have to dispose of the whole pot or pan.
You could use Loctite 2046 which is food safe. They list deep fryers as a possible application, so it should also work on a cooking pot.
For anyone coming to this old thread via a search: I haven't tried this, but it might be worth trying a compression washer. I'm not very hopeful, not on technical grounds but because if that worked, the manufacturers would surely do it; repeated heating and cooling are a sure-fire way to loosen things. There are several different types of compression washer (see Wikipedia Washer(hardware), section Spring and locking washers); I don't know which would be best.
If trying Loctite I wouldn't be worried about food-grade types, it's well out of the way of food (unless the screw is actually inside the pan, which I've never seen).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.959594
| 2016-10-08T04:35:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74575",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"RoboKaren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user3169"
],
"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
}
|
74579
|
Chef at restaurant seemed to be using really flimsy pans
I was at a restaurant and sat at the chef's table where I could see the chef making the entrees.
He seemed to be using thin pans that were battered and dented. I couldn't tell what material they were (either alu or steel; they weren't copper), but they were thin and/or soft enough to be battered and dented.
Still, he was able to cook lamb, chicken, duck, and salmon without any burning or sticking. The pans were heated very hot and well oiled.
If anything, the thinness of the pans seemed to make heat transfer even easier.
This caused me to come home and look a bit askance at my heavy, all-clad, triple-ply cookware.
Are thin-pans totally usable and it's just all in the chef? This seems to upend my purchasing habits entirely.
Don't forget, better heat transfer requires more skill. Tri-ply makes cooking easier, not better quality.
There is also a question of cost.
Easier is debatable - stopping heat on a tri ply pan NOW is difficult :)
Are thin-pans totally usable and it's just all in the chef?
Yes, and no.
As usual, skill matters more than tool choice. A bad cook won't turn out good food with a great pan. A great cook with a bad pan will usually outcook an intermediate cook with a great pan. But the same intermediate cook will turn out better food with a great pan than with a terrible pan.
The difference the pan makes is mostly the evenness of heating, and somewhat in the food layer which gets heated. A professional cook typically pays more attention to the food and knows how to react to uneven heating, e.g. by stirring/flipping at the best moment. The pan in the professional kitchen is also better preheated, instead of being taken out for the current dish only. In some parts of Europe, the home cook also cooks on a resistive stove, so each dent or warp is very problematic, unlike cooking on gas.
Then there come the cooking techniques. The thin pan limits you there. It is well suited for standard frying and stir frying. That is, you use enough oil and keep the food moving. Many home cooks love to apply an almost imperceptible amount of oil, which means that the pan's heating evenness is much more important. Also, if you want to leave your food sitting there, an overheated pan (or a pan with overheated spots) will burn it.
There are also results which I think not even a pro can achieve with thin steel pans. For example, I have never seen crepes get a beautiful even dark color when made on a thin alu pan, while mine get it automatically in the cast iron at home.
In the end, your purchasing habit is your personal decision. A thin pan is not equivalent to a thick pan in handling and outcome, and it is up to you to choose what tradeoffs you are willing to make.
Tool choice, including handling the consequences, is a skill in itself :)
The French would cringe at a 'dark color' on crepes. But the real problem is dents, as you spread the batter around so it's even thinner than a British / Swedish / Dutch / etc. pancake, which are poured and the pan tilted to spread them out. (and they're cooked darker).
Good answers with science.
I'll reply with operations perspective.
Things move quick in a restaurant. You want to get the most out of each employee and each square foot of equipment space and also please the customer with timely service.
Faster cooking while retaining quality is the goal. Thin pans and very high BTU stove top, and things cook quick. That Chef (more likely a line cook in this case) was probably hustling, like a well trained multi-tasking athlete to keep up with his orders. A home cook doesn't need to operate this way.
Note: you can be sure that there are also high quality pans in the kitchen as well. They would be used by the Sous Chef and Prep Cooks.
Your pans are perfect for you.
(I remember the cooks doing allot of items in pie tins, using tongs as a handle)
I suspect that there'd also be fatigue issues w/ heavier pans -- you might find cast iron pans in place frying chicken down south ... but not for chefs rushing to get a single order cooked after it's ordered.
Equating thicker pans with higher quality, or assuming that equipping persons of more prestige with more prestigous but less suited equipment makes sense, seems myopic here...
It depends on the heat source and how it is used - A strong gas or induction stove can be used to resupply heat very rapidly when needed - but that will be something the cook has to manage. A cast-plate electric or coal stove offers a thermal mass to store heat so a pan does not need to bring another thermal mass. A lower power stove, or one that depends mostly on radiation for heat transfer (electric open coil, glass ceramic, halogen), will struggle to keep a thin pan evenly heated. If the pan goes in an oven, the speed with which it assumes oven temperature varies on thickness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.959792
| 2016-10-08T05:52:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74579",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63287
|
Why should I bake baking soda for making ramen noodles?
I see this recipe for ramen noodles ("alkaline noodles") that says to use bicarb / baking soda that is baked in a very slow oven for an hour (250F / 120C) before incorporating into the noodle dough. Is it necessary to bake the bicarb? What does baking do?
The New York Times has an article about baked baking soda, which says that baking transforms the sodium bicarbonate into sodium carbonate (NaHCO3 into Na2CO3?) but this seems strange; does this really work or is it safe? Am I creating hydrogen gas or presumably harmless water vapor and carbon dioxide?
If it is worth doing for some reason, then there are the ancillary questions. How do I know when it's "done" baking? Both seem to be nondescript white powders. Will a different compound result, after dissolving both in water? Are there any safety concerns with sodium carbonate?
Water vapor and carbon dioxide - no free hydrogen.
FYI, I came to this question after watching Pastry Chef Attempts to Make Gourmet Instant Ramen
Baking turns bicarbonate of soda into a weak form of lye - sodium carbonate, as you said. It basically makes it a stronger alkali. The actual baking process is safe, but the resulting lye is an irritant and you should avoid getting in on your skin, and definitely avoid it getting it in your eyes.
The difference in texture and colour is noticeable after baking. The texture will be finer, and it will be whiter.
Just as simple as that... eh? Just seems not obvious that such a chemical change could happen just by lightly toasting. I baked a batch of the stuff, and it looked a little "pocked" but not different enough to seem "done". Perhaps I shall simply have to make two batches and see if they're different. Also seems that the two things would be the same after they dissolve... but I guess I need to brush up my grade-school chemistry!
Baking it removes the water. Here's a good breakdown: http://www.curiouscook.com/site/2010/09/achieving-a-distinct-flavor-without-going-to-extremes.html
@hoc_age "Thermal decomposition", most compounds break down into simpler compounds, and eventually into base elements when heated, is just a matter of the right amount of heat. Baking soda breaks down at 120°C, the base material for common cement breaks down at 600°C , some fun chemical like Sodium nitrate generate so much heat once a small amount is heated that it chain reacts, hence it's use in explosives
Sodium carbonate isn't a form of lye: lye is sodium hydroxide.
Sodium carbonate is washing soda. It's a bit more alkaline than baking soda, but not nearly as strong as less.
@hoc_age yep it's that simple. And in fact it does it on its own over time. That's why there is a space for you to mark the date when you opened your box or can of baking soda and baking powder, because it does transform into a different chemical over time. Baking just speeds it up.
Also, the amount of hydrogen released is minimal. And, hydrogen wants to escape so badly that even if you had a canister of it releasing into the oven, it will get past the seal faster than the oven could reach combustible levels of hydrogen. It escapes from earths gravity at the rate of 50ft per second at sea level.
NaHCO3+heat -> Na2CO3 (and H20, CO2) but Na2CO3 ≠ NaOH
Used to be able to buy sodium carbonate pretty easily. It's a useful cleaner. Now that it's gotten scarce we have to synthesize it ourselves in an oven. Just pour out a whole box of bicarbonate onto a cookie sheet, cook as described and let cool. Put it in a old Mayonnaise jar or some-such, and you'll have it whenever you need it. The stuff is pretty stable.
True ramen noodles are made with alkaline/base ph ingredients so they will have a specific, distinctive texture, color & flavor, so yes, using the alkali makes a difference. Serious Eats recently published a home-made noodle recipe that covers these points and a lot more, plus gives a method for creating the sodium carbonate from bicarb that uses accurate weighing & timing to tell when the conversion is finished. It updates McGee's earlier method, improving it for home cooks. The Harold McGee's NYT piece does have a lot more background info on the chemistry so it's a useful read, too.
As other answers have noted, making it in your home oven is very safe, but care must be used when handling the finished substance. It's not too strong a base so the main risk is overdrying/irritating skin (on this list from Sciencing it'd be between Bicarb & Borax in intensity) so minimizing contact is sufficient for most people. If your lungs are especially sensitive (ie if you have COPD or Asthma) it's prudent to avoid being around irritating gases or powders or to use a breathing mask. And, when working with liquid forms I always wear eye covering in case of splashes.
For those who're a bit rusty since their high-school chemistry class days, these articles cover general home chemical safety tips in more detail, listed from least to most detailed:
Household Chemical Products and Their Health Risk Cleveland Clinic
Selection and Use of Home Cleaning Products New Mexico Extension Service
Home Chemical Safety Tips American Society of Safety Engineers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.960217
| 2015-11-08T21:21:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63287",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Escoce",
"John Clynch",
"Pat Wadsworth",
"Roseline Ewegbemi",
"Sherry",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Vanessa Parton",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55242",
"spraff"
],
"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
}
|
57996
|
Making Pâté à bombe without sugar thermometer
The recipe says that the sugar syrup must reach 120C, but I have no sugar thermometer. Can it be done without a thermometer?
Dissolve the sugar in a medium saucepan with 120ml boiling water. When clear, bring to the boil and place a sugar thermometer in the pan.
Meanwhile, whisk the yolks with an electric mixer until creamy. When the sugar syrup reaches 120C, remove from the heat at once. Keep the mixer beaters running, drizzle the syrup onto the yolks and beat, on full speed, for 3-5 mins until you have a firm yellow foam. Remove and cool, whisking occasionally. Divide into 3 portions.
Do you have a digital probe thermometer?
@ElendilTheTall: Nope :(
Yes, it can, but it's hard. That is, you need to know what 120 C looks like, and if you haven't done it many times before, your first times you'll be likely to fail. It's not impossible, but a thermometer is the easiest solution.
120°C is what's known as the firm ball stage of caramelisation, because when you drop some of the caramel into cold water, you should then be able to make a firm but still pliable ball with it. You can use this to determine the approximate temperature. This page lists all the stages so you can determine how far along you are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.960650
| 2015-06-04T12:25:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57996",
"authors": [
"Antonia Scafidi",
"Cindy Johnson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gigili",
"James Razo",
"Kerry Jamieson",
"Rebecca Daley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"mina abd-al-ahhad",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45786
|
Frying fish without it falling to shambles
How on earth do I pan fry fish without it turning to hell?
For the fish:
Stainless steel pan
Oil heated until it sizzles when droplets of water are thrown in
Plain fish, skin side down first
Try and flip, it falls apart...
Any advice on this?
you really need to break this into two question ... and you likely want to phrase the knife skills one differently, as it's not really answerable in its present form. (perhaps ask about how to improve your skills, but then people might think it's opinion-based, and vote to close)
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18129/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18400/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/87/67
Sorry, but there are multiple problems here. First, please only post one question per "thread" (it is totally OK to ask two separate question short after each other if you want to ask two different things). Second, we only do objective answers here. The "how long" knife question has no objective answer, it is totally dependent on the person. So, it wouldn't fit if you ask it again. Third, the fish question is a good fit for the site by itself, but it has been asked before. So I have to close the edited rest as a duplicate.
I am aware that this is a bit too much for a new user, and probably pretty disappointing, but we really function differently from a discussion forum, and so can't accept the same kind of question. We have a help center which explains the basic rules, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help. The first 2-3 topics under the "asking questions" heading would be relevant here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions.
Fish is just so darned delicate and has so much protein. It sticks to everything and falls apart.
If I want my fish filet to stay whole I will do one of the following:
1- Use a higher fat fish that will hold together such as salmon or tuna
2- Poach the fish instead of frying
3- Use a teflon pan and don't try and get up to searing temps. I only use teflon pans for eggs and fish.
I suppose another alternative is to use enough oil that you are essentially deep frying the fish but I don't like it.
I'll have to look into poaching. How similar does the fish turn out in texture and flavor compared to frying?
@user26090 The texture of the flesh is great, but you can't get a crispy skin that way. Don't even try.
Poaching is great for very delicate foods. Fish is often poached in a flavor milk broth. As Jolene says- you can't cook it past the boiling point of water so the skin will never brown or get crispy.
@user26090 Also- not that I mind the free rep- but it is generally considered good form to wait a couple days before accepting an answer to make sure you choose the best one.
Some fish is simply too tender to stay together when flipped, even if you are very gentle. There's 2 ways you can deal with this:
Use a different fish: some fish like monkfish are very steaky and you can flip them easily. Thick pieces of haddock or other white fish can also can work if you are gentle with them.
Don't flip it: I typically won't flip most fish, what I do instead is fry it in a pan, then transfer the pan to the oven for a few minutes to cook the fish through. You'll need to use a pan which is oven-safe, cheapo non-sticks usually do not fit the bill
2a. or set it under the broiler element to add color and texture to the top.
You can as long as your pan is broiler safe. I wouldn't trust a non-stick but an all-metal pan would be fine that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.960807
| 2014-07-22T15:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45786",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael E.",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user26090"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88478
|
Is 'honey in crystallized form' the same as 'raw honey'?
Is 'honey in crystallized form' the same as 'raw honey'?
Subquestion: can heated/pasteurized/decrystallized honey ever crystallize again?
What is your criteria for "equal"? By weight, by volume, by sweetness?
@CosCallis I took it to mean "are they the same thing"
I've edited the question.
Short answer? Maybe. Crystallized honey and raw honey are not mutually exclusive, so you may have a honey that is one or the other, or you may have a honey that is both.
Raw honey is simply honey that has not been over-heated (heated more than necessary to allow the honey to flow for easier bottling) or pasteurized.
All honey will eventually crystallize; however, raw honey will crystallize faster than pasteurized or heat-treated honey, which is often of lower quality as the heat required for pasteurization destroys some characteristics of the honey.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.961087
| 2018-03-21T12:07:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88478",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Howie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112332
|
Dicing roasted pumpkin instead of puréeing it?
I have a memory of reading somewhere (but I can’t seem to find the source) that when making a pumpkin pie from fresh pumpkin, you could beneficially dice the pumpkin after roasting it instead of puréeing it. Is this true, or will it ruin the pie if I try that?
Also, does dicing the roasted pumpkin instead of puréeing it make it easier to deep freeze it?
When you slice the completed pie, what is your desired interior look and texture?
@moscafj Good question; I haven't thought about that. I don't really know, because pumpkin pie is not something I have made very many times in the past.
This is really just a matter of texture. You can make a pie with puree or with chunks. Traditionally, squash pies have a smooth interior, but that doesn't mean it can't be lumpy, which I think is what your diced pumpkin would produce.
You could also split the difference -- mix some chunks into mashed pumpkin
If you are trying to make a classic, traditional, American Thanksgiving pumpkin pie, use pumpkin puree. If you dice the roasted pumpkin instead of pureeing it, it will be somewhat chunky. If you make a regular pumpkin pie and it has chunks in it, it will not come across as a creative twist on a classic. It will come across as, "Ew, this pie has lumps in it." Even mature adults turn into children when you start messing with the recipes their mom and grandma used to make for the holidays.
That's not to say there's no way to make a good pie with chunks of chopped, roasted pumpkin. It just won't be traditional. My rule of thumb when putting a creative twist on a traditional recipe, is to make the new version different enough from the original that I can call it something else. That way the people I feed it to are expecting something new and different.
For example, you could make a savory pie with caramelized onion and spinach and chopped roasted pumpkin. Make sure the top of it doesn't look like a regular pumpkin pie, or someone will try to eat it for dessert and be very disappointed. A crumbly or crunchy topping would do the trick.
It also helps to have a good name for your creation. Something that references the chunkiness and makes it seem like an feature, not a bug. Also something that makes it clear that it's different from the traditional. Notice that I didn't describe my savory example as a pumpkin pie. I can't wrap my brain around calling something savory a pumpkin pie, even though that's a technically accurate description.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.961194
| 2020-10-27T06:03:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112332",
"authors": [
"HelloGoodbye",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46240
|
Balancing out a good souffle and burnt cheese on top
I have a souffle egg recipe that calls for grated Parmesan cheese on the top. I want to also have the cheese slightly burnt without having the souffle collapse. Is there a way to do this? My ideas: If I use the upper part of the oven, wouldn't that overheat the souffle? Or Should I slowly bake the souffle at a low temperature and then for 60 seconds or so use the upper part of the oven. I don't have a blowtorch, if that's a possibility.
One thing you could try is pre-cooking the Parmesan. Basically, make crisps, like this:
But perhaps a bit darker. Allow them to cool, then crush them or even give them a quick whirr in the food processor. Top your souffle with the cooked cheese crumble instead of uncooked Parmesan.
BTW, that picture is from Giada De Laurentiis' recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.961384
| 2014-08-09T12:58:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46240",
"authors": [
"James Hendrix",
"Jenna Petro",
"Lynn Krieger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110420",
"optional",
"user33970",
"yan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55745
|
How is King Arthur bread flour made?
I checked out their website and other sources but could not find any details as to what their bread flour is actually composed of. Does it include both the bran and germ or is the bran removed? And if bran and germ are removed then how is it different from the all-purpose flour milled from high protein red wheat?
I suspect they add pure gluten powder to it
They make whole wheat flour, but their bread flour is definitely refined; it does not contain bran or germ. Their bread flour is milled from a specific hard red spring wheat from North and South Dakota. That particular wheat is higher in protein than the wheat and wheat blends of other brands of bread flour.
KA's whole wheat flour (not the white whole wheat) is also milled from hard red wheat, but it's unclear if it's the same "hard red spring wheat" as in the bread flour. The protein level is higher in the whole wheat flour than in the bread flour.
Notice that the bread flour is enriched (see the ingredients), as is required by US law for refined flours. The whole wheat flour is not enriched.
You might find this information regarding whole grains helpful: What is the meaning of the term whole grain? Notice from the graphic that there is not a lot of protein in the bran and germ.
To supplement what @Jolenealaska stated, The King Arthur website provides details for all of the flours they produce: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/king-arthur-unbleached-bread-flour-5-lb
I guessed the same but could not find any evidence for the statement "it does not contain bran or germ". And if thats the only difference then it is no different from the APF from red wheat?
@bread101 there is no "APF from red wheat". If you mill a bread flour variety of wheat, you get bread flour. If you mill a soft wheat, you get all purpose flour. The difference is in the gluten content, not in the production process.
@bread101 refined flour, by definition, does not contain the germ or bran.
Just commenting to note that KAF is almost unique (as far as I know) in the amount of information they provide about their floor... more than I ever expected to know!
@bread101, Just to add to rumtscho's comment (or clarify) -- the softest wheats are used to produce pastry flour. The hardest are used to produce bread or sometimes "high gluten" flour. All purpose flour is often (though not always) a blend of hard and soft wheats. While one can use other additives or processing to produce even softer flours (e.g. American bleached cake flour) or harder (by extracting gluten and adding it), standard flours can vary significantly in gluten content just by the type of wheat.
@Jolenealaska thanks for the graphics but still there is no mention that it is a refined flour , it just mentions "unbleached wheat flour". Why is it assumed that they have removed germ \bran when it is explicitly not specified anywhere? Also what is the % of malted barley flour used?
@bread101 It is refined because it doesn't say otherwise. In the US, if a flour doesn't say that it is unrefined, it isn't. I don't know the percentage of malted barley flour, but it is extremely low. Otherwise it would not and could not be listed as a part of "unbleached enriched hard spring wheat flour"
I just looked on their website, and it now shows only wheat flour and malted barley flour. Maybe the enrichment rules have changed?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.961497
| 2015-03-16T08:12:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55745",
"authors": [
"Anna Skrzyp",
"Ashley Odle",
"Athanasius",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kerri Timmerman",
"Meg M.",
"Naomi",
"Oscar Taylor",
"Parul Khurana",
"Stephen Eure",
"bread101",
"dfeuer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"janie Sinc",
"rebecca kegley",
"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
}
|
103445
|
Can a microwave oven cook chicken?
The other day I was looking for chicken steak recipes, and most of them suggested to use an oven. They mentioned particular temperatures and times.
But the problem is, I am in Japan and I have a standard Japanese electric oven (電子レンジ) [microwave oven]. It doesn't have a temperature setting. It only has POWER in Watts and time settings.
200/500/700W are what I have to work with. So, what can I do to make a steak in that oven? Or can't I?
Google translate says 電子レンジ = microwave.
@Tetsujin good catch. And steak + microwave is not a good combo.
It's chicken steak, not beef steak, but still bad. @HungryCoder, do you have anything else to cook with? Even a single ring?
Is "chicken steak" even a combination of words that make sense? In the US, "steak" without any other qualifiers means "beef".
You can but it's hard to do right. But there are microwave cookbook out there. Maybe you can find a similar recipe in a microwave cookbook and use the data there.
If you could get either a hot plate (which is used to heat a single frying pan) or a toaster oven (basically a small conventional oven, which is what the recipes seem to be talking about), they should work well enough.
@JPhi1618 Not in English, but I wouldn't be surprised if they called it something like a "chicken steak" in Japanese. It's probably chicken shaped like a typical steak.
Maybe you could purchase a simple butane-gas cooker, these are compact and in-expensive.
@ApologizeandreinstateMonica that's pretty much it: https://cookpad.com/us/recipes/147836-teriyaki-chicken-steak
Chicken steak appears to be a literal translation of チキンステーキ (chikinsuteki), which are boneless butterflied chicken thighs (with skin) fried in pan. They don't seem to be normally made in a oven though.
It's also worth noting that an oven is rarely the best choice for a chicken cutlet or filet. Most such recipes can be easily done in a skillet or pot on the stovetop with a few changes to technique. If you're not comfortable figuring out how to modify the recipe instructions, just try searching for similarly named recipes, and you're likely to find one you can make without an oven. Only casseroles and roast chicken require an oven.
I'm also in Japan and own not a 電子レンジ (microwave), but an オーブンレンジ (oven microwave?), and would suggest you get one if you ever get the chance to buy one. Most microwaves in Japan these days are actually oven microwaves with microwave, oven, and grill settings built in, so it's worth it if you can spend the money on it (but you probably already know this)
my my...you guys went crazy on this question while I was asleep. Thanks for everyone's contribution. @s.anne.w Finally someone who can understand my pain. I live in leopalace21 apartment. I got this 電子レンジ by default/for free in apartment. Do you have any experience with 電子レンジ？ what dishes I can make with 電子レンジ？
@HungryFoodi Now I usually just use my microwave to heat leftovers and that kind of thing, but there are some recipes I've used that only need a microwave to cook (one of my favourites is a チキン南蛮 recipe from Delish Kitchen, usually you have to fry the chicken, but this one you use the microwave for the chicken and even the tartar sauce!). If you search 電子レンジ on Japanese cooking sites (cookpad, Kurashiru, Delish Kitchen, and others) there are hundreds of different microwave only recipes, from soups to mains to desserts :)
@HungryFoodi obviously, microwave made meals can't really stand up to the taste of properly fried/baked/otherwise cooked food, but there's still a lot you can do with just a microwave :)
@s.anne.w Thanks for your insights. Currently I am using 電子レンジ for reheating purpose only. But I will look into Japanese cooking sites.
In Germany, certain cuts of big fish are called steak :)
We have "ham steak" and "ahi steak" in the US. So we definitely do use "steak" outside of the beef context, but yeah, "chicken steak" is unheard of here.
If you are in japan, there is often below the stove a fish grill. (Especially if you have gas at home)
You can cook chicken steak/wings in there and it turns out delicious !
A microwave can cook a beef steak or piece of chicken to a safe temperature and make it edible, however the result is often tough and you won't get a crust of any kind on it.
When you cook something on a pan or on a grill/broiler the outside is exposed to a high temperature, giving the outside a chance to go through chemical changes like Maillard reactions and caramelization which give color and flavor. The food cooks from the outside in.
A microwave oven cooks by exciting water molecules throughout the food, penetrating up to about 1 inch depending on a number of factors. The energy is spread out rather than being concentrated on the surface, you never get to a high temperature on the outside, so you get none of that color or flavor. Microwaves also tend to cook meats and poultry too quickly, making them rubbery. You might be able to remedy this by using the lowest power setting in bursts. Turn the food regularly as well as microwaves tend to have hot spots. A lower power will also let things cook more evenly, as the hot spots will cook some areas faster than others.
You may get an okay result for chicken, however I wouldn't attempt it with beef.
A microwave oven cooks by exciting water molecules throughout the food, cooking the whole thing at the same time. → not exactly. The microwaves only penetrate into the food up to a certain depth, and the rest of the food is heated by these microwaved-heated exterior part though conduction (https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-microwaves-work, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Microwave_Ovens_and_Food_Safety.pdf, ...)
@WoJ and the depth of penetration is a lot less than most people assume. Maybe a millimeter or two (this is related to the skin depth of the microwave frequency (2.4GHz) in water/meat/etc.) But compared to "just the outside" like an oven or pan, it makes a big difference.
Also, there may be pockets that are not heated to a safe temperature.
Here is a YouTube video showing Microwave hotspots. This is different every model and every brand.
It may also be useful to slice or cut the chicken before cooking, for more even and better cooking [in the sense of safety].
By itself? Not really, the results will end up edible (i.e. fully cooked) but not very tasty (chewy, no searing/caramelization).
However, there are dedicated "microwave grill" devices like the Microhearth Grill Pan (others might be better, google will help, this is just the one I have experience with) that you can put into your microwave oven. They convert the energy from the microwave into directional infrared grill-style heat, allowing you to get nicely cooked steak, very similar to what you would get from a regular oven / stove.
Yes, and microwave-sized mirowave + convection ovens too.
Just yesterday I saw a product review for a microwave grill product, it's meant for sandwiches but the reviewers grilled an actual decent burger on it! So there's hope for the microwaved chicken...
There's not going to be a good way to cook a "steak" (I assume you mean a chicken filet, or a single large-ish piece of chicken without bones), but you may be able to make do with something close.
Microwaves do one particular kind of cooking well: steaming. Chicken doesn't taste great steamed, but it's not terrible, either. As long as you add some additional flavor through sauces, you'll end up with something palatable.
To do that, you need enough water in the dish that you're cooking it in that the chicken itself won't be too cooked by the microwaves - how much depends on size, but maybe 2cm or so deep might do enough. You don't want to boil the chicken, preferably. Then cover it with a silicone cover as if you were steaming vegetables.
Another thing to consider: while you don't have a (convection/conventional) oven, you might have a single electric stove burner (or induction burner)? If you do, then that's your best bet. You can even sort of roast on a burner with the right pan - a very thick cast iron or carbon steel pan for example. Steaks of any sort, or Chicken of any sort, will turn out very well cooked on a burner. Just make sure the pan keeps the heat well, so you're not cooking effectively on direct heat but instead with the heat of the pan at least somewhat.
You could try to cook the ckhicken as-is, but the result will not taste good at all.
You could instead use the oven to make a chicken soup. Microvave ovens can heat/boil water if placed in thin-walled porcelain container, such as a bowl. Separate the chicken into pieces that fit a porcelain bowl, add water and chicken soup ingredients. Do not leave the water unattended. Do not use max power, just enough to keep it close to boiling. Make sure the bowl is covered, but not with anything metallic.
Alternativelly, you can just partially cook the chicken, so it's easier to separate from bones, then separate it and roast it on a pan. That's gonna taste much better.
OK, you can do this. This is tough though. NEVER UNDER COOK CHICKEN. Under cooked chicken is both disgusting and dangerous. Overcooked chicken is just tough and disgusting, but not dangerous,
The key is to NOT OVERCOOK THE CHICKEN, and NOT UNDER COOK CHICKEN. Its a tough balancing act, but if you experiment with your microwave and are patient you can learn to do this perfectly every time.
You will have to go for more of a casserole type dish. I assume you are using 2 chicken breasts and a casserole bowl. I would advise washing the chicken, drying it, salting it and peppering it and then cutting it into small slices, then cutting those into half slices. Microwave that about a minute, stir then another minute, then another till hot and barely cooked, but not tough! SET ASIDE. 3 mins or so ought to do it for 2 cups of chicken. Now make a basic casserole. Use a chopped up onion CUT SMALL, some chopped up celery SMALL SLICES, a couple spoons of BUTTER - NOT MARGARINE. Add 2 and a quarter cups of preferably whole milk. Microwave till steaming, then stir in rice (4-6 minutes or so). Add in a cup and a half of instant rice. Let it sit for 2 minutes.
Now add mushroom soup or a can of some equally thick soup you prefer, a cup of seasoned chicken stuffing, and some shredded cheese (I like something sharp), and a vegetable something to give it a kick like sriracha and a few seed removed jalapenos or poblano peppers or green chilies. Add chicken, stir, and then Microwave for seven minutes or so, stirring once.
Sprinkle with some more cheese and breadcrumbs. Cover and wait 4 minutes. DONE.
Your resulting meal will be tasty and filling, without dangerous hot spots. This casserole should be moderately acceptable - like a B or so.
You can take this basic idea and make chicken and melted cheese and serve that with salsa and nachoes as meal as well.
Pro Tip:
Invest in a speed oven with a crisping pan and some olive oil to brush the chicken with. Its the same size as a microwave and SO MUCH BETTER. Also try and pony up for the largest wattage you can - I recommend 800W min. Higher watts tend to cook more evenly, and a rotating pan can help.
Extra Pro-Tip:
Pre-cooked chicken breast is less of a hassle and tastes just as good as if you learn to cook it yourself from scratch properly.
Do not wash your chicken, this can spread contamination. Simply pat dry with a paper towel.
Yes, always wash your chicken and meats and vegetables. Just don't be sloppy and splash germs everywhere. Packaged meats have a film on them that is gross and unwholesome. You won't die because the germs will be killed, but it's still unwholesome. Don't pat them dry with a paper towel either because you will leave lint on your meat (again won't kill you but gross).
@Chloe Why wash your chicken? Vegetables I get, but there is absolutely no need to wash chicken. This has been researched to death. The heat kills bacteria.. and you won't leave lint on your chicken if you use a high-quality paper towel anyway.
The slime is unpleasant. I'm just suggesting a quick rinse, and patting it dry.
Did anyone here even bother trying this? It's pretty good, and I think answers the poster's question better than "don't do it".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.961973
| 2019-11-13T06:51:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103445",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Bloodgain",
"Chloe",
"Croves",
"GalacticCowboy",
"GdD",
"HungryFoodi",
"JPhi1618",
"Kingsley",
"Luciano",
"Nelson",
"Pablo H",
"Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard",
"Richard",
"Ross Ridge",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"WoJ",
"ggb667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"mbrig",
"rackandboneman",
"s.anne.w",
"user2752467",
"user3528438",
"user428517",
"user91988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47399
|
Best way to preserve a meat without using refrigerator
I don't have refrigerator in my apartment, this is because I want to prepare myself from traveling to many countries, doing job-related and church related activities. My most common problem is how to preserved meat without using refrigerator?
So far this are my workarounds in order to preserve a meat.
First Option:
Chop the meat in small pieces.
Put a very little salt on it.
Deep fry it
Put again a salt (this time is a little more)
And that's it. :)
Sometimes I can use it again after 4 more days.
Do you have a much better way of preservation?
I'll let answers deal with good methods for preserving meat, but for now: unless "a little more salt" is an awful lot, what you're doing does not sound safe at all.
'best way' varies with the local climate ... if you're in the middle of monsoon season, smoking or drying it doesn't work nearly as well as when you're in the dry season, unless you can manage to seal it up well.
If it's not too warm, you might be able to confit it ... or make potted meat. I don't think they're considered acceptable techniques by modern standards, but they were used in Europe before the days of refrigeration & canning. It's also possible to pickle meat, but some people don't care for the resulting texture (eg, corned beef)
Does a freezer count as a refrigerator?
@Aaronut, I think yes? I'm pretty sure.
Learning to preserve meat isn't a good use of your time. Wherever you go either the locals will do it better than you can, or then won't do it at all - they'll eat it as soon as they get it. Many places you go the tools and ingredients you need won't be available. I recommend you spend your time learning language and customs so you know how to ask for things you need, and how to subsist wherever you are going.
Meat spoils because it is packed with water and all the nutrients microorganisms crave.
To make meat not need refrigeration you have to make those things unavailable.
Dehydration is essential. Salt is also helpful. Salt the meat heavily and dehydrate it on a fan or in the oven. You end up with jerky which, if sealed from humidity, will stay good indefinitely. Look for proven recipes.
Salt by itself, without dehydration, isn't good enough. Corned beef, for example, is salted heavily and will still spoil if not refrigerated.
An alternative to drying is to pressure can the meat. By heating a bottle of meat in a pressure canner, the boiling point of water is increased to the point where botulism spores are destroyed. The bottle seals out further contamination. Bottled meat will stay good for years.
While I think that preserving food is a valuable skill- I totally agree with GdD that it is not important for international travel. You will enjoy yourself much more and be more productive if you learn to eat what the local people eat and don't spend your free time drying meat and carrying it with you when you travel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.962947
| 2014-09-25T00:35:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47399",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andy Robinson",
"Anne Karin Øverby",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Helen nnaemeka",
"Joe",
"Stephen Punt",
"Tim Seagle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47375
|
When sauteing should I put onion or garlic first?
Most of the dishes here in the Philippines involved sauteing. But I am a little bit confused on what should I put first, are there any advantages on it?
Questions:
Should I put onion or garlic first whenever I am conducting a saute?
What are the advantages of putting onion first before garlic?
What are the advantages of putting garlic first before onion?
Onions always benefit from a few minutes on their own to soften and start sweetening. Garlic burns easily, especially when finely chopped or crushed, so in general should not be fried as long as onion. Having said that, when doing a quick stir fry or similar dish, you can throw in the garlic first for 10-20 seconds so that it flavours the oil.
Examining your questions in order:
The general rule is onions first. Sauté the garlic towards the end for 30-ish seconds before removing from the heat.
As ElendilTheTall correctly pointed out, garlic can scorch quickly, especially if you tend to sauté on the hot side (as I do). Starting your sauté with onions first has two advantages: it allows you to better control the time the garlic spends on the heat and the moisture released by the onions on the heat provides a buffer, of sorts, from the otherwise dry heat of the sauté pan.
Both my training and my experience lead me to believe there is no conceivable advantage to placing garlic in a sauté before onion.
The sauté time to take that bite out of raw garlic certainly depends on the way the garlic is prepared prior to the sauté - the 30-ish second recommendation I gave in (1) above would be for minced garlic. If you tend to use chunks or slices of garlic, you'll probably need more sauté time to mellow the garlic out - in that case, you should still go with the onions first, but you might need to sauté longer over lower heat to make sure the garlic has a chance to mellow throughout before the exterior burns.
Finally, as a personal note, the only time I ever include my garlic with the onions at the same time is when I am sautéing bell peppers with the onions. Because of all the moisture that is released between the peppers and the onions, I find that it takes a lot longer for the garlic to cook sufficiently so I let it sauté with its buddies for the full several minutes it takes to sweat them.
Bell peppers are like tasty little water balloons.
My answer would be "after the onions".
I had a chef tell me that garlic (and black pepper) burn around 140° C (284° F).
You can guess this is quite low if you've burned garlic as often as I have before.
I'd suggest either controlling the heat, or as Stephen Eure mentionned: cooking along something moisty to avoid direct high heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.963237
| 2014-09-24T10:09:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47375",
"authors": [
"Elizabeth Ging",
"Jack Allen",
"Kirsten New",
"Mia Loner Wolf",
"Natty Salayshus",
"Patricia Blackburn",
"Preston",
"Raj Kumar",
"Royalstep india",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"sue gibson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66347
|
How to properly store a Chinese new year cake and how long will it last?
I've received a Chinese new year cake, my question is how do I properly store it? Do I need to refrigerate it? Also, how long will it last assuming that I properly store it.
I hope you ate the Nian gao cake already. If you are going to eat it in less than 10 days, just leave it in the fridge, tightly sealed in a ziplock bag. But for longer storage, say a month or so, you could wrap it in plastic wrap, then a paper towel, then inside a freezer bag. I would also cut up the cake so it is easier to defrost when you want to cook it. I would not eat it after about a month. I think that the texture would be too different after that. But best of luck.
It can be kept in the refrigerator for up to 5 days or on the counter for 1 day. Keep in mind to seal it up in a bag or container to prevent drying out. It should be divided before being frozen. You can pan-fry it without defrosting or defrost it in the refrigerator before eating it at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.963485
| 2016-02-09T00:30:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66347",
"authors": [
"Fran Snyder",
"Hazel Perry",
"Janette Panaligan",
"Susana Sri Mulyani",
"ajitha radhakrishnan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161149"
],
"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
}
|
4161
|
How can I remove excess fat from stews or soups without refrigerating?
I've read that adding cork (from wine bottles) absorbs the fat. I'm not sure if this works or not.
Are there any other ways to remove excess fat without standing there and spooning out or refrigerating and then removing the solidified fat?
Most of the answers are very good, so I won't add to them. But I will say that adding a wine cork is almost guaranteed to be a failure, apart from whatever fat just happens to stick to the outside. They are not absorbent (in any meaningful way). Indeed, that's why they are used to keep the wine in the bottle instead of soaking it up! Also, I recommend against putting anything in your soup that isn't a cooking utensil or food. But maybe that's just me.
If you want to be really lazy about it, just get yourself a fat separator. Pour in the soup, the fat will rise to the top, and you can do what you want with it (i.e. dump it).
If you're reading this in an emergency, you can do this with just a strainer. You'll get better results if you chill the strainer before each skim, i.e. by rinsing it with very cold water. The fat will tend to congeal on the cold strainer the same way it congeals when it's actually chilled.
I've also heard that the fat will cling to certain leafy vegetables, like lettuce. If you have a lettuce head kicking around, try peeling off a leaf and dusting the top of the pan with it.
You can also drag a paper towel across the top, especially when the fat layer is very thin.
If you pour the liquid into a narrower vessel to settle, the fat layer on top will be thicker and therefore easier to remove with spoon, paper towel, or turkey baster. Something like this thermos or this ice tea jug would work without needing to cool it down too much.
It is best done before any thickening with starch/flour.
Since some spices are oil soluble, you might end up straining out some of the flavor, and need to re-adjust the spicing slightly.
One quick way I have seen is to put a few ice cubes into your soup/stew. The fat will congeal around the ice cube so if you take them out before they melt you can get rid of most of your fat.
If you don't want to water down your dish, if you have a metal ladle, put the ice in that, then skim the surface with the bowl -- the fat will congeal on the ladle
I just used bread on top of the soup, flipped it so both sides got covered, worked a treat, might fry the bread up with an egg tomorrow. Waste not want not
Not to be contrarian, but the easiest way to do this would probably be to just drain off the fat before adding the liquid. For instance, if you sautee your veggies and brown your meat before adding the stock, you'd just pour off the grease in the pan before adding the stock. An ounce of prevention, etc...
Well said, Captain Hindsight. :D
If the soup or stew has a good layer of fat on top, I've just dropped individual sheets of paper towels on top. Since the fat is on top, the paper towel absorbs it. Remove, discard and, if there's still a layer of fat, repeat.
Once it starts absorbing stock/broth/sauce, then I stop. Usually the fast majority of fat is gone by then.
Now, however, I have a fat separator, which is, essentially, a handled measuring cup with a spout that connects at the base of the cup. I highly recommend spending a few bucks, it's tremendously convenient, especially for someone like me who loves making and eating homemade soups.
You scoop or pour in the liquid from the top of your dish, let it settle, and, like your pot, the fat separates at the top. Since the spout is connected at the bottom, as you pour liquid back into the pot, it pours back the stuff you want, while the fat remains behind. Once you can see the fat level dropping to spout level, you stop, and have almost entirely fat left behind.
It's also a great way to separate out fat from roasting drippings, so you can use the fat to make a roux for gravy, and have the rich de-fatted pan drippings added back to whatever liquid you are going to add.
I just tried this: Pour cooled stock through a strainer, lined with paper towels, filled with ice cubes. You may have to do it in batches, as it catches lot of fat. This is a shortcut.
I picked up these fine mesh fat skimmers at an Asian market for under $2 each but I also see them online. The cooler the stew or soup is, the better they work but the fat does not need to be refrigerated or solidified for them to work. The fat particles are too thick to fit through the strainer so it can be easily collected. Also great for skimming the foam off the top too.
A Super Lazy Method that only requires some quick and sloppy skimming…
Prepare a bowl of ice. Place a smaller container inside of the bowl such that it sits on the bottom of the bowl and is surrounded by ice. I use a 2-cup pyrex measuring cup in a larger bowl.
Ladle out as much fat as you can without worrying too much about also collecting some of the broth. I stop ladling when I only have few small fat droplets in mostly broth.
Add water to bring the ice/water mixture up to the same level as the fat/broth in the inner container. Occasionally stir the ice/water to ensure that the inner container is cooling as fast as possible. (The handle on the pyrex measuring cup is useful to stir the ice/water around it.)
Once the fat layer is solid (~15 min), scoop it off. Then add the remaining broth (which may have gelled) back to your soup/stew.
So long as the liquid isn't being mixed (and bubbling from simmering or boiling counts as being mixed), it'll undergo what they call "type 1 settling", where oil floats to the top, and particulates fall to the bottom.
You can either let it stand in a gravy separator, or just let it come to the top of the pot, and either ue a paper towel, like Darin mentioned, a strainer like Aronut mentioned, or even a frozen bottle of water (which will chill the fat so it sticks to the bottle, where you ca wipe it off then try again).
Personally, I normally use the 'spooning' method, but use a laddle rather than a spoon, so it goes much faster.
you could let it settle so the fat rests on the top then use a turkey baster or syringe to suck the fat off the top.
You can soak it up with slices of Bread. I just did it.
Do you have a method for doing this?
Ever do something like pan-toasting that bread in a skillet, or sticking some cheese in between a couple fat-soaked bread slices for a grilled cheese? Probably about the worst thing possible for your heart, but I'd bet that tastes pretty good! Or is it generally way too soggy?
Try a Grease Grabber. They are a special pad that only absorbs oil and repels all else. If you float it on top of your soup it will absorb all the grease.
Seems like overkill given that you could just use bread or paper towels.
I actually upvoted this. It may be a bit profligate, at $.50 apiece I wouldn't want to use them every, but the videos show that they work pretty well, better than other options.
amazing. Are these reusable? dishwasher safe?
I'm guessing you dont want to reuse them unless you wash them well because the oil carrying a lot of aroma would go from one soup to the next.
Everyone seems to recommend gravy strainers which have a spout at the bottom but any bottle with some form of spout should work if you just turn it upside down... oil will float to the top and you can pour gravy out of the bottom :-)
I think that would make a huge mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.963639
| 2010-08-04T01:06:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4161",
"authors": [
"Bill Henderson",
"Brunov25",
"Cascabel",
"Cecil Broadnax",
"Chris Marasti-Georg",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Denis",
"Jackie Geld",
"Jay Michaud",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kylie Lee",
"Leela",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Preston",
"Ron",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scot Tannerski",
"SourDoh",
"Torsten Gang",
"Tyson Conway",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80287",
"nicolas de la forge"
],
"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
}
|
10111
|
Why is my pumpkin soup sour?
Whenever I make pumpkin soup I always find it to be way too sour and I end up adding a Tbsp of brown sugar to correct. Are Pumpkins naturally tart, or is there a reason why this is happening? Are there other methods to correct this aside from adding sugar?
My method is to roast the pumpkin and then add to chicken stock with variety of spices (cayenne, salt, pepper, turmeric, cumin, etc.), and add cream or coconut milk to thicken.
Do you want to go into detail on your roasting technique? I would assume you cut in half, clean out, roast face down in water at ~350 until a fork slides in/out of the skin easily.
:) assumption correct, that is exactly what i did.
Hmm. I would say that pumpkins maybe have a slight bit of acidity, but I would never think of them as distinctly sour. I suppose it could be the variety you are using. Also, taste your stock by itself to make sure it isn't contributing an unwanted sour note. All of that said, it may just be one of those expectation things. We are used to pumpkin in a sweet context, and your brain wants that little bit of sugar there to match the template, so it seems sour without it.
If you really want to test this out further, try making a small batch of the same recipe with no spices and plain water to see if it is truly the pumpkin that seems sour to you.
@ Varieties: I have read that carving pumpkins have a bitter taste; the medium sized ones for baking are the only ones I have experience cooking.
These were specifically pie pumpkins, I had leftover from making a pie.
I think it could be, because of the rosting of the pumpkin. I use the raw pumpkin cut into pieces. Add water and boil.
If you don't roast your pumpkin before cooking soup out of it, I expect it won't turn sour on you...
Possibly because you are adding the cream and then leaving the soup out of the fridge, this cream will turn sour; causing soup to go sour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.964400
| 2010-12-14T16:31:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10111",
"authors": [
"Advait Saravade",
"Derek Selvidge",
"El Danté",
"Manako",
"helen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20693",
"mayabelle",
"mfg"
],
"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
}
|
17157
|
How do I fix overly yeasty kefir?
My milk kefir grains now produce kefir with a very unpleasant yeasty/bready flavor. I've tried feeding it for a while, on the assumption that the yeast/bacteria will get back into balance, but this has failed. I'm worried there may be cross-contamination from sourdough starter.
Is there a way to fix this, or do I need to obtain fresh kefir grains?
I can not give you an answer to your question, but whenever I had problems with kefir, I was told to thoroughly rinse the tuber and restart the kefir.
On this German Website they recommend to restart with 200ml of milk and 1 tablespoon of lactose for a recovery of the kefir. I do not know if this could change the yeast to bacteria ratio.
On a sideline, this Russian website recommend a ratio of 107 CFU/g of lactic acid bacteria to 104 CFU/g of yeast for health reasons. If you don't get the yeast to bacteria ratio down, maybe a fresh start with a kefir with 104:107 could help?
I tried rinsing and restarting without success.
Your options are either to change the milk or cover the taste with any type of sweeteners like sugar honey cinnamon nutmeg. If you make smoothies you can add all types of fruit. Don't worry about the sugar intake as the kefir should be suppressing your candida.
You can soak your grains in kefir that you find more pleasant, for about one week. Add a touch of cream.... Or, try fermenting at a cooler temp, takes a little longer but seems to help. Yeasty kefir is VERY tasty with a touch of honey.... Also, try second ferment with an orange slice, so good!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.964605
| 2011-08-26T14:59:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17157",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Lisa Payne",
"Mkoch4545",
"Riaz Ud Din",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93730",
"user36839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28901
|
Why do the inserts in pasta pots not go all the way to the bottom?
I love using a pasta pot/steamer where there is an inner "colander" pot so that you can pull all the pasta out easily.
BUT... in all of the ones I've seen, the inner colander doesn't go all the way to the bottom. There is a gap of about 1.5 to 2", plus the 1/4 space of the bottom of colander itself.
The means I have to boil a LOT more water. That takes more time, uses more water and energy.
It seems like a gap of just 1/2" or so would be sufficient to "insulate" the bottom of the pasta from the hot bottom of the pan. (And I've boiled pasta for years without a colander inside (so zero gap) fine).
I don't know, but see the serious eats article on pasta with much less water.... I just drain into a colander. Primitive I know, but effective. http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html Frankly, I think the inserts are expensive and look fancy on television, but are impractical in real life--the reasons you mention are part of that. Then there is the issue of their sheer size, storage, and cleaning. No thanks.
I have the same question and came to the same conclusion as @SAJ14SAJ: they're impractical and more of a pain than a colander in the sink.
Neither of the pasta insert pots I've used have a gap of 2". The anonymous sheet steel pot has a gap of about 1/2", and the caphalon has a gap of about 3/4". I think you're just using the wrong brand. Oh, and I agree with SAJ; pasta inserts are useless for pasta. I use mine for steaming veggies and making stock.
@JoeFish ...on the other hand, usually I like to lift the pasta from the water, if I'm finishing the cooking of the pasta in the sauce, in an open, shallow pan. 1. there is a fuss-free source of pasta-cooking- water to help emulsify sauces. 2. you can keep the pasta and sauce warm on top of the pot, without overheating it.
You might have given the answer in your question. If the device is to be used as a steamer as well, then there has to be enough room at the bottom of the pot for steaming. How much is enough? There are two things to consider:
The bottom section should hold enough liquid that there won't be concerns about boiling the pot dry for anything you might want to steam. Longer steam items might include mussels, lobster, or tamales.
There should be some 'air margin' for foods like tamales or broccoli, so that the boil splatter doesn't render the food soggy.
Based on FuzzyChef's comment, it sounds like there are tools that suit your needs better. Perhaps it's time to put your steamer on Craigslist? :)
Interesting point, although the pot has another insert (which leaves 6" or so of space between pan bottom and insert).
In that case, you've stumped me. Perhaps water conservation wasn't a design consideration?
I've noticed this issue too--that the pasta inserts do not go far enough down into the pot. Makers of a pot sold as a pasta cooking pot should not factor the possibility of steaming into its design. After all, pasta cooking does not require steaming in any way, shape, or form.
But, make no mistake about it, pasta inserts are very useful! They, most importantly, allow for the use of the slated water in which the pasta was cooked to be incorporated into sauce production. So, dumping the water down the drain through a strainer is a serious waste of the water's flavor and texture enhancing properties that could be lent to a sauce.
In any case, makers of these pots ought to dispense with imposing a multi-cooking dimension to pasta cooking pots, and instead make pasta cookware only. Most of us who search for these pots do not want a steamer built into it, especially since a good number of us already have steamers.
Try putting the insert in after cooking the pasta, and then pour out the water while holding the insert in place. The insert holds the pasta at the bottom of the pot. I haven't tested this with every size or amount of pasta.. but it works so well I have to assume this is the correct method... and boiling more water than needed because of a short insert would be very aggravating!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.964769
| 2012-12-04T22:32:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28901",
"authors": [
"Clay Nichols",
"Deanna",
"Eric Hu",
"FuzzyChef",
"JoeFish",
"Robin Betts",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"henry.oswald",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"juli harnett"
],
"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
}
|
15306
|
What is a substitute for Anaheim Peppers?
I am making a dish that requires Anaheim Peppers. They don't have them in my local store... what else can I use.
What sort of dish is it? This answer can very depending on dish. I would replace Anaheim peppers with Jalapeños on a burger, but may substitute for banana peppers if it was a salad.
Related, but up a few SHUs: Which mild pepper is a good substitute for Serrano pepper?
You need to substitute a mild pepper . . . be careful not to add something much hotter or you may change the whole concept of the dish . . . unless of course you are trying to kick up the heat a bit.
As suggested, a Poblano is the best substitute. Other names for Anaheim peppers are: California Green Chile; Long Green Pepper; and Chile Verde.
Poblanos are a good substitute, and are pretty common. any mild green pepper would probably be ok. (note: they also call anaheim peppers "new mexico", so maybe they are just labeled differently?)
They also just call them "green chilies", and New Mexicans would argue that this is the correct name. "Anaheim" is a mild varietal of the basic critter. Poblanos tend to run hotter than Anaheims---more like the green chilies they grow around Hatch, but they do make a good substitute.
New Mexico and Anaheim are apparently different peppers--the New Mexico are a bit hotter. http://www.foodsubs.com/Chilefre.html
They are the same pepper. Green Chile from New Mexico is bred hotter, so it is often classified differently for cooking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaheim_pepper
Hungarian pointed pepper. It's strong:)
Look for Cubano peppers or (less likely) Hungarian peppers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.965164
| 2011-06-07T23:00:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15306",
"authors": [
"Albatross",
"Ray",
"Wulfhart",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98881",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15402
|
What's the minimum time to cook raw prawns?
I typically cook raw prawns in boiling water for around 3 minutes. If they go over a little bit longer they can tend to become rubbery.
Is there a minimum/optimum time a raw prawn should be boiled?
Boiled?!?!?!?!?!
@ElendilTheTall - If you drop something in boiling water for 3 minutes, what else would you call it?
I guess he knows what boiling is but finds it strange to BOIL prawns. Usually they are not boiled but prepared in a pan. Fried. Roast. Pan-fried. Broiled. Sauteed...
@eckes - Prawn/shrimp "cocktail" is one of the most widespread and well-known dishes/appetizers that use the ingredient. Boiled.
There is an optimal temperature to which they must be cooked, independent of method (boiling, frying, whatever). This temperature is 50 deg. C. (This is lower than safety guidelines; if you want to eliminate the foodborn illness risk, you must eat rubbery seafood). Once the inner temperature of seafood has risen above that, its proteins undergo an irreversible change called denaturation, which changes the texture.
The time needed for reaching this temperature varies a lot. It depends on the size of the prawns, their initial temperature, the temperature of your water, on the total mass of water in the pot and on the total mass of prawns in the pot.
If you find it impractical to impale a prawn on a digital thermometer every time you cook, you need to experiment. Keep the variables I mentioned constant, and boil prawns for different times. Find out how much they need before they go rubbery, and then stick to it, keeping all the other variables constant. In your case, this will probably correspond to the three minutes you mention. For somebody else, who boils a different amount of prawns per batch, it will be different.
There is no minimal time, just as there is no maximal time. The minimal temperature for them to taste cooked is 45 degrees C., but you can eat them at lower if you don't mind them tasting raw. You can find the minimum time for your case as described above. The legal minimum temperature for US food safety is 63 degrees. You can't legally approximate it by time, you must use a thermometer, or, at home, you can go much above it just to make sure - when seafood turns stiff and dry, you can be sure that it has reached 70 degrees.
If you can snap it like a biscuit, you've probably gone too far :)
@Bruce - made me laugh out loud
I usually see to check if the prawns have curled and turned to a faint pink from the original light shade.
Though a useful tip, it doesn't actually address the OP's question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.965322
| 2011-06-12T13:37:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15402",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Bruce",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jonatan Cloutier",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rose",
"Sean McCarthy",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99413",
"razumny",
"zaruvi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11637
|
Instant coffee with only milk?
I like milk. So I thought of doing milk with instant coffee. I mean, I have coffee here but it says I should use water. I always use it with water and put a little bit milk.
Can I also use only milk without any water?
Milk is mostly water. Instant coffee will dissolve just fine in milk or even cream.
Of course, flavour-wise it's going to be more like a weak latte than coffee. That's essentially what a latte is - coffee and milk.
On a similar note I have always made instance hot-chocolate with milk. This works even when the instance mix contains its own powdered milk.
Or strong latte, depending on how much instant coffee you add
The principle is the same as adding instant chocolate milk powder to milk.
The end result is also similar: what you end up with is not so much coffee as it is brown-beige, caffeinated milk (so, something like a latte).
There's no problem with using only water. In the nescafés recipe (http://www.nescafe.com/worldwide/en/nescafe/Pages/Nescafe+recipes.aspx) for cafe latte, there's no water involved.
My grandmother's generation (in South Wales) would always make instant coffee using only hot milk. I would ask for it made with water, but she wouldn't dream of doing that for a guest, for fear of appearing mean.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no issues. With a suitable mug, you can heat the milk in situ in the microwave.
Not just Wales but my parents did this in SE England
I put milk in a saucepan for 4-5 minutes on medium heat. When I come back, the milk usually has a "skin" on it. Remove that with a spoon, and then pour the milk into the cup. I add a healthy spoonful of instant granules and some sugar, and it's as good as any coffeehouse leche...and way cheaper.
There are places in NE USA and Canada where you can go in and ask for "coffeemilk" - it is usually made with real coffee.
Go to India and a lot of places will serve you "char" which is tea boiled up with milk.
Whatever floats your boat ...
It is Chai /tʃaɪ/. Not "char" :)
Don't both terms have the same root? (Recently, in English ‘chai’ has come to mean ‘masala chai’, i.e. the (delicious!) spiced tea — or even any drink with similar spices. But it comes from the Hindi for ‘tea’. Similarly, ‘char’, originally ‘cha’, is much older but came from the same Hindi word. In fact, if you go right back to proto-Chinese, they share the same root as ‘tea’ itself…)
having instant coffee, or camp (chicory) coffee made with hot milk is the only way to serve it! Loads of regional variations on what it's called, I just know it as a coffee made with milk!
It won't split the milk, and if you have 1 spoon of coffee when made with water, add at least half a spoon again when making it with milk to give a rich, smooth flavour.
The only way? That's a bit far-fetched, right?
Just in case your coffee doesn't dissolve in milk. You always mix your coffee with little bit of water before pouring in milk
I usually just take a bottle (I have an eco-friendly aluminum bottle) and fill it with milk. Then I add some instant coffee, a tiny bit of sugar(helps the grinds dissolve), and some cinnamon or cocoa powder (to flavor). After that I just shake the bottle until it is mixed up very well. The ratio to how much of each ingredient depends on taste. And heating is really optional depending on how well you shake it. During the summer I usually don't heat my coffee because... well it's hot during the summer.
Anyway, if you try it and like it then the answer is most likely yes.
One of my fave summer drinks - dissolve instant coffee in a tablespoon or so of water, add half a glass of cold milk and a squirt of chocolate syrup, stir really well, top up with more cold milk.
I also add the instant coffee before heating the milk. It does make the instant coffee dissolve better. Oddly enough, I also heat the milk for 2:30-2:45 like Melissa. To top it off, I then add a creamer like International Delight into the brew and then mix it all together. It is absolutely divine. I personally don't like the taste of coffee that has been brewed in water. It is too bitter for me. Making it with milk seems to take away the bitterness and only leave the coffee flavor and whatever creamer I have added.
I grew up in Ireland & we drank this as kids. It was made with Sanka. This was easy to make, just pour milk into a sauce pan and then watch it to make sure it did not boil over. Then we would throw instant coffee and sugar into the pot, stir it up, pour it into mugs and drink it. Then we would make another batch 'lol' because even to a child's pallet it's 'friggen' great
The only thing you might want to consider if you are thinking of adding it to hot milk is a chance of splitting the milk. I would suggest you mix it with a tablespoon of hot water before adding the milk. Less change of splitting.
Or treat it like a cup of cocoa and make a slurry with cold milk first.
It's all about your palate and the flavors that you enjoy, like wine. Try making it side by side with water, then milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.965834
| 2011-01-30T00:16:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11637",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew Higgins",
"FooF",
"Frank Barcenas",
"J David Smith",
"Karen Williams",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mien",
"Mike",
"Rebecca Lee",
"Stephie",
"Stewart",
"Team",
"Vellocet",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"gidds",
"harithski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6858",
"mmmmmm",
"salac33",
"slim",
"user23888",
"user23890"
],
"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
}
|
52127
|
Xanthan Gum Use in Tamarind Chutney
How much xanthan gum should be used to thicken a large 24 quart pot of hot tamrind chutney to get a smooth pourable tamrind chutney when we cool? Currently use 2 lbs of corn starch but it spoils the taste of the chutney.
24 quarts would be about 23 kilos. Xantham gum is generally used for thickening in an amount of .15% to .5% by weight. So the expected range would be 34 to 115 grams. Start small, thickening with xantham gum can get snotty. Work up slowly, mixing thoroughly, until you reach the thickening you want. You may find that a combination of cornstarch and xanthan gum is ideal.
At the higher end of that range, I've had things get unpleasantly slimey. Often, a mixture of Xanthan, Guar and Locust bean gums is used to avoid the downside of using any of them to excess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.966290
| 2014-12-30T23:47:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52127",
"authors": [
"Amisha Ponda",
"Donald Mavor",
"Licensed Asbestos Surveyors LT",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zoya Kayani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"john dockum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103141
|
Delicata squash - good outside but not sure about inside
I cooked spaghetti squash recently and put the raw seeds and pulp in the fridge and it did smell a bit strong. But I ate the spaghetti squash and it was fine. Today I cooked delicata squash which was perfect outside, firm, not discoloured or moldy and the stem was fine too. Inside where the seeds are was a bit dark and smelled a bit like the pulp of the spaghetti squash I had before but a bit stronger but not rotten. The inside after removing seeds was a bit dark and slightly squishy. I was going to cut more of the inside out after cooking and then eat it. Not sure about this though. Do I need to compost/throw it away? Or can I cut around it?
Do you have pictures? It helps...
@JulianaKarasawaSouza no, I already cooked it but wasn't sure about eating it but I scraped out the inside again and it was fine after all. Thank you, I guess I was overthinking it but so many articles say to throw it away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.966413
| 2019-10-29T04:49:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103141",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94210
|
Electric skillet probe control burnt at end
I'm wondering if it's normal for the end of the probe of an electric skillet to look a little burnt and misshapen (used it twice). (Not asking if it's safe but wondering if others have seen this before).
I'm asking because I've looked online at other electric skillet control probes online and they look a little burnt too. The company said it's not normal and to return it which I probably will do but I wonder if I get another one will it happen again.
Also posted in Home Improvement stack exchange.
They said it was off topic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.966617
| 2018-11-24T20:31:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94210",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100814
|
How is meal prep safe after longer than three or four days?
Meal prep is usually meant to be a week's worth of meals but how does that work with the three or four days in the fridge most leftovers are considered safe for? Is three or four days too conservative then or are meal preppers risking their health with meals five days or so old?
Added: My question is, in spite of recommendations not to exceed 3-4 or 3-5 days in fridge, how are meal preppers doing fine with eating foods a week old? (I assume they are anyway). For example I have six day old chicken and veg I have just frozen and debating over that would be fine for a meal prepper I think but not fine if following the recommendations.
If you're worried you can always freeze some for the end of the week. Freezing helps anyway - you get as much variety by cooking fewer bigger batches compared to cooking many dishes at once.
To build on what Chris H mentioned ... see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/149/67
@Joe thank you. My point why are there two sets of rules, it seems that meal preppers go with up to 7 days with food in the fridge but nearly everyone else goes with 3-5 days. I understand what food safety people say and it's better to freeze stuff but meal preppers seem to get away with one week in the fridge. I'm wondering about the disconnect between the two. This is one example of one week in the fridge. https://www.asweetpeachef.com/meal-prep-for-weight-loss/
@padma The issue you're seeing is different risk tolerances. The official guidelines are meant to be safe for everyone, and thus declare food unsafe very quickly. They have a low risk tolerance. An individual may choose to accept a higher risk of illness in exchange for convenience. Storing food for 3 days might mean a 1 in 100 000 chance of getting ill, whereas storing for 7 days might mean a 1 in 10 000 chance (numbers are completely made up by me). The risk is 10 times higher, but you're still going to not get ill most of the time.
@Johanna is right. Those 3-day guidelines (24h for rice) apply not just to home cooking but to catering, including catering for people without healthy immune systems. That also means large numbers of people exposed to one potential issue, so you've got to build lots of safety margin into the rules. Purely as an anecdote to indicate , I don't always cool things as fast as I should or use them as quickly as I should, but I've never given myself food poisoning. There can't really be a binary safe/not safe switch when you're talking about bacterial growth
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.966694
| 2019-08-19T05:53:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100814",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"padma",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91219
|
Worms in salmon
I bought fresh wild salmon today and when I got it home there was a tiny, live worm clinging to the plastic wrap inside. I overcooked it to 200 degrees Fahrenheit. So that should be enough. My friend said not to eat it as worms are a sign it's bad. It wasn't firm, it was a bit squishy like frozen fish even though it was fresh. The best before date is three days from now and it smelled fine (although I got the raw fish on my lip).
I've read this question but wondering if worms are a sign of fish being bad and if it's bad to eat even if fish is cooked properly and worms are no longer alive. Is fresh cod with worms safe to eat?
Edit: My question is 1) seeing worms in fish is it a sign of fish being bad or is it normal? It seems that people say not to eat it when they spot worms but if they are not noticed and frozen (sushi grade) or cooked properly we eat it. 2) Is it just a disgust factor or a real health concern (worms that are dead)? As I'm pretty sure most of us who eat fish end up eating the odd unseen dead worm in fish.
I would have returned the fish.
The answer won't be any different from the question you linked
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.966899
| 2018-07-23T01:37:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91219",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47669
|
Does unopened whole wheat flour have to be refrigerated?
The organic whole wheat flour that I bought is in a sealed thick plastic bag and has never been opened. Should it be refrigerated (or frozen)? And does opened white flour need to be refrigerated?
My question refers to unopened whole wheat flour. And the second part of my question refers to white flour which I now understand is better in the freezer. Thank you!
Possible duplicate? Does white whole wheat flour need to be refrigerated?
Whole wheat flour will turn rancid faster than AP flour because the germ contains oil. For best baking results you should use the flour within one month (opened and unopened) (source: 1 and 2). You can use the flour even longer but it will taste rancid and the gluten won't work as well as in new flour (source: 3). As far as I know there are no health concerns if older flour is used.
Flour can be refrigerated and be freezed. This will slow down the oxidization. If you want to use the previously chilled flour, make sure that the flour is warm then for good baking results. (source: 1).
Sources
1: Does white whole wheat flour need to be refrigerated?
2: How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
3. How to store flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967010
| 2014-10-05T03:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47669",
"authors": [
"Asterinne",
"Bruce Johnstone",
"Ching Chong",
"Greg Rosenheck",
"Steven Steve",
"colin simpson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"paul mccullagh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65811
|
Does jerky need to be preserved with nitrites?
I found some chicken jerky in the store that does not contain nitrites/nitrates or celery extract. Is it safe that way? Is it because it is dried? Thank you!
These are the ingredients from their website:
INGREDIENTS: CHICKEN BREAST, BROWN SUGAR, SUGAR, CHICKEN BROTH, FLAVORINGS, LESS THAN 2% SALT, SUN-DRIED TOMATO, GLYCERIN, FRUCTOSE, YEAST EXTRACT, BROMELAIN (FROM PINEAPPLES), ORANGE JUICE POWDER(CORN SYRUP, ORANGE JUICE SOLIDS), WATER, CITRIC ACID.
And the pork one:
INGREDIENTS: PORK, SUGAR, WATER, LESS THAN 2% SALT, SOY SAUCE [(WHEAT, SOYBEANS, SALT), MALTODEXTRIN], FLAVORING, SESAME SEEDS, YEAST EXTRACT, SESAME OIL
Can you include a photo of the nutrition label (with the ingredients list)? That will help us explain what's likely giving it shelf stability.
Please use the edit button on the question to add this information to the body of the question rather than as a comment.
"Flavorings" is likely to include celery, which is a source of nitrates. Celery is a common home kitchen nitrate ingredient which is why it's in so many recipes where celery isn't really a star ingredient.
Yes, your nitrite-free jerky is safe to eat. Nitrites are only one possible method of preservation, along with smoking and salting the food.
Welcome Victoria - I removed the health claim from your answer because it is specifically off topic for this site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967133
| 2016-01-24T22:58:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65811",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"DAVID Atma",
"Debbie M.",
"Debra Helgren",
"Eddie",
"Escoce",
"Jamey Epperson",
"Rohan Talbot",
"Rosina Butt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49749
|
Earthy tasting frozen salmon
I got out some wild sockeye salmon that had been in the freezer for quite a while (several months at least, not more than a year). It was vacuum-packed, no freezer burn, sealed properly, etc. I cooked it very well but while it smells and looks okay it tastes earthy and a bit undercooked (even though it's flaky and opaque). The texture is fine. I stopped eating it but wondering what this is about.
I cut it in half while it was still raw and washed the knife and then used it for salad ingredients. If the knife wasn't washed well enough could the raw salmon cause me a problem? Thanks!
Edit: Does anyone know what the taste might mean? Or if it might mean it's not really edible? I did eat a bit and am fine but I guess we have taste buds for a reason so I should probably avoid it. I am curious as to what might have gone wrong.
Once when traveling, I stayed in a town where all of the water smelled like dirt to me. (taking a shower, getting water at restaurants, etc). The locals must've gotten used to it, because when I brought it up, none of them noticed it, but another person staying at the hotel had.
Not likely. Wild salmon is pretty low on the list of foods that can cause harm because of cross-contamination, particularly salmon that has been frozen for an extended period of time. Undercooked fish is considered risky more because of potential parasites than bacteria. Months in the freezer is going to pretty much eliminate any risk of consuming a live parasite. Plus, the toxins that can be found in fish are not particularly common in salmon. If the fish didn't spend too long in the "danger zone" either before or after freezing, you've got very little to worry about.
A good point on the freezing -- 'sushi grade' fish doesn't actually refer to the quality; it typically means that the fish has been frozen for the required amount of time to kill parasites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967281
| 2014-11-13T22:38:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49749",
"authors": [
"Chris Mehl",
"Denise Epperson",
"Joe",
"Karen Deck",
"Mayur Musale",
"Roger West",
"Terry Richards",
"Victoria Blum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89738
|
Raw turkey leaked in shopping bag - how to clean other groceries?
I bought some raw turkey drumsticks and put them in a plastic vegetable bag at the store. When I got it out of the grocery bag to put it in the fridge I saw that the shrink wrap had broken and the outside of the package was wet (inside the plastic vegetable bag). Some of my other groceries looked very slightly wet so I assume they could possibly have gotten a little turkey liquid on them. How do I clean them? I wiped the other groceries with vinegar using two different paper towels, I'm not comfortable using bleach on food though. Can I rinse the cucumber and oranges really well or is that not enough?
And is it safe to eat the part of turkey that was exposed? I assume the plastic film was too thin for heavy turkey drumsticks.
If you're concerned about cucumbers and oranges, peeling them seems like a very straightforward solution.
I would proceed considering the rest of your product was contaminated. That being said anything that was contaminated can still be brought to a temperature of 165°F to ensure safety. (Oranges can make a good sauce and cucumbers are great for pickling. Many other vegetable are great fully cooked.) I would not risk treating the surface as contaminants can spread. For this reason I always keep a separate bag for product I eat raw and a separate bag for product that could pose a cross-contamination risk.
As for the exposed turkey I would assume safety based on what you told us. Unless you believe the package was tampered with your biggest drawback to exposed turkey is the may drying out.
Note that the 165 degrees is Fahrenheit. This should be specfied (too small to edit but important).
Sorry, this is a over-cautious, you don't need to cook everything to make it safe! Wash the vegetables thoroughly in soapy water, then rinse them in clean water. Peel the oranges and cucumbers before you eat them, job done.
@GdD of course this is overly cautious. Most food safety precautions are. If this were my product I would still follow this plan. First are you certain that the contamination is only on the skin? Did you verify there were no punctures? Are you certain cucumber and oranges were the only things in the bag? If you feel a less csutious approach is warranted i urge you to write a competing answer.
@ChrisH I agree its important and editted accordingly
I believe @GdD is in Europe somewhere while bruglesco is in the US. Food poisoning is both more prevalent and more feared in the US than here (we have plenty of things like campylobacter on raw poultry in the UK too but less salmonella)
@ChrisH I am in the US (hence my awkward assumption of F) and poultry is particularly feared here. I wasnt being snarky when I suggested an alternative answer. It would be good to have alternative views as thats what SE is predicated on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967453
| 2018-05-10T19:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89738",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Summer",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92911
|
Picking through dried beans - many discoloured ones - moldy?
I was picking through some dried white beans and found a lot of discoloured ones, way more than usual. They smell fine. Does this mean that they are old (best before date is a long way away) or just poor quality? They are organic beans.
I don't want to be eating beans with mold toxins.
Can you add a photo or two?
If they hydrate they are not old. Does not mean they do not have a problem.
Discolored how?
@Stephie they are not as grey as they look in the photo. Thanks!
@FuzzyChef I added a photo but the ones soaking in the pot look normal. The photo makes the ones taken out look grey.
The beans in your photo simply look old and/or low-quality (the farmer didn't pick out the bruised & marked ones). They should cook fine, but they might not turn out as well as you'd like. If you have another bag of beans you can use that's better quality, and time, I'd swap it in. Or you could just pick out the discolored ones.
If you want to be really cautious, you could taste one of the discolored beans. If it's actually moldy, you'll be able to taste it in the soaked, raw state; it will have a musty or cheesy flavor.
Coincidentally, we cooked dried beans tonight. Our typical practice is to wash the beans and pick out any discolored beans and discard them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967683
| 2018-10-15T04:54:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92911",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"padma",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117435
|
Do I need to soak fresh beans?
I have scarlet runner beans in my garden this year. I just picked my first batch of dry pods and shelled them. Most of the recipes I find online assume that you are buying or using dry beans and call for a 4-6 hour pre-soak.
I have cooked dried black beans and pinto beans before using a pre-soak, and the beans are usually hard and wrinkled before soaking and smooth and plump afterwards. My scarlet runner beans are already plump and smooth straight out of the pod.
Do I need to soak them before cooking? What about other bean varieties? If I grew black or pinto beans in the garden, would I need to soak them?
No, you don't need to soak fresh shell beans.
Unlike their dried counterparts, shelling beans don't need a soak before using. Most fresh shelling beans require from 20 to 30 minutes to cook
The Spruce Eats
I'm not sure where they got the idea that most fresh shell beans take 20-30 minutes. You'll find recipes that vary from 10 to 60 minutes of cooking time.
Here's a recipe from the New York Times (maybe behind a paywall - sorry) that has you cook beans for 55 minutes: Shell Bean Ragout. And you may appreciate that this recipe specifically mentions scarlet runner beans as one of the varieties that would work here.
Shell beans take less than half the time to cook than their dried counterparts. Look for varieties such as mottled pink and white cranberry beans, also known as borlotti beans; large scarlet runner beans that are mottled and purple, despite the name; and pale yellow cannellini beans.
I have never seen fresh black or pinto beans being sold, but my guess is this has to do with economics, rather than edibility.
Lots of beans are toxic until they're cooked properly, which is why they're cooked at the factory and rarely sold uncooked. Scarlet runner beans are minimally toxic [according to random google results, YMMV] but definitely cook them properly to avoid digestive unpleasantness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967808
| 2021-10-06T21:08:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117435",
"authors": [
"Sammitch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79368"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86193
|
Can I adjust the cooking time and temperature for my braise?
My recipe says to braise beef in the oven at 180 C/350 F for 1.5 hours. Dinner is in about four hours. Can I also get away with sticking the dish into the oven at a lower temperature (say 150 C/300 F or 120 C/250 F) and expect it to be just done for dinner? If so, to which temperature should I set my oven? Is there any way I can convert or calculate this myself?
This answer may be too late for you, but in general a braise can be done at a lower temperature as long as the food doesn't stay in the "danger zone" for too long. See this answer for more information on the danger zone.
For example, this recipe advise to have the oven at 300 F for an and hour per pound. In the tips section, it states that the author sometimes drops the temp to 250 F.
Braising is fairly forgiving and is typically a method used on tougher cuts of meat, so going slightly longer shouldn't be a problem.
Thank you for your answer. What is the "danger zone", and how can I figure out when my meat will reach it?
I edited the post to add this link to more information on the danger zone.
Hi @LittleMsWhoops, the danger zone is a basic concept of food safety. We have written up a short explanation of how food safety works under https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info, you may want to read it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.967959
| 2017-12-08T12:18:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86193",
"authors": [
"Dana Brunson",
"Little Ms Whoops",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63529",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81545
|
Dough getting into handheld mixer
Sometimes when baking the dough will quickly climb up one or both dough hooks of my handheld mixer and even end up in the machine if I'm not careful. Why is this? Is the dough too sticky, are the dough hooks turning too fast, is it something else?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18941 - this one is about stand mixers, but it's pretty much the same problem.
Sticky dough has the tendency to climb the dough hook. This is actually expected behavior and might only indicate that the dough has been kneaded properly and is done.
Whether the dough needs to be sticky or not does not correlate with its tendency to climb up the hook. Adding more flour to make the dough less sticky might create a dry product at the end.
Overall, kneading with a machine tends to need less time than with a hand, so if your recipe calls for a certain time and your dough starts to climb sometime in between, it just might indicate that you can stop kneading. The recipe should tell what the consistency of the dough should be.
Professional and semi-professional dough mixers have a mechanical baffle to prevent the climbing of the dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.968090
| 2017-05-10T08:10:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81545",
"authors": [
"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
}
|
49043
|
How to classify the parts of a recipe ingredient?
I'm build a recipe app/website, and I'm interested in how to properly classify the sections of an ingredient (as you would find in a cookbook or on a website) with regards to the terminology. Let me give an example of what I mean. Let's say an ingredient reads:
3 cups Ore-Ida southern-style hash browns
My best guess at terminology for the parts of this sentence fragment would be:
3 = quantity
cups = unit
Ore-Ida = brand
southern-style = variation
hash browns = ingredient
I'm not sure if this is correct, or if there's a more precise descriptive term usage for this. I'm interested in learning the proper terminology if this is not considered to be correct.
One more thing worth noting is that in 99% of cases, there probably won't be a brand at all, or if there is, it's not of significance. In addition, if an ingredient doesn't include a unit, I'm making an assumption that the unit is "count", (e.g.: "3 eggs" would mean quantity "3", unit "count", ingredient "eggs").
You say "parse" - are you actually asking about how to parse things, or just what to name the parts? And are you trying to know about everything? Notably, you've missed the really common case, "2 cups onion, chopped".
@Jefromi oh, c'mon... you could've kept to his example : "3 cups Ore-Ida southern-style hash browns, thawed". But if he's trying to do some sort of AI thing ... it's going to get messy when he finds "one small can of tomato paste", and has to know what size cans tomato paste typically comes in (relative to the time & place the recipe was written), and thus which is the 'small' one from the options. And then there's "one small onion, diced finely"
@Joe Sorry :( thought I'd go with a more common one. Anyway, yes, that's why I asked if this was supposed to be about parsing or just naming of parts (so that someone could enter it in a structured way).
The big thing you need to ask yourself is what measuring system (units) you're going to use. Unless you're specifically aiming towards a US audience, I would really recommend grams and milliliters. Forget cups; teaspoons and tablespoons are OK, but they're not completely consistent internationally. Plan on giving both Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures.
I'm not posting as an answer because, to @Jefromi's point, I am not fully clear on what is being asked. This question (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14912/new-takes-on-recipe-format?rq=1) and the answers to it may be of some help.
Just a note to amplify the comment from @Jolenealaska above - US audiences aside, for consistency in preparation and for scaling the number of servings up or down, it is probably best to avoid volumetric measures like cups for non-liquid measures. If you are simply trying to create a database that faithfully recreates specific quantities as expressed on (say) the back of a box, then never mind - but if you are trying to create a searchable scalable database, you should probably stick to weights for all ingredients except, perhaps, for water, butter, and milk.
@StephenEure : that's great if you're starting from scratch, but as he mentioned 'parse', it's possible that he's trying to take existing recipes and break them down into component bits. If you're trying to make a recipe reliably scale, then yes, use weights ... but then you're also excluded all of the people who don't have kitchen scales.
@Joe It's a pain (especially for scaling), but the best answer for an international readership is probably both. King Arthur Flour does that on their website (toggle between grams, ounces and volume). I love that.
@Jefromi To clarify, I'm looking for what to name the parts, not how to parse them. Sorry for any confusion there.
@Jolenealaska : for a system that I maintain (not cooking related, but has units), we store two values -- the 'display value' which is what our source told us the units were, and an internal value that we use for all of our calculations (matching for searching, etc.). If you're going to convert recipies, it'd be a good idea to do something similar ... one value for scaling, but keep the original for display & provenance.
@MattHuggins : you should edit the question to clarify ... there are enough comments on this now that your clarification will get buried.
Good suggestion, I've edited the question.
Matt, what you're doing is my day job (cooking is only my hobby) and I can tell you that while it's a great thing to ask experts, you'll never get all the variations by just asking. The human mind is tuned to abstraction and thinking of the most common patterns it has seen, while for information architecture, you want to gather all the edge cases. If you want to do it right, you need recorded data as a source, not humans. Go out there, look through existing databases, cookbooks, blogs and your friends' notebooks with grandma's recipes, and gather all schemata you find.
This is an exercise in data modeling, more so than cooking.
What you are describing is the design of your database.
You are on the right track.
You will want to consider how many of each of the fields you need to have. For example:
Quantity - Unique [there will be exactly one of these]
Quantity unit - Unique [exactly one]
Brand - Unique [optional] (either one or none)
Variation (or style, or preparation-note) - Non-unique [optional] (0,
1, or many)
Ingredient - Unique
Initial cooking temperature - Unique
I.c.t. Units - Unique
Preparation Instructions - (you have a decision whether to make one block text, or a series of fields which may or may not be used)
Cooking Instructions - (same as Prep. Instruction)
Cooling Instrutions... et cetera
ADDITIONAL:
To your question about when multiple modifiers might be used with an ingredient:
You might have an ingredient which is expected to be prepared at the time of cooking. So: "minced onions, blanched". It would seem that order might be important to you here, as well. As you see here, there are two styles (I just realized 'modifier' might be a more all-encompassing field-name).
So you might typically see the descriptive nature of the ingredient listed like this (although maybe not the exact verbiage - I'm not sure if this exact ingredient has ever been listed). So you would have to make a decision as to whether you could have 0+ modifiers listed before the ingredient, format with a comma, then have 0+ commas after the ingredient.
Naturally the comma would only appear if there were >=1 modifiers listed after the ingredient.
Since I have thought about how infrequent you might see minced onions, blanched...you might instead see shredded red potatoes, salted and peppered. There are many considerations with respect to how modifiers could used, to be sure.
One more word - in database design, you'll want to take as much time as you can to develop pre-authoring/programming. Any minor change to the database schema could cause you to have to start all over again. :)
Add a bare minimum, add 'quantity qualifer' ('1 heaping tablespoon', '1 scant cup') ... but quantities aren't always one ... '1 cup + 1 TB' ... and then we get into '4 TB, divided'
Good points. My response is meant to invoke another way to think about the process. It isn't intended to be a final solution.
@JasonPSallinger - Thanks for helping to break it down. This is definitely what I'm looking for. Do you have an example of what an ingredient with "many" variations would look like? (Also, thanks to Joe for pointing out the qualifier.)
Sorry, but you are missing lots of cases here which are not "canonical", but very common in real-life recipes. To take quantity as an example: it can be zero (people just say "chocolate flakes", implying that you'll add as many as you want until your cake looks beautiful to you), one, or a range, such as "4-5 apples". Or an "or" phrase, as in "3 large or 4 small onions". And don't forget "salt, to taste", where there is no quantity at all.
Okay, to make this easier to digest, I'm going to do this is a whole w/ sub parts. Square brackets donote optional parts
Basic recipe:
<quantity> <ingredient>[, <preparation>][, "divided"]
Quantity:
( <number> [<qualifier>] [<units>] )+
Ingredients:
[<brand-name>] [<preparation>] <item>
... now, you might notice that 'preparation' shows up twice. That's because sometimes the preparation comes before the measurement, and sometimes after:
2 onions, diced
1 cup diced onions
10 cups spinich, sautéd
1 cup cooked spinich
... I didn't go into details on 'preparation', as it's quite complex. (could be multiple steps, 'peeled and diced', or it could be qualified 'finely diced', '5mm slices')
Quantity may show up more than once (1 cup + 1TB).
"divided" is a note that the ingredient will be used in two different steps of preparation. Sometimes it'll be specified in the ingredient line ("2 TB + 1TB"), but not always.
update : bah, the update isn't quite the same as the comment ... because when you're dealing with what to call things, there are often multiple acceptable terms. For instance, 'quantity' could also be 'measurement'.
Great info, thank you! No worries on there being synonyms for what to call things, I'm just kind of looking for some kind of insight to make sure I'm considering everything and know how to organize everything when relating the data. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.968217
| 2014-10-19T18:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49043",
"authors": [
"Abi",
"Bob Mayo",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Gary Kopier",
"Guilherme Gonzaga Moraes",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matt Huggins",
"Scott Cameron",
"Stephanie Kienzle",
"Stephen Eure",
"Steve woodall",
"The Home Of Comedy",
"Tim Shapley",
"Zohre Aslerousta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"qaphelani mthembu",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33579
|
Balance overly sweet liqueurs
When dealing with particularly sweet liqueurs, in particular Midori (a very sweet melon flavored liqueur), I tend to find their sugary nature overpowering the rest of the drink. What is the best way to balance this out, while still retaining the flavor components of the liqueur?
The options I've considered:
Use less of the offending liqueur. This tends to be the simplest option, but I also lose out in the addition of flavor to my drink.
Saltiness. Rimming the glass with salt works great with tropical style drinks such as Margaritas, but seems a bit out of place for more urban cocktails.
Tartness. This seems like the best option, but which direction to take? Lemon or cranberry juice are my first impressions, especially when working on top of a base liquor.
The first thing you have to remember is that you're never going to make an extremely sweet liqueur with a delicate flavor, like an amaretto or melon liqueur, into something it's not. You can complement or supplement, but you'll never mix a Midori drink that loses the sugar while keeping the melon flavor in the forefront; you'll either have to live with the sweet note or you'll cover the melon if not blow it away completely.
The recipe I always use when experimenting with cocktails is "two parts strong, one part sweet, one part sour". You pick a mother liquor (your 80- to 150-proof "base"), add a sweet note, usually a sweet liqueur like a curacao or amaretto, or a syrup like grenadine, then balance it with a sour note like citrus juice, pomegranate juice, or sour liqueurs like limoncello, sour apple, sour cherry, etc). This usually, if you choose em right, gives you something close to the flavor palate you were after when you chose the three parts; then you can tweak the proportions to balance the individual ingrediants' strengths and weaknesses.
For instance, tequila, triple sec and lime juice in these proportions makes a decent "up" margarita, but many will find it too strong and a bit sour; the traditional mix is 7-4-3, which compared to the 8-4-4 (2-1-1) experimental mix brings out the sweet but also-citrusy triple sec a bit more.
Back to the case in point; Midori is your "sweet", and it definitely is so. It's also on the fruity side, so you can either complement it with herbs or cream, or supplement it with more fruit, but don't try to make Midori something it isn't with something like smoke or earth (translated; stay away from whisky unless you're willing to drink your mistakes). Lemon/lime juice is usually a winner as a strong fruity sour note. Pomegranate juice is less powerfully acid, but also less citrusy, so if you don't want it to taste like a lemon lollipop you can give it a try. The problem is that mixing red and green gives you brown, so it won't be particularly attractive. I've used vinegar-based liquids as a sour before (try vodka, vermouth and pickle juice sometime) but it's not the right note for Midori. Chambord (black raspberry; generally more tart than sweet) could be promising; never tried it. Chambord is 33 proof and Midori is 46; those are different enough in specific gravity (as a rule, higher proofs are lighter and sugar is heavier) that if you're careful, you can layer them Midori over Chambord, which makes a Christmas Shot (red and green).
Bitter can also counter sweet, but you have to be REAL careful; forget the 2-1-1 mix and just put your strong and sweet together, then add a dash of bitter at a time until it balances. Campari is an option (the "Sloppy P***y", if you dare to Google that term, has Midori battling Campari and gin among other things), but I've never cared for it as a mixer and don't keep it in my personal cabinet. Anise-flavored drinks, such as Galliano, ouzo or absynthe, have a bitter note as well as some colors and other properties that could make an interesting looking drink. Most people forget that chocolate is actually a bitter flavor, and it's only candy because chocolatiers slurry up the cocoa in a heap of sugar, cream and butter. You can try a dark chocolate liqueur like Mozart, Sabra or Godiva Dark, mixed with Midori and/or a base like white rum or vodka (again, try layering them when you see a difference more than about 10 proof; you're playing with a nice vivid green here, so let it show).
There's nothing wrong with keeping it on the sweet side, either. Cream can complement sweet nicely without adding more sweet or trying to take it away. Bailey's does add more sugar, so be careful with that one. Milk/cream, vanilla ice cream etc are all good avenues to add a cream note while keeping Midori's melon flavor and not making it sickeningly sugary. The Green Russian is a take on the White Russian (vodka, Kahlua, milk) substituting Midori for Kahlua. Bols Parfait d'Amour (they start with blue curacao and add vanilla, almond and rosehips which make it purple) is 54 proof, so it'll layer on top of Midori, making a Mardi Gras.
Sodas will add a little acid, a little bitter and a little sweet, and are good to water down the syrupy consistency of Midori. Midori and ginger ale and an M7 (Midori and 7-Up) are obvious choices; I'd stay away from cola as you'll descent back into syrupy sweet land again. Try adding Midori to a vodka spritzer (club soda or tonic water) to sweeten it a bit.
Stay away from other syrupy-sweet ingredients. Grenadine is a no-no unless you're layering a shot and need a heavy red. Midori and amaretto generally have the same place in the profile, so one is typically used instead of the other to change up a drink.
Despite anything I say to do or not do, you'll find an example of something that works if you look hard enough. For instance, there is a Scotch and Midori drink called a Wicked Sky, and a generic whiskey/Midory cocktail called a Midtown Muse, both of which mix pit whisky against Midori which I recommended against. The Quick F**k is a layered shot of Baileys, Kahlua and Midori, mixing the sweet fruit of Midori with extra sweet and cream in the Bailey's against earthy Kahlua coffee tones.
"Dilution" with a neutral or complementary spirit often works well for me; adding additional spirits like vodka, or if it fits with the style of the drink, rum, gin or whiskey, can work well.
The sour is probably the most general purpose solution, but you can combine this with the lower-sweetness spirit attack, and I think the Midori Sour is one of the most popular cocktail variants with Midori. Lemon, yuzu or meyer lemon plus egg white and some form of whiskey, vodka or gin would be a sensible starting point. Cranberry is often pre-sweetened and I think will only be overloading the complexity of the flavor of the drink at first even if you use pure cranberry juice.
Additionally, dilution via club soda is another viable route, as it reduces sweetness.
Consider the Amaretto Sour as a source of inspiration, which has a different flavor profile but the same problem as far as the sweetness of the top note spirit. Jeffrey Morgenthaler does a nice write-up of his approach to it. http://www.jeffreymorgenthaler.com/2012/i-make-the-best-amaretto-sour-in-the-world/
Edited to add:
It occurred to me that in Japan another drink with Midori was occasionally offered that probably offsets the sweetness of Midori, which is the "Midori Milk". Nothing more than Midori diluted with milk. I suppose you could use buttermilk or other variations. I don't have a lot of experience drinking Midori so I can't say whether it would work well or not, but I have done a similar thing with a sweet green tea liqueur.
Good link. I may have to try mixing it as a Fizz, but cutting the simple syrup. I feel like it will wind up tasting a lot like melon Fanta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.969037
| 2013-04-18T05:01:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33579",
"authors": [
"Crystal Haas",
"Cynthia",
"Juraj Ahel",
"No name",
"Shai Almog",
"Shruti Joshi",
"WLPhoenix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87629",
"user79141"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43820
|
Preserving whole potatoes
What is the best way to preserve potatoes for a long time with minimal loss of nutritional values?
I tried freezing, but the potatoes lost their taste and were unsuitable for cooking.
I tried cutting and drying, but the result was again tasteless.
When I just put the potatoes on the shelf, sometimes they remain good for a long time, but sometimes they rot. How can I lengthen their shelf time, and what is the maximum shelf lifetime I can hope for?
You could try cooking the potatoes before freezing them. In particular twice-baked potatoes and mashed potatoes take well to freezing.
How to Preserve Potatoes Without a Root Cellar on the Westphoria blog that discusses how to build a container so emulate a root cellar.
You could also experiment with lacto-fermentation, using either raw or cooked potatoes. Fermenting foods not only preserves them, but also generally improves their nutrition by making micronutrients more bioavailable.
Here is an interesting technical article about potato fermentation
Here are some comments from PaleoHacks on fermenting potatoes.
In The Art of Fermentation (p. 230) Sandor Katz briefly discusses potato fermentation. He describes fermenting cooked potatoes with other fermenting vegetables (though there's no reason you couldn't ferment them without the other vegetables).
He also references Jenny McGruther (of Nourished Kitchen), she has a recipe for fermented potato chips that demonstrates a basic fermentation technique. The technique is basically to slice the potatoes thin, then mix with water and a starter culture such as whey or a starter culture packet.
In The Mind of a Chef, season 1, episode 6 (or maybe 5), chef Rene Redzepi (of Noma) briefly discusses the process of aging potatoes to intensify their flavors, it might be interesting to you.
+1, also, if you have the equipment, vacuum sealing cooked potatoes/potato mash (incidentally, which you could have previously bagged and cooked sous vide!) goes into the freezer well.
The ideal storage for potatoes is approximately 42 to 50 F / 5.6 - 10.0 C in a dark space, with good humidity. This is historically what root cellars were for. With proper storage you should be able to get them from one harvest to the next—but ideal storage is rare at home. Nonetheless, at least a few weeks is more than reasonable.
Burying them in clean sand can be effective.
For more information than you ever wanted to know, see this article from Options for Storing Potatoes at home (PDF) from the University of Idaho extension.
Our substitute for a root cellar is a fridge turned up warm. I ate celeriac from there tonight that went in there in December. A good use for a spare fridge if you have one
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.969602
| 2014-05-01T19:48:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43820",
"authors": [
"Courtney Enokson",
"Dave B",
"Dee",
"JASON CLARK",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mervin",
"Ming",
"Spammer",
"TUI lover",
"Thorkil Værge",
"Toulouse12",
"Yuli9691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46660
|
What to do with dehydrated potatoes tainted black?
I had many potatoes I wanted to preserve for a long time. Usually the potatoes I keep in my kitchen get rotten after a month or two (and I don't have a cellar to keep them cool), I decided to dehydrate them. So I grinded them in a food-processor and put in a food-dehydrator in 65 Celsius. After several hours they became dry but also got colored black - a strong black color on the (previously) white potatoes and a weaker color on the red potatoes.
Is there anything useful I can cook with these potatoes that turned black?
Did you peel them before grinding them?
@GdD yes, I peeled them.
Throw them away. I would not expect potatoes to go black in the dehydration process, and although they may be safe to eat I would not expect them to be palatable, or inviting in any way. You cannot be sure they aren't toxic, and you wouldn't put them on a guest's plate, so chuck them.
Indeed. They do go black after a long exposure to air in room temperature so any other indicators of foulness are void.
The potatoes sat on the shelf for a long time and my wife didn't want to touch them. So you are probably right... I will have to throw them away.
Hey, it was worth a try.
The color on the potatoes is attributable to the oxidation that's a natural degradation process. The main cause is the direct exposure with open air but other factors can accelerate it (even the metal on the knife or the food processor's blades in your case). Some vegetables are more susceptible than others (for example, avocados turn black in a matter of minutes). There are some methods to slow this transformation like a bath in water mixed with some acid (lemon, vinegar ...) or baking soda.
Now the good news: the result of oxidation is not toxic, the worst thing is that the more the process goes on the more vitamins the food lose. In your particular case, I think the food-dehydrator contributed to the oxidation.
Since now they're dehydrated you sould regenerate them with a liquid and then you can try to cook them (maybe some puree) but you won't get back the nice clear color, they'll keep looking ... bad.
Oxidation is indeed common in potatoes, but it is a warm brownish colour. I doubt that somebody will describe it as "black".
@rumtscho I agree with your comment. I don't know, but wondered if the low temperature of the dehydrator over a period of several hours could have possibly made them unsafe to eat. Any ideas on this?
@CindyAskew the danger zone starts at 60 Celsius, so it is just high enough not to be unsafe. Some unusual handling could allow bacterial growth though, or the potatoes could have caught some culture which is heat resistant. 60 Celsius doesn't stop all bacteria from multiplying, just the common disease causing ones. Frankly, I have no idea what the cause is based on that description, chemical and biological is both possible - but simple oxidation sounds very unlikely.
I think this extract from a book could help understand the problem a little more or at least, since there's a color picture, try to understand if it the same color @Erel-Segal-Halevi is referring. It's the description of a homemade test, so you won't find lab measurements or particular references to papers or pubblications, sorry about that.
@StefanoDriussi the black color on my potatoes is similar to the black color in the top of the two cups.
Black is most likely mould or droppings. Throw it out.
I just dehydrated things for the first time yesterday, mainly russets. I saw something in the instructions about preparing potatoes but neglected to follow through. They were reeeeaaally black. I mean, they brought to mind black mold. But I knew it couldn't be that. They taste fine, but aren't attractive. I'm going to use them as snacks over the coming week. I ain't scared. It's not like I'm serving them to guests, which I wouldn't do.
Next time I'm blanching, as strongly recommended by the following website.
http://www.gettystewart.com/dehydrating-potatoes/
I dehydrate potatoes all of the time, you need to slice them then boil them for 6to 8 minutes drain the water good then you can dehydrate them, if not they will turn black.
TL;DR: Blackening is a thing with potato. Grinding makes it worse!
The blackening/browning of potatoes when exposed to air is caused by a type of enzyme known as a Polyphenol Oxidase (PPO). These are incredibly common enzymes found throughout plant and animal life; they are what causes avocados and apples to brown as well. They are at the highest concentration in potatoes in the vascular ring a couple of millimetres below the skin and in the medullary rays within the flesh of the potato. You can see these structures in freshly cut potatoes - the rays that come out from a centre point are the medullary rays and the vascular ring is a slightly darker line than runs around the potato just below the skin. They are normally there as a defense mechanism against damage to the potato, and you need to break the cells to expose the enzyme to oxygen for it to activate.
PPOs cause browning or blackening of potatoes depending on the variety of the potato and how much of the enzyme you have present, and some varieties it is quite high and results in a blackish colour, as seen in the following image for D6 (second row) from reference1:
and this one from reference2:
Note that for both of these they are only looking at the cut surface of the potato, they haven't ground the potato and then very gently cooked it. In the question, OP suggests that the ground the potato and cooked at 65 C in a dehydrator. Reference3 in figure 4 suggest that PPOs are inactivated after 10 min incubation at 65 C, with a temperature optimum of 30 - 40 C in potato juice (PJ) and purified enzyme (ppPPO). Based on my use of dehydrators, I would have thought that it is unlikely that the potato reached 65 C quickly and had plenty of time to oxidise, especially as the potato was ground. We'd need to know the variety of potato used and have a temperature profile to work out if that was really the problem, and not something else, but given that the potatoes were ground I think it highly likely.
I don't believe it alters the taste of the potato too much, but it certainly looks unpalatable.
References:
WANG, L. & WANG, W. & ZENG, L. & SUO, H.C. & LI, C.C. & SHAN, J.W. & LIU, J.T. & LUO, H.M. & LI, X.B. & Xiong, Xingyao. (2020). Characteristics and differences of polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase activities and polyphenol content in different potato (Solanum tuberosum) tubers. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 18. 8171-8187. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1806_81718187.
Chi, M., Bhagwat, B., Lane, W.D. et al. Reduced polyphenol oxidase gene expression and enzymatic browning in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) with artificial microRNAs. BMC Plant Biol 14, 62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-14-62
Bøjer Rasmussen C, Enghild JJ, Scavenius C. Identification of polyphenol oxidases in potato tuber (Solanum tuberosum) and purification and characterization of the major polyphenol oxidases. Food Chem. 2021 Dec 15;365:130454. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130454. Epub 2021 Jun 24. PMID: 34256230.
The black is from not being blanched before the dehydrating process. They should be perfectly fine to use, just not attractive to look at.
There's already another answer with the same info, just different wording... Please avoid repeating existing answers if it doesn't add anything new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.969874
| 2014-08-26T05:20:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46660",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Cindy",
"Eduardo Espindola",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Gabriel Miles",
"GdD",
"JOSEPH JOHNSON",
"Jon Toogood",
"Kelly Wright",
"Luciano",
"Peter Schaer",
"Stefano Driussi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6607",
"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
}
|
46661
|
How to seal a jar with a jam so that it can be opened without breaking the lid?
When I make a jam, I put it while it's hot into a jar, then close the jar with its lid (a single-piece, screw-on metal lid) and put in cold water. After doing this, I can usually keep the jam outside the refrigerator for months. But, when I try to open the jar, it is very difficult and in many cases I have to use a plyer to fold the lid open.
Is there a way to seal a jam for long-term preservation, such that it can also be opened easily?
EDIT: I just bought a jam at the supermarket. It is canned just like my jams - in a glass jar with a single-piece screw-on metal lid. It can remain on the shelf for months without refrigeration. Opening it is very easy - I just twist the lid slightly and it opens. I don't need to use force or any special tool or technique. The lid remains intact and can be used again. HOW DO THEY DO THIS?
Are you using canning jars with ring and lid? The way you describe it, it sounds like you might not be...
No, I use a standard jar with only a lid.
Something meant for canning, or reusing a jar from something else?
This jar: http://www.huberman.co.il/ShowCatalogItem.asp?ID=1514&CatID=150 clean and new (not used before), but not specifically meant for canning.
So it's just the lid from the two-piece ring-and-lid? (it'd be difficult to use pliers to 'fold the lid open' if it was a commercial jar lid.
@Joe It looks a lot like a commercial jar, a one-piece screw-on lid.
I guess they at least have the little pop-up/down bit in the middle, so you can verify that you have an airtight seal? Without that, I'd be worried that you could even get a physically tight seal (the threads are wedged somehow) without it being safe.
@Jefromi : I only saw the glass portion in the link ... no metal lid. Was it in a subsequent link? (I can't read hebrew, so couldn't dig into it). ... and trying to fold back a commercial lid without breaking the jar in the process would be much more effort than just trying to break the seal by twisting)
This lid? http://www.huberman.co.il/ShowCatalogItem.asp?ID=123&CatID=150
@Jolenealaska yes.
A stupid question this late -- but are you using a canning funnel? it not only helps to get the food in there without making a mess -- but also making sure that you don't get stuff on the top of the jar edge or threads, where it might glue down the lid.
You just need to work out your forearms more. :)
If food gets on the rim of the jar it can greatly add to the friction after the lid is on. It actually makes the whole process unreliable- the food might prevent a seal from forming or it might harden and make the lid difficult to remove- either way make sure the rim of the jar is clean.
Canning jars create a vacuum when the heated air in the jar contracts. This vacuum is what holds the lid on tightly. You can alter the strength of the vacuum in two ways:
1- leave more air at the top of the jar (called headspace).
More air means that a smaller percentage of the air will be forced out and the seal will be weaker. Be careful that you don't make it too weak. If the seal fails the food will spoil.
Jam recipes meant for normal canning jars will include the recommended headspace. You should start there with your experiments.
2- Let the jam cool a little before applying the lid.
This will also result in less air being forced out and a weaker seal. This is something you can experiment with but it would be more finicky than #1. If you do try it, watch your jars closely for a while and put them in the fridge if the seal fails.
The canning process for jam in normal canning jars usually includes boiling the jars afterwards to ensure the jars seal properly. With those lids, sealing too strongly isn't a concern as the lids are disposable. Even with your jars, you want a very strong seal. If you are having trouble opening them perhaps you should try using a tool that will give you leverage but not damage the lid.
I just bought a jam at the supermarket. It is canned just like my jams - in a glass jar with a single-piece screw-on metal lid. It can remain on the shelf for months without refrigeration. Opening it is very easy - I just twist the lid slightly and it opens. I don't need to use force or any special tool or technique. The lid remains intact and can be reused. HOW DO THEY DO THIS?
This. I have never had any issues opening jars of my own jam (similar to store-bought ones) as I use a funnel to fill my jars. However, I have found other people’s home-made jams difficult to open at times. Upon closer inspection, they turned out to have bits of jam all around the rim and the threading. Keeping the rim and threading clean is key. I’d still put on the screw cap immediately, as I am worried that letting things cool down while the jar is still open might affect shelf life.
What's always works for me is to run the lid under hot water. Not sure of the scientific principle of this but it works. Maybe the metal expands. Maybe the air molecules that contracted when the jam cooled and created a vacuum expand when the air around it is heated reducing the vacuum and thus the seal. Maybe both. Either way it should work.
It's a bit of both. (Steel expands 2 to 3x as much as glass for the same temperature change, and the air expands, too.) It's also possible that it softens the material that's around the edge of the lid to make the seal.
From your comments, I'm not 100% sure which style of lid you're using.
For a two-piece ring-and-lid, you just need to lift the lid slightly ... the lid is a disposable item, and you shouldn't reuse it. You just don't want to damage it so much that you can't keep a good seal (while in the fridge) if you don't use the item all at once. For this, I like the two-ended 'churchkey' style bottle/can opener, using the bottle (blunt) side to pry the lip up slightly 'til the seal breaks.
For a commercial-style lid, I hold the jar from the bottom, at about a 30 to 45° angle from completely upside-down, and tap around the edge against either the floor or a heavy wooden cutting board. (a surface with some give, but enough mass to absorb the impact). This can (but won't always) break the seal so you can more easily open the jar.
If neither of these work, you can try putting the lid under running hot water -- some people think it's to soften jam left on the jar lid (and it might do that), but we're actually more interested in heating up the air at the top of the jar ... this will reduce the vacuum pressure from the canning process, and make it easier to open. (although then it's wet and slippery, so you likely want to dry it so you don't drop it in the process).
...
and, when all fails ... for commercial jars, I like channel-lock pliers. For two-piece lids, you use the sharp side of the church key, or an ice pick to release the pressure, then change out the lid for fridge storage.
I got a silicone trivet / potholder that I finds gives me pretty good grip for one-piece jar lids. (before I go to the channel locks)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.970496
| 2014-08-26T05:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46661",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Grahn",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Jane Staszak",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie Peel",
"Sanita Rhodes",
"doubtlessTITAN liftedfarmer1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mxybi",
"user149408"
],
"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
}
|
52049
|
What to do with dried vegetables that feel like a chewing gum?
Several months ago I dried some vegetables, mainly cabbage and carrot. I cut them to thin small slices using a slicer, dried them in about 50 C, and stored in glass jars.
Now, I opened the jars and tried eating them. Their look and taste is OK, but their texture has become hard and chewy, like a chewing gum. When I eat them, I need to chew them for a very long time before I can swallow.
What can I do with these vegetables?
How did you dry them (e.g. what size of pieces) & how are you eating / preparing them?
Definitely sounds like either the drying process or the storage process has gone wrong. I think most likely the storage but we will need to know a little more in order to help you.
Rehydrate them :)
Of course they will be the texture of thinly sliced rubber tires when eaten raw.
What you want to do is rehydrate them. Probably the easiest way would be adding them to a stew and simmer / boil them until the entire dish is done. You will need some extra water, though.
You could also try soaking them in water over night like one does for dried fruit / muesli, then drain and use them.
Thanks! This worked great for the carrot. However, the cabbage still feels like rubber tire even after many hours in water...
Did you cook or just soak the cabbage? I would expect it to be edible when stewed (perhaps after a good soaking).
maybe this is why people don't commonly dehydrate cabbage.
@rumtscho : yes, but people also used to have cold cellers, so they didn't need to. (and they could've stored carrots in there, too) Personally, I think sauerkraut is the way to go for putting up surplus cabbage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.971148
| 2014-12-28T19:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52049",
"authors": [
"Coby Smolens",
"Doug",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"James Agostinelli",
"Joe",
"Josh Allen",
"Ming",
"Southern Recon Agency LLC",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35973
|
How can I preserve an orange (peel) for as long as possible?
Not really cooking-related, but I thought I might ask here anyway. I got some signatures on an orange, and want to preserve them for as long as possible. Should I peel the orange? Freeze it? I heard something about moisture-controlled refrigeration?
I'm willing to spend up to about $40 US, so of anyone has any ideas about this that'd be helpful. Thanks!!!
EDIT: Picture of what I'm trying to preserve
This is highly unusual and I doubt that there is a method which guarantees that the signature will remain legible. I recommend that whatever you try, you make a test run on an orange without sentimental value and see if the ink stays in place. It is possible that a non-cooking method (e.g. epoxy embedding) will work best in your case.
Dehydration may be a reasonable option as well...
To make it clear: if an answer appears which centers around a method producing non-edible results, we will have to delete the answer as off-topic. But I think we can keep the question itself, as it can produce interesting culinary answers.
Could you post a picture so we know what we're working with and trying to help you preserve?
@waxeagle - Here ya go: http://imgur.com/a/QxbVm Thanks!
If it were me, I would have it encase (dipped) in polyurethane, poly resin or acrylic as you would in making a paperweight.
The orange might still decay inside epoxy ... Maybe you could somehow candy the orange while leaving it apparently whole? Candied orange is going to keep very long, if you make sure there is not gonna be a mold problem...
Some inks are likely to be soluble in sugar syrups.
Speaking of dehydration, it is possible to dry out a piece of orange peel. If you do it properly so it does not rot or get moldy, it will last for years, although it will gradually use its aroma. The problem is that it will shrink when dehydrating, resulting in a worse-looking surface and possibly distorting the signature. A largish section is also practically impossible to flatten, so you will have to live with a curled piece-of-sphere shape. The end product is very stiff and somewhat brittle, with irregular surface whose color is a darkened, somewhat dirty looking orange, not the bright hue of the fresh peel.
You can find instructions for drying orange peel for use in teas or as ground spice. The way we used to do it at my parent's home was to put a single layer of peel pieces on a high shelf and let them sit there for a few weeks. This will not work if your climate is humid, so you might prefer a method using a dehydrator or a low oven.
This site has not only instructions, but also a good picture of the end result. They remove most of the pith (the white part) to prevent bitterness, but in your case, it is preferable to leave 3-4 mm to ensure structural integrity. You can leave all of it if it is a thin-peel variety, but remove some if it is very thick, because you risk rotting and bad texture and geometry.
Whole fresh oranges, refrigerated, should last 1-2 months per Eat By Date.
You can freeze orange peels (or any citrus) very successfully.
When you have a sufficient quantity, you might choose to candy them, which should last at least several weeks if stored in a cool, dry environment, probably months if well dried as part of the candying process.
You can also try freezing the juice, but the quality of fresh orange juice tends to be ephemeral. You may be better off enjoying it immediately.
Candied peel preserves well, but it may change its visual properties drastically. So maybe not too good for a signed orange.
In truth, I had no idea what "signatures on an orange" meant.... I assumed it was a translation artifact. If it is meant in the sense of an autograph, well, drying them is probably the best bet--but that would't be a cooking question.
Asking how to preserve orange peel under the constraint that its visual appearance is undisturbed is a cooking question, even if the motivation behind it is far from culinary. So I think that we can provide some options. But I agree that there will be other options outside of a cooking field, which may work better here.
From a culinary point of view, I stand by this answer :-)
+1 Freezing whole peel for visual and oil, freeze juice for active ingedient use
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.971345
| 2013-08-12T17:35:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35973",
"authors": [
"Diana",
"Dmitry Meshcheryakov",
"Gustavo Novak",
"Jaxon Basra",
"RedMolly",
"Robert Fraser",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84359",
"joachim",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"wax eagle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45054
|
Is smell a bad way of determining whether meat is still good?
I have always relied on my sense of smell to determine whether meat (most often chicken) is bad and I thought it was reliable. However, I have just heard that [1] smell is not always reliable, since some of the toxins produced by bacteria won't cause any smell whatsoever and you won't be able to notice that the meat is off until after you've eaten it.
Is this true? If yes, is this true for all meat or only for some? Is there a more reliable way of determining whether meat is still good.
[1] "Heard that" isn't very reliable; so that's why I'm asking the question here. :)
It is absolutely untrue and very dangerous to think that "if it looks OK, and smells OK, it must be OK." If that were the case, food poisoning would be very rare.
Food that we can sense is spoiled rarely causes illness. For one thing what you don't eat can't hurt you, and people generally won't eat food that looks or smells spoiled. But less obviously, much of what causes spoilage that we can taste, see or smell is actually fairly harmless to humans. Spoilage and rancidity are terms that are often used interchangeably, but rancidity is actually a specific kind of spoilage, caused by the relatively harmless oxidation of fats which is unrelated to any kind of bacteria or other microorganism. It's just a function of time, temperature, oxygen, and light. Fancy dried cured meats get a fair amount of their special flavor from controlled rancidity. Molds and yeasts cause food to spoil, but are also used in controlled ways to create flavor. Dairy cultures are bacteria, and bacteria plays a major role in fermentation.
What causes illness and death are usually things that we can't taste, see, or smell. Salmonella, E. coli and C. botulinum are often undetectable by our senses. Mishandled food that has been heated to temperatures far hotter than is necessary to kill any and all dangerous organisms can still kill if those organisms have produced chemical toxins or deadly spores. We often can't sense those either.
That's why the rules exist. It is critically important to take care to keep food out of the dreaded "danger zone". Foods that are considered unsafe unless cooked to a specific temperature ARE unsafe unless cooked to that temperature (although government recommendations in that matter are often overly conservative, there is room there for assessing your own risk). Preserved foods must have appropriate acid, salinity, sugar or other tested preservatives. Stored foods must be kept at the proper temperature. Dried foods must be dried correctly. Canning procedures rules seem overly strict. They are not. Learn the rules, disobey them at your peril.
There is a lot of good information here under the food-safety tag. We are not making this stuff up. The CDC "estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." That's just in the US where food handlers (home and professional) are mostly educated in basic food hygiene and just about everyone has access to a refrigerator. The worldwide figures are staggering.
But those pathogens would be killed by cooking, so that's not the problem. The problem that I was talking about is toxins produced by the bacteria that won't be destroyed by cooking. Most of the toxins I was aware of give off a clear smell, but 'apparently', there are also toxins (in meat) that don't do that.
@Ben: Bacteria are killed by cooking, but the cooking temperatures provided by food safety agencies are specifically designed for typical levels of contamination found at the supermarket and so on - not for petri dishes containing billions of times more bacteria than normal. It's true that toxins are the more serious issue because they can't be killed, but even with the bacteria, it's not a "yes" or "no" question, it's a "how many" question; even if there were no toxins, you might have to considerably raise the cooking time and temperature to kill the additional bacteria.
@Aaronut Actually, some toxins can be "killed" by heating. The biological effect of proteins depends very heavily on their shape, which destroyed by suffient heating. This process is exactly what causes egg white to change from a slimy, almost colourless liquid to an opaque white solid when fried; in fact, it's why heating kills the bacteria that made the toxin, too. The botulinum toxin is a protein that denatures at 80C but please do not assume that you're safe from botulism if you heat something to 80C.
@DavidRicherby: You're covering subjects that have been extensively discussed on this site. Toxins can't be killed because they aren't alive. They can be denatured, but for many toxins the denaturation temperature is so high that your food would be charcoal if you reached it. Thus we simply consider sufficient bacterial contamination to be an unrecoverable situation and tell people "when in doubt, throw it out".
@Aaronut That's why I put the word killed in inverted commas.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Basically there is no right or wrong advice here, mainly because most people don't know, and have never learned to trust their senses. Long story short: After cooking or flavoring there is no halfway reliable way determining 'rotten' foodstuff.
Long story long:
We're the product of billions of years of evolution. Two centuries ago nobody knew about bacteria, microbes, their toxins and what really happens when food gets spoiled, no freshness dates and so on. But we wouldn't have lasted a decade without sensing spoiled food before eating a stack of rotten meat. So YES, we CAN detect rotten foodstuff. It's just not easy, involves quite a bit of trial and error, and overall depends on your cleverness not to eat something that tastes bad.
Let me give you an example: The botulinum toxin is produced by different specimen of clostridium botulinum. It is one of the most toxic substances mother nature is able to throw at us, and it's undetectable by any sense (unless it's too late). BUT: One must be a quite stupid fellow to get lethally intoxicated (by spoiled food, that is - not counting the Botox faces). So why is it that hard to die of this poison? Clostridium is a bacteria that loves meat (as almost all microorganisms do), but it hates oxygen. It won't grow colonies on the finest meat if exposed to air. To maintain the metabolism it can't just produce the quite complicated toxin, it has to digest something, like proteins, fat or sugar. During this digestion it produces massive amounts of substances we can detect, like butyric acid, acetic acid, acetone and other fine stuff nobody sane would eat. In fact most people will instantly feel a strong urge to gag or even puke if presented with the acid-sweet smell of botox meat in the morning. [ed. Please refer to the comments. I suggest the struck-out text is dangerous if understood to be the whole truth.]
The same is with almost all other food poisoning stuff - if your fish smells like it has had a quite long sunbath, it most probably isn't save to eat any longer. If your chicken feels like somebody oiled it with egg white, it has had some quite similar treatment by some small guys you dead sure don't like to eat.
So eat and drink as you fancy, but don't eat stuff that tastes awkward (and isn't supposed to do so - some people like funny tastes, and some tastes you have to get used to). Of course it will lead to wasting some food that still is good and proper, but it keeps you safe for a quite long time. It worked the last few billion years for a massive amount of species, why should it stop working now?
And, as others pointed out before: Microbes are no problem. LOADS of the wrong type present one. Some people can eat quite rotten stuff without any problems, for 1st-world citizens this won't work that good. You have to get used to the microbes you eat, and you will get a higher tolerance threshold for most toxins and microbes when eating/drinking mostly 'infected' foodstuff. That's why the average Indian can eat the ice cream on the market by the ton, while it will give you quite some friendship time with Mr. Toilette if just eating a small one.
By the way: Always being on the safe side is not that good either, because if you find yourself in front of the wrong plate one day, you will have the time of your life. Or not. Our immune system (and everything connected to it, like your gastro-intestinal system) is like a muscle - if you don't train it, it will always be weak and thus break down on every occasion. And most food poisoning problems (like salmonella) are breakdowns of your immune system and/or your gastro-intestinal flora.
@Jolenealaska's statistics on foodborne illnesses entirely undercut your point here. Yes, natural selection has given us some instincts that help identify spoilage, but these are heuristics and prone to potentially dangerous errors. They should not be relied upon, especially not when preparing food for others. This advice strikes me as questionable at best, and irresponsible at worst.
I would argue against most of your points because obviously we can't reliably sense if food is dangerous, because if we could, we simply wouldn't eat that food. One point that you bring up is valid. I call it "bubble-boy syndrome". I have eaten meat very, very rare my whole life. I've never been sick from it and I doubt I ever will. I'm sure I have strong and healthy e-coli busters. That's a similar phenomenon to your example of an American eating ice cream in India. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by trying to maintain sterility in the kitchen.
"[...] most people will instantly feel a strong urge to gag or even puke if presented with the acid-sweet smell of botox meat" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is only true for proteolytic strains, in which case group II strains of C. botulinum, being non-proteolytic, will produce neurotoxins without any strong odor.
@logophobe Believing the statistics of the RKI for 2011 and 2012 there were 9/0 incidents (2011/2012) for Botulism in Germany, 71k/62k for Campylobacter, 4/0 for Cholera, 8k/7k E. coli, 5k/1.5k EHEC, 880/69 HUS, 644/655 Legionella, 116k/113k Norovirus, 54k/39k Rotavirus and 25k/21k Salmonella, so roundabout 280k/244k incidents of potentially food related intoxications for 87M Germans who eat about 3 meals a day for 365 days a year. Given all incidents were food related (and about half were prepared by ordinary people) only 2.5 meals per million were contaminated. I'd say my point is valid.
@ChrisSteinbach Almost every way I know of producing butyric acid (and thus ATP in anaerobic environments) in bacteria relies on sugars or fat, both of which are plentiful in meat (being muscle). I think you're indicating SH2 (rotten egg), which in fact relies on proteolytic synthesis. The last strain of Clostridium I cultivated in lab was very keen on butyric acid (without being proteolytic); we exclusively worked under hoods and even then everybody smelled it.
@Metal_Warrior That might be an argument for your point if the only food safety standard being followed in Germany is "if it smells bad, don't eat it". But it is not. If anything, that's an argument for the effectiveness of modern food safety standards. It says nothing whatsoever about whether the "sensory" method of detecting spoilage is reliable. And I would continue to assert that such a method is most definitely less reliable than using government-issued safety guidelines.
@Metal_Warrior Reading the abstract of this study it seems possible that a higher initial spore count and a lower storage temperature make detection more difficult: "crabmeat homogenates inoculated with as little as five spores per 10g became toxic after 8 days at 50F [...] Growth at 50F and above was accompanied by gas production and a slightly sour odor [...] toxin production at 40F required 55 days or longer and inocula of 103 spores or higher [...] gas production was usually not apparent and no off odors could be detected."
@Metal_Warrior I just assumed that the paper I linked to would be behind a pay wall and didn't even try to download it. In fact the entire paper is available online for free.
@logophobe Over a quarter of Germanys population eats stuff they grow themselves (it's pretty common to grow your own fruits/vegetables in suburban/rural areas over here) - most of the time without initial antibiotic preparation. Also it's common practice to prepare food yourself, so cooking is part of most peoples everyday life. No food safety standards can be applied here. And yes, it's less reliable than government issued safety guidelines, since they aim for 100% safety at all costs (most 'spoiled' food isn't spoiled at all and thrown away nonetheless due to high security assumptions).
@ChrisSteinbach Most papers I can access (university).
The paper is nice - didn't know C. Botulinum is that sensible to temperature (of course we grow the guys at higher/ideal temperature). Basicly it takes 10³ spores in 10g crabmeat 55 days at 4.4°C to spoil the meat without smell. That is an almost insane time and temperature (for storage); hundreds of other species will grow and spoil the meat with distinctive SH2, NH3 or other nice odors/colors in the meantime. At 10°C it takes 10 spores 8 days to spoil the sample, with distinctive odor. I'd say that doesn't exactly kill my argument.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.972018
| 2014-06-22T12:08:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45054",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bassdread",
"Ben",
"Beth Kasten",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy Johnson",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy Bentley ",
"David Richerby",
"Horm Long",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonathan Brown",
"Justin Orr",
"Karen",
"Kendra",
"Lyla",
"Metal_Warrior",
"Mvo Oquendo",
"Nimra Javid",
"Polaris Elevators",
"SamEvans02",
"Skrunken Dunk",
"Spammer",
"Stanley Galloway",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"logophobe",
"shearss",
"sollyc123"
],
"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
}
|
38041
|
Why do my cakes turn mouldy?
My cakes get really mouldy/sticky within days if I don't refrigerate them during rainy season or when it's too hot. My cakes pass the skewer test before coming out of oven. This has happened for most of the recipes I have tried.
I try to make my cakes with lesser sugar and wholewheat floor instead of white floor. My temperature knob is wrecked - takes twice as long to bake. Has any of it got anything to do with my cake rotting sooner?
Any thoughts?
Isn't that normal in a hot, humid environment?
What I meant is that my home-made cakes rot significantly faster than breads and cakes bought from shops so much so that I'm scared of presenting my neighbours with a cake unless it is a completely pleasant weather.
Is that normal?
That we may be able to help with—could you edit the question to add in your recipe?
Also note that commercial cakes or breads may contain natural or synthetic preservatives, which can significantly extend shelf-life.
This is completely normal. Cake is a perishable item, much like almost any prepared food. It will spoil if left out unprotected.
Although during the baking process, almost all bacteria and molds that are present in the batter will be killed or reduced to trivial numbers, there are still countless mold spores present in the air.
The cake can also absorb water from the air if it is very humid (you mentioned the rainy season).
If the cake does absorb water (as opposed to drying out and getting hard), it will present a hospitable environment to the mold spores that settle from the air, and they will begin to grow. Very warm conditions only help to accelerate this process.
This is essentially the same process described in the answer to this question:
Is bread that can go mouldy better than that which does not?
Two of the best sources for shelf life agree that an non-refrigerated cake should last 1-2 days. These sources probably assume prevailing conditions in the US, including air conditioning in the summer. They are also looking at quality; cakes are also subject to staling.
Eat By Date - How Long Does Cake Last
Still Tasty - Butter Cake, Unfrosted
I can vouch for this. Shelf life for almost all of our products is reduced by 2+ days during monsoon season.
Pardon my noob question, but what is the reasonable time for cakes to stay fresh if they are not refrigerated during normal weather?
Sugar helps to preserve cake. What you would need to reduce are the invert sugars or glucose, as they tend to increase the moisture of the cake and can make it prone to mold attack when the surrounding temperature increases.
When I use less sugar in recipes, my cakes also turn mouldy within 2days max!! So maybe sugar helps in preserving cakes
Sugar does not help against mold, but it does help against microbes if used in sufficient quantity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.973047
| 2013-10-31T17:42:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38041",
"authors": [
"A. Kriegman",
"Allisa Braun",
"AmateurProgrmmer",
"Chris Beazely",
"Foodie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Swati Priyadarsini",
"daftarw88link2 spam",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89701",
"linkw88daftar2 spam",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73170
|
I put my cheddar in my kitchen cabinet
I don't know why I did this and still can't believe I did it in the first place. I was cooking yesterday and had taken out some cheddar cheese. When I went to put things away I put the cheddar cheese in a Tupperware container to put away. Instead I put the container with my cheddar cheese in a cabinet and didn't find it until this morning. The cabinet was warm. My cheese was obviously very soft to where you can see oils from the cheese.
Is my cheddar bad now? I put it in the fridge this morning trying to save it. Is it going to be safe to eat or should I throw it away?
Are you talking about a block of cheddar or deli slices? Was it hard/aged cheddar, or the soft, often processed cheese that is commonly sold in the US under the name "Cheddar"?
Just some common wisdom my mother taught me (neither of us cooking enthusiasts): "It's not worth getting sick over." ;) If you suspect it's gone bad, it's probably best not to push your luck.
They just dragged up some cheese from a 17th century wreck, and found it had gone off.
Some cheeses can be left out without any real problems, there are some aged cheeses that I buy regularly that can sit on the counter for two weeks.. I believe that cheese was created to help preserve other foods that would go bad if left out.
I think it depends on how well the cheese was sealed. I typically seal with plastic wrap, I will cover the entire block of cheese with the wrap and ensure that it is air tight. I don't know how well your cheese was sealed but I don't know that a tupperware container is the proper way to store cheese.
I would probably still eat the cheese though, I love cheddar.
If the outside is a little crusty, hard, dry or otherwise off from exposure, just slice away the outside layers, re-wrap and put it in the fridge.
Yup, should be just fine. Folks in other countries are somewhat appalled by how cold we in the USA store cheese (though cool rather than warm or cold tends to be what is preferred for cheese, and it sounds a bit warm if it got to oiling out - but no real concern.)
I wouldn't be worried about microbial spoilage -- hard cheese was invented as a way to preserve milk, after all -- but loss of quality.
@Mark, in some countries like the US, not all cheeses labeled "cheddar" are hard. Some "cheddars" are even soft, processed cheeses that are sold pre-sliced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.973316
| 2016-08-15T16:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73170",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Ecnerwal",
"Mark",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"jpmc26",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115212
|
Where do you want 90% lean beef?
The burger recipes I've found online called for rather fatty ground beef, like 80% or 73%. (Spruce eats: 15 - 20% fat), Smoked BBQ source: 15 - 20% fat, Taste of Home: 20 - 40% fat (sic!), Spoon university: 20 - 30% fat, The Kitchn: 20% fat, Serious Eats: at least 20% fat, Steve Raichlen: 20% fat.) I didn't pay attention and bought some 90% lean beef. I guess the burgers will still work out, but it got me thinking.
If everybody says you need fatty ground beef for flavor, in what kind of recipes do you actually want these 90+% ground beefs, and why?
"everybody says you need fatty ground beef for flavor" source?
In the city of Kobe.
This is partly down to taste. When you make burgers much of the fat runs out by the time it's done, so you need to start with a high enough fat content that the burger isn't dry when it's done. I've made burgers with 10% fat when that's all I can find rather than 20% (my personal ideal), and they are very tasty as long as you don't overcook them. I find the extreme of 30% which I've seen recommended in places to be too greasy, but again that's my taste - I find too much fat covers the flavor of the meat.
Where you have to be very conscious of fat, whether minced or not, is in dishes where the fat has nowhere to go, like stews, braises and casseroles. Very fatty meat in these can end up with a greasy end result, which is not to most tastes. I use around 10% mince and lean cuts for those types of dishes.
I think you could add to this that just as you prefer 20% fat over 30% fat, some prefer 10% fat (or even less) over 20% fat, so it's really a matter of taste for any recipe. Similar to spice, salt, and sugar content - they are generally considered good flavors, but everyone has their own preferences for how much of a good thing is too much.
I think the argument "This is partly down to taste" is slightly misleading. This would be like saying fluffy warm moist vs. flat cold dry pancakes is a matter of preference, or seasoned seared marbled vs. unseasoned boiled lean steak is also a matter of personal taste. Sure, SOME people might prefer a 10% lean burger but there is a reason why almost any restaurant burger in the world has 20% or more fat.
I use mince / ground beef in many dishes and in most of those low fat content is not a concern.
Stirfry, chilli con carne, cottage pie, spaghetti sauce to name a few.
Just remember to use some oil or fat if you put the meat in a hot pan, which you may not do with fatty mince.
If you have too high fat content you may want to take out the grease as part of your preparation, like they describe in this question. As seen in the related questions.
Spag Bog. Authentically it is pork but 90CL FHM is popular in my country. For sausage rolls you can mix the meat wth an exotic fat.
"...you need fatty ground beef for flavor…"
Presumably that's if you like the taste of fat - which I never have.
In the UK it's the fat content which is labelled, as opposed to the beef content, so your 80, 75, 90% would be called 20, 25, 10% over here.
20% is the fattiest I've seen here, which is always the 'cheap meat' on the bottom shelf. The top shelf 'good stuff' is 5% fat [95% beef] & that is what I use for everything, from burgers to chilli. If I need a higher fat content I will add oil or occasionally butter.
Burgers in the UK always tend to use breadcrumbs as a soak-up/binder. This keeps your burgers more tender too. Beef, an egg, chopped onion, breadcrumbs [optional salt/pepper/cayenne/dill]. I did once try just beef, but they came out a bit tough.
Hm, interesting. I always thought burgers were just the meat, maybe some salt. If you mix in breadcrumbs, onions and such, I'd call it meatballs. Certainly not bad, but a different thing. I don't want to taste the fat either, but maybe meat gets too dry without fat?
It seems to be a cultural 'thing' - US likes fatty meat for burgers with nothing else added, EU likes less fatty but it needs something else to soften the mouthfeel. EU meat usually has 10% added water, so that would be another reason for the needed 'soak up', idk how the US regs affect added water.
Personally, I prefer burgers that many may describe as "tough". I like 90-10 (90% meat, 10% fat) or even 95-5 ground beef/bison (bison is wonderful for burgers), zero fillers/softeners/anything else, and cooked so well done that the outside is partially blackened. As an American, I'm surrounded by people who find that a horrific recipe for a burger, but I love it. Blackened beef with ketchup is an amazing flavor combination (to me at least).
@ToddWilcox If you want your beef cooked to a crisp, you would want a higher fat concentration because that assists in the creation of the crust without overcooking the meat. Mythical Kitchen did a test of various burger myths, and they found that a 70/30 blend of meat and fat was the best for that of the three blends they tested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMZv8LJLvXI
@nick012000 My preference is that I don’t pay for fat that I’m not eating and that the burger not be greasy. My main point is that fat content is a matter of preference, there is no objective test that can tell us what tastes best because taste is inherently subjective.
Your ingredients list for UK burgers sounds like my ingredients list for US meatballs. Not really relevant, but I find it interesting. (Beef/bison/elk, egg, garlic, bread crumbs, onion on occasion, spices.)
To me meatballs are never all-beef, they're invariably beef/pork 50/50 otherwise too tough. As I said in the first comment, it's a cultural thing ;)
I'm an American but I always make burgers with the fillings you mention. In fact I just got done forming burger patties that had all of those. I find that they are much more flavorful and interesting than all-beef burgers. All-beef burgers can be good too, but I find they need a lot more toppings to make up for the lack of character of the patty
@ToddWilcox "pay for fat that I'm not eating".... it's the other way around - they charge you to trim the fat. A quick look on walmart.com/grocery in my area has 93% beef at $5.48/lb and 80% at $3.98. If we assume that the price of meat and fat are fixed, we can do a little algebra. We get ~$6.30/lb for meat, and ~ -$5.25 for fat. Note the negative. Another way to think of this is that if you buy enough 93% to get a full lb of actual meat, you pay 5.48/0.93 ~ $5.89 and if you buy enough 80% to get a full lb of meat you pay 3.98/0.8 ~ $4.98. The fat is cheaper than free!
@Him Interesting! I never made that calculation. Of course, if I bought the 80-20 it's not like I can take out the fat and only eat the meat. So maybe I'm paying to have that done for me?
@Robert: "Beef, an egg, chopped onion, breadcrumbs [optional salt/pepper/cayenne/dill]." In the US we refer to such a concoction as meatloaf, and meatloaf sandwiches are very popular in the greasy spoons (diners) where we hide our best burgers. Language is endlessly fascinating!
@ToddWilcox you can render the fat when you're cooking the edges to a crisp
@ToddWilcox Regardless of taste preferences, is blackening a burger like that safe, or is that charring evidence of the formation of carcinogens?
I sometimes make soup from a certain brand of soup kit. Italian Wedding. The instructions, not that I follow instructions well, call for molding small balls of raw ground beef and spice mix to drop into boiling broth. The meatballs then cook in the water. There's no chance for excess fat to dribble out as in a frying pan or grill. I want minimal grease in the soup, so I start with a low-fat ground beef.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.973636
| 2021-04-11T05:49:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115212",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Behacad",
"Him",
"JohnHunt",
"Kevin",
"Robert",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Steve Cox",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93403",
"mckenzm",
"nick012000",
"njzk2",
"user1271772"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45066
|
What to do with soggy mushy potato chips?
We had crispy potato chips (not french fries) made by a catering service. They arrived already a bit on the soft side, and on the next day they are quite soft and mushy. I don't like wasting food, so I am looking for ideas on how to turn them into a meal.
My first idea is to bake them, maybe with sauce like a gratin or casserole.
Any other ideas?
How much of these chips do you have? Are they commercially bagged? Or were they made by the catering service?
I've updated the question to make clear it's crispy chips, not french fries. They were never bagged and I have a lot of them.
Oooh. Fried scalloped potatoes in cheese. I think your gratin idea is the direction I would go personally.
Crush them and use them as a breading for deep fried meat.
What you can do with the potato chips (crisps) likely depends on how they've been cooked and how heavily seasoned they are. You'll likely want to leave out any salt from later recipes that you might try to make.
My first thought is much in line with your idea of a casserole, as I would be to try to make a potato kugel. The difference in available starch might give it a less than ideal texture, but if it works, it'd be a way to use up a lot of potatoes quickly.
My second thought would be to make something similar to a tortilla de patatas. You typically fry the potatos first, and then add the hot potatoes to beaten egg so it'll temper slightly, then pour the mix into a pan to cook ... which means cold potatoes might not work. Instead, we might look to a similar italian dish that uses leftovers (although it's leftover pasta, not potatoes). It goes by the name of Pizza di Spaghetti or Frittata di Spaghetti; you heat the leftovers in your pan, then pour an egg mixture over top. You may have to chop the chips up so the eggs can trickle through the potatoes. You either cook and flip, or slide the whole pan into the oven to let it set.
As you can add just about anything to fritatas, if you have a lot of potatoes to use up, it's nice that you can saute up other vegetables to add, or cooked meat (sausage or ham would be traditional, but might bring too much salt; you'll have to experiment)
If they're British-style chips (which Americans call "French fries"), you could just refry them; they should crisp right back up.
Could also crush them, add an egg (or not) and a pinch of pepper and make hash browns.
I think that would work fine for crisps (American chips) too. They also might be fine crisped up in the oven, especially if served while still warm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.974239
| 2014-06-23T02:19:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45066",
"authors": [
"Jackie ",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matteo",
"Preston",
"Robert",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie McCaffrey",
"blarg",
"clarkcoulam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"jsanc623",
"suktupbutterkup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65084
|
Scrambled eggs for a buffet
At our cafe we will begin offering a Saturday brunch buffet. I would like to do scrambled eggs and am thinking that they would be best cooked in a hotel pan in the oven. Any advice for this method of cooking?
Thanks!!
Hi and welcome - do you have specific concerns about the method? Have you tried it before? As written, this is a fairly broad question and it's likely to get closed.
How many portions of eggs are you cooking? Are they pre-cracked or are you going to be cracking dozens of eggs yourself? Do you have access to a large steamer?
The problem w/ cooking in the oven is stirring. You'll end up with a frittatta unless you're in there stirring it every so often.
I cooked a brunch for a fairly high end restaurant when I was younger. They had us cook the eggs in a buffet pan on top of the griddle/grill. We used pre-cracked eggs in a carton and folded constantly until they were done. Then we would transfer them into a fresh buffet pan before setting them out. They did it this way because it presented better than just baking in the oven. They look more like the scrambled eggs you get per order this way.
This is a viable way of cooking large amounts of eggs. From experience, I can tell you that a major concern is preventing the eggs from overcooking. They can be cooked in an oven if they're watched carefully, and it may help to cover them. It works even better to cook them in a combi oven, as heat can be transferred faster at a lower temperature.
When the eggs are cooked, you will have what is basically a large omelet, so usually you'd chop them up with a spatula before serving.
First do not scrimp on the ingredients. You need butter, not alternatives. you can cook quite a lot of scrambled eggs in one go (about 20 portions), remembering to take them off the heat before fully 'set'. I assume you have overhead heat lamps on your buffet, this will also cook your eggs. You/your staff will need to keep an eye on your eggs here, a quick turning of them in the serving dish will keep them looking fresh for your customers. But the only way to really serve large quantities of good quality scrambled eggs is to keep making smaller batches and keep them coming! Hope it goes well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.974502
| 2016-01-05T17:54:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65084",
"authors": [
"Alice Link",
"Anne Schrader",
"Cindy M",
"Claire Johnson",
"Danny Wylie",
"Joe",
"Karen Payne",
"User1000547",
"fitztapyahooca",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76999
|
heating ham at 200 degrees versus 325 degrees
If I am heating a fully cooked ham that directs me to cook at 325 degrees F for 20 minutes per pound (ham is 3.38#) and I want to heat it through at a 200 degree F temp. How long should I put the ham in the oven for?
Why do you want to heat it at 200? That's really low, to the point that it seems likely to stay at an unsafe temperature for quite a while.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Do you mean that you want the final temp to be 200°F, or the oven temp would be 200°F?
@Jefromi Why unsafe? It's already fully cooked. Slow cookers and some slow roasting dishes can be prepared at even lower temperatures.
@Robert Safely cooked food can still become unsafe if held long enough in the danger zone. It presumably takes quite a while for 200F air to get a refrigerated or room temperature ham above 140F. I'm not saying it's definitely unsafe, just that it's headed in that direction, so it's worth asking what the goal is. (And sure, slow cookers do hold below boiling like that, but the idea is to get up to that temperature reasonably quickly.)
Not knowing what kind of oven you have or what cut the ham is, bone in or bone out etc., I would recommend that you simply buy an inexpensive meat thermometer (less than $10 in most places) and check the ham's internal temperature every two hours or so.
Glaze the Ham. Put in oven at 170f at 9pm. Turn heat up to 350f at 5 am. Let brown. Remove & have some for breakfast. At 6am nice & hot.
Place ham on a rack in a shallow uncovered pan with the fat side (skin side) up so the ham will baste itself. 6) Roasting time is 30 minutes per pound of ham at 200 Degrees F. However it is recommended to use a meat thermometer and cook until the internal temperature reaches 155 Degrees.
You can cook it at 200 and you'll be just fine. If you've ever eaten smoked Foods they are cooked at a low temperature between 200 and 250. The weight determines the length of time that it takes.
Hi Chris. Welcome to the site. We appreciate your input and look forward to more. However, your answer to this question does not directly provide an answer (How long will it take?). If you can either edit it to address the specific question (that's our goal here), or delete it, that would be appreciated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.974728
| 2017-01-01T19:24:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76999",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
78545
|
Why does canned food expire soon once the can is opened?
Canned food can maintain 1+ year in good state. However, when you open the can, the countdown starts.
I read it happens because microorganism from the outside reach the inside of the can.
My question is: Is it possible to keep food inside the just opened can free of microorganisms? Maybe moving immediately to an airtight container and take out the needed amount with a cleaned spoon? (If a cleaned spoon still contains microorganism --- why clean it in the first place?)
Clean spoon does not have food to feed the microorganism.
You will notice that stuff in an airtight container does have less propensity of spoiling catastrophically and quickly if only touched with clean utensils - but unsealing the can still degrades the content from "sterile/pasteurized" to "very damn clean"!
No.
When you can something, the temperature and pressure kill bacteria and micro-organisms.
Once its exposed to air, you're exposing it to bacteria and micro-organisms. Despite you thinking the spoon is clean, it still has some bacteria and micro-organisms on it which will get into the food. And your "airtight" container is likely not nearly as airtight as a can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.974927
| 2017-02-19T20:47:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78545",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58721
|
How important are each of temperature, humidity, and vibration for storing wine?
I'm deciding whether to buy a wine chiller for my apartment, maybe this one. I could only realistically keep it on top of my refrigerator. The alternative would be to keep wine in my fridge (the temperature in my apartment often gets into the 80s which I understand to be unacceptable). People who take wine very seriously do not recommend keeping wine in the fridge for three reasons:
A standard kitchen refrigerator is too cold (35-38°F vs 45-60°F)
The motor in the refrigerator makes everything vibrate too much
Refrigerators are dry (30% humidity), whereas wine likes 70-90% humidity.
I need to know which of these actually matter for a casual wine drinker like myself. A wine chiller will address #1 for me (though I might get one that offers only a single temperature rather than separate from reds and whites) but I could also see keeping my wine in my regular refrigerator or giving up entirely. Unfortunately a wine chiller doesn't fix #2 for me since the chiller would be on top of my fridge.
Which of these three concerns, if any, should I actually be worried about?
BTW, the wine may wait around for a period of months before it gets drunk.
This depends largely on how long do you store your wine, if you plan to make a collection and store it for 10+ years the vibration probably can render it worse than cellar-stored, but personally I didn't noticed anything bad in wine that was stored at +5°C for 2 years in the fridge. Though I eventually installed the wine chiller as it's more handy - you don't need to warm the bottle before drink and it doesn't occupy fridge space.
By the way I've contacted Samsung to ask about max weight and load points of my fridge and they replied that the top of the fridge must be kept clear because of controller board cooling and it is not able to carry any load. So I had to install a shelf above the fridge. (wood blocks are just a safety measure, not loaded at all)
For a few months I would really not worry too much about your storage, half a year at 80F is not going to destroy your wine. If you have the space in your fridge then that is a better option, but I doubt even the most dedicated wine snob would be able to tell much of a difference.
Humidity only matters if you have wine with traditional corks as low humidity will dry them out and spoil the wine, if you are buying twist caps and synthetic corks then humidity is not a consideration. A few months in low humidity should not result in cork drying, but year will.
Vibration used to be a problem with older fridges, most newer fridges are pretty quiet and low vibration so I wouldn't worry there, especially for shorter term storage.
Colder temperatures for storage will not cause a noticeable effect on wine's flavor over a few months, you'll want to let it warm up some for the best flavor though. Storing an opened bottle of wine in the fridge is a good idea in fact, as it will keep it drinkable longer.
So unless you are buying expensive wine to keep for a long time you should be fine no matter which option you choose.
Little addition about humidity - it will affect cork much slower if bottles are stored horizontally, the 2 year bottle was showing no signs of cork drying in super dry no-frost fridge, also I have petraia 1999 which was about 4 years in the fridge and laying in the chiller now, I did not open the cap to check, but no leakage till now.
Good point on storing it sideways.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.975047
| 2015-07-02T04:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58721",
"authors": [
"Carol Davies",
"David Wilson",
"Eugene Petrov",
"GdD",
"Mary Lynn Tressler",
"Shirley Gealy",
"christian clift",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71205
|
Effect of xanthan gum on agar agar gels?
I just recently got into using agar agar to prepare solidified gels, and I'm wondering what effect adding xanthan gum to the mixture before gelling it would have. I'm particularly interested in trying to use the xanthan gum to replace fats in recipes like egg yolks.
Does anyone happen to know what difference one would note between a gel set with only agar(roughly 1 tsp powder per cup liquid) and a gel set with agar(same ratio) and the addition of xanthan gum before it gels (and how varying the amount of xanthan gum would provide different results)? If so I would greatly appreciate the information.
And if anyone happens to know the same information but for adding glucomannan instead of xanthan gum to an agar gel that would be helpful.
I don't know the answer, but I'll speculate. Agar is a water binder. Adding xanthan before the Agar gels, leads to the Q: can agar bind xanthan treated liquid? I suspect the xanthan will interfere with the agar jelling process.
@Paulb As far as xanthan gum goes, I tried it out myself with .5 cup water, .5 T agar flakes and 1/8 tsp xanthan and it did gel. I also made a control with the same water/agar ratio but no xanthan to compare it to. The one w/ xanthan was more elastic and "squishy" than the one with just agar. I still don't know for sure how glucomannan would affect it, but I suspect it would make the gel chewier and denser.
@user2649681 : it'd also be interesting to know what the effects are over time -- ie, does it fix agar's weeping issue?
In lower concentrations of Agar Agar you'll have weeping (Syneresis); Xanthan gum is generally used to lower syneresis when combined with other hydrocolloids. Apart from slight texture changes; you'll benefit from less weeping.
per this paper Evaluation of Blends of Alternative Gelling Agents with Agar and Development of Xanthagar, A Gelling Mix, Suitable for Plant Tissue Culture Media; Agar Agar + Xanthan gum (i.e. Xanthagar) is considered as an economically viable alternative for using Agar Agar directly. As XG cheaper compared to Agar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.975311
| 2016-07-04T11:49:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71205",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user2649681"
],
"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
}
|
76267
|
bread that does not get moldy
How can a bread have an expiration date of one year into the future?? The bread in questions is Deutsche Küche rye bread (from Aldi). Yes, it is a dense bread, but it is not dry like a cracker, so there seems to be enough moisture for mold to grow. There are no preservatives.
Edit (pictures added):
BTW: it does look like an authentic Schwarzbrot indeed.
It's the baking and packaging.
These dark rye breads are baked for a very long time (effectively pasteurizing them) and then sealed in their packaging. If you do this in a commercial setting that can ensure a mostly contaminant-free environement, such breads can last a long time.
Once you break the seal by opening the pack, your bread will get moldy like all other breads.
The very dense crumb structure and compounds in the whole-grain rye used might to a certain degree inhibit the growth of mold, but not enough to make the bread last for months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.975483
| 2016-12-09T03:12:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76267",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9815
|
How much dry ground ginger do I substitute for fresh grated ginger?
I don't use ginger enough to really justify getting it fresh, so how much of dried ground ginger should I use in recipes that call for fresh grated?
Fresh ginger and dried ginger are very different, the flavour, texture and properties are not overly similar that they can not readily be substituted for each other.
Having said that, in the instances where they can be substituted I have seen estimated from 8:1 up to 6:1 (fresh:dried).
s/can readily/can not readily/?
@dmckee: Corrected by a sed/perl sub, and they say that the other stack exchange sites are only populated by the SO overflow, cheers. ;-)
If you have room in your freezer, you can peel and freeze ginger whole and then grate it frozen into a dish.
You can also grate the ginger first, freeze it on waxed paper on a cookie sheet, then bag it all up in a plastic bag kept in the freezer.
For savoury uses, I buy a "cheat" ingredient when it comes to "fresh" ginger. Very Lazy Ginger, pre-chopped and preserved in a very mild white wine vinegar that pretty much evaporates on heating. I just do not use enough to keep on standby fresh and prefer it to frozen. http://www.verylazy.com/chopped-ingredients/2009/8/12/very-lazy-ginger-190g.html
@Doug - I don't know why that never occurred to me (especially since I dice or strip my onions and peppers, freeze flat, then bag), I'm going to try that next time, thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.975595
| 2010-12-06T01:17:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9815",
"authors": [
"Abhinav",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Kfemily",
"Linda",
"MrBill",
"Orbling",
"Yasir L.",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"helpless child",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85333",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36579
|
I am trying to cook Buta no Kakuni or Japanese pork belly but it's tough
I have tried cooking "Butta no kakuni" or slow braised pork belly. I watched a video on making kakuni from a check in Nagasaki. In it he used a Le Creuset dutch oven to cook the pork belly.
Cut the pork belly into 4 inch strips, cut those in to 4"x4"
lightly brown the cubes
add a large scallion, star anise, and a stick of cinnamon
cover with water add salt
after cooking - remove the water
add mirin, sake, soy, sugar and cook on low until well reduced.
It was cooked in a dutch oven - brought to a boil in the first phase, then simmered for 1 hour. The second phase was simmered for 3 hours. It's soft, but not super soft like I had in Japan, where it is like eating butter with a very luxurious and buttery caramelized consistency. I have to admit, I did not use a thermometer to check the meat's temperature through various stages
My question is: how does one keep the pork from becoming tough and how does one cook meat in general in a way that it stays soft, allows flavor to thoroughly permeate but stays whole without flaking and breaking too easily when plating.
I am not a pro, but I am passionate about this!
Some questions: How long did you cook it? What cooking method did you use? If you used the oven, what was the temperature?
I cooked it not in an over but in a duch/frech cocotte http://cookware.lecreuset.com/cookware/product_3-1%2F2-qt.-Oval-French-Oven_10151_-1_20002_59111_21057
Steve's answer is correct. 1 + 3 hours of cooking is not enough to achieve the butter-like texture you are talking about.
I've had good luck producing it in a reasonable amount of time with a pressure cooker. I don't know if you used naga-negi (which looks more like a skinny leek than a scallion) or not, but that will affect flavor more than texture.
In his book, Masaharu Morimoto says to cook it for 8 hours for the initial phase (in a 240F oven). He also includes brown rice in the initial cooking, which he says helps to tenderize the meat. He then refrigerates it over night and then cooks it for another 2 hours the next day. The recipe is reproduced on the Chubby Hubby blog.
If that doesn't get the texture you want, you could try a slow cooker or sous-vide. (Sous vide should be able to nail the texture if you get the temperature/time.)
The traditional way to begin to cook the pork belly for Buta No Kakuni is by boiling it in okara for a significant amount of time—say, 45 minutes. These are the left-over 'lees' from the creation of tofu, and may very well be free (as it is at the again-open Denver Tofu company) if you're fortunate enough to live by a tofu factory.
I suspect this little trick may be what is missing, as just because you cook the daylights out of something low and slow doesn't mean it's texture is necessarily sublime. The okara both tenderizes the meat and draws out a significant portion of fat. I will have to look up the ratio of okara to pork.
The -ni suffix at the end of the dish's title refers to nimono, "simmered things." The word kaku means "square cut," so you are preparing "Simmered Square Pork." The sauce is a version of teriyaki (add a tad of Chinese black vinegar if you can find it); gently simmer the pork in the sauce, to cover, until a bamboo skewer comes out easy, anywhere from 1½ - 3 hours, or even more, depending on the size of the cuts. (I cut mine in 2" cubes and they take less than two hours at altitude.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.975878
| 2013-09-06T17:43:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36579",
"authors": [
"BostonLop",
"David Given",
"Francesco Pileggi",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"JasonTrue",
"Jojo Mojoo",
"Martie Kruger",
"Mary H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85879",
"jc303",
"ryewaves",
"the911s"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40139
|
Japanese steak house menu item?
A few years ago in Chicago I had a dish called egg yolk shrimp at a Japanese steak house. Has anyone else had this dish? Where would I be able to find this dish again?
I think you're looking for shrimp with egg yolk sauce. Egg yolk sauce is simply a kind of thick mayonnaise which gets dropped on fried (or deep fried, or grilled) shrimp. The yolk sauce usually has some yellow food coloring in it to make it look more eggy. Using canola (rapeseed) oil helps with getting a nice color too.
It should be dead simple to do at home, you can make the yolk sauce ahead of time, then simply pan fry some shrimp and spoon it on the top. If you are going to bread the shrimp I'd suggest putting the sauce on the side so the shrimp stays nice and crispy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.976186
| 2013-12-10T16:48:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40139",
"authors": [
"Abdulkarim",
"Adrian Byron Burns",
"Josie Dungaran",
"Nicole",
"Samella",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38156
|
What's an appropriate shelf-life for refrigerated pre-peeled garlic?
Buying pre-peeled/crushed/sliced garlic is great because it saves so much time during prep -- hand-peeling and crushing garlic in the midst of of everything else is a big time sink. However, I've been told that pre-peeled garlic is one of the things that spoils quickest and is one of the leading causes of food poisoning.
Can anyone confirm this? And if so, what's an appropriate shelf-life for refrigerated pre-peeled garlic?
Knowing that I had a lot of use for garlic coming up, and seeing a big bag (whole peeled cloves, refrigerated) for very little money at Sam's Club, I looked at the "best by" date. It was a month out. That worked for me. I bought it and it's still going strong three weeks later.
There's no way that refrigerated pre-peeled garlic is a leading cause of food poisoning. Garlic left at room temperature in anaerobic conditions (e.g. in olive oil) is the most common cause of botulism specifically, but still very rare in the big picture - and I don't think I've ever heard of a confirmed case of botulism when the garlic was refrigerated. I've never tested the shelf life, but I'm pretty sure you'd see visible signs of spoilage before it became actually unsafe.
Instead of leaving it whole, mash/process it, mix 5 parts mashed garlic with 1 part salt and 1 part oil, put in small (even tiny) jars, pasteurize, refrigerate and you see many years of shelf life closed and at least a month or two opened.
According to one farm (Christopher Ranch), theirs lasts 7 weeks from the packaging date, and has a "best by" date on it.
I doubt this is identical for all sources, but it seems like a decent baseline.
As for botulism, I'm pretty sure what you've heard was related to keeping peeled garlic unrefrigerated in olive oil, which used to be a common practice, and is dangerous. Here's the original report on the incident that started it, and this article has more info on safe handling practices.
From my experience, it'll start to turn slimy and lose its texture and flavor near the end of its shelf life, and you won't want to keep using it. But as for health risks, you don't have much to worry about as long as you're keeping it in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.976286
| 2013-11-04T22:06:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38156",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lheau",
"Manav Vallemoni",
"SF.",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93290",
"ispiro",
"releseabe",
"user406942"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37327
|
Mascarpone and Almond pasta Sauce?
While in Italy I had a pasta sauce that was made with mascarpone and almonds (the almonds were ground fine) it had the look of Alfredo sauce. I cannot recall the name of the sauce. I have searched far and wide for such a recipe. Is anyone familiar with this sauce? If so, would you PLEASE share the name?
http://www.ricettegustose.it/Primi_sughi_vari_html/Pennette_mandorle_e_mascarpone.html no special name for it AFAIK, just "mascarpone e mandorle" meaning "mascarpone and almond"
@belisarius Your response should have been posted as an "answer", not a "comment" so that the question could be resolved.
@Allison In fact, I'm not completely sure about it "not having a name". I prefer to leave the answer to an Italian or someone more knowledgeable.
Try searching for "mascarpone e salsa di mandorle"
Here's an example recipe that I found.
http://www.subitoricette.it/ricetta-spaghetti-mascarpone-mandorle/
No mention of almonds in this recipe, but everything I have tried from this site has been absolutely fantastic. You could likely add finely ground almonds to this and arrive at something similar to what you had in Italy: http://www.italianfoodforever.com/2012/02/pasta-with-mascarpone-chicken-sun-dried-tomatoes-spinach/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.976490
| 2013-10-04T18:56:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37327",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Belinda Stronach spam",
"Coconut Juice",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Firewolf 3456",
"Karen McIntyre",
"Kristen Kamm",
"Tobbi Lowery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93251",
"lonjil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40100
|
Does an induction stove require flat bottomed vessels?
Does an induction stove require flat bottomed vessels? What materials besides stainless steel works for an induction stove?
Most reputable sources say that curved surfaces such as woks don't work as well on induction stoves. They even make special tools and cooktops for inductively heating woks. This phenomenum could be because of the angled surface or the extra distance from the cooktop, but it's probably both. It's not that these surfaces are immune to induction heating, just that they aren't efficient.
Angled surfaces won't respond as well to induction stoves since the maximum amount of energy is generated in a surface when it's flat with respect to the stove. (Magnetic induction is proportional to the cosine of the angle between loops, for those of you who want to know the physics).
Distance is probably the biggest factor. Induction works at a small distance from the stove (there are numerous examples on the web of induction heaters working through newspapers or a magazine.) However, the design of these cooktops makes it so the magnetic field that drives the heating dies off over a very short distance (For example, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health determined when studying their effect on pacemakers that the field is negligible after 10 cm or 4 in).
As far as what materials work, usually cookware that's induction cooktop compatible has a curly icon on the box to indicate this. Common compatible materials include magnetic stainless steels (not austenitic steels), iron, and carbon steel. The article on induction cooking on Wikipedia has a great explanation on what cookware works for induction cooking and why.
There common rule of thumb is that if a magnet sticks to the bottom of a pot or pan, it's compatible with an induction stove. Surface resistance is a more scientific measure, but to get the complete picture of why certain things do or don't work would require a college course in material electromagnetics. For a more detailed analysis, see the wikipedia page I linked. For most cookware these are only minor concerns compared to the magnet test, until you accidentally leave aluminum foil on an induction stove and it starts to melt.
It should be noted that cookware needs some inductive metal in it, but not all of it needs to be an inductive metal. Some cookware designed for an inductive stove has an iron bottom with aluminum sides because aluminum conducts the heat better for more even cooking. Clad cookware with a mixture of the right metals works too.
While an induction stove does not require flat bottomed vessels, the heating effect will reduce quite rapidly once the material starts to curve. This may be what you need, depending on the recipe you are working with, and this is not unique to induction cooking, though the effect is more acutely felt than on traditional electric hobs.
As for materials, induction will work with any metal that can be affected by magnetism. The quick check is to bring a magnet with you when buying cookware; if it sticks to the bottom of the pan or pot you are looking at, the pan or pot will work on an induction oven.
Any vessel that you can stick a magnet to will work with induction. The material to be heated needs to be in contact with the surface, so a curved bottom like a true wok will not work because there will not be enough surface area in contact.
The last part of your answer is wrong. Induction does not require surface contact at all. You can put a wooden cutting board on the stove and a pan on top and it will work. However, I am not sure if a rounded bottom will work or not, or else I would have answered myself. All I remember from high school physics is that induction requires the induced current to be perpendicular to something, so a curved surface may deviate too much from what would be considered a perpendicular setting, or it may be alright. My guess is that it will work, but the heat will get weaker on the outer part.
The first part is only usually correct. Aluminum foil, for example, will melt and ruin an inductive stove top despite being nonmagnetic because it's so thin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.976642
| 2013-12-09T17:23:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40100",
"authors": [
"CodyP",
"Glubbdrubb",
"Jeanette Heys",
"Kathy Murphy Swetzoff",
"Rick Buell",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94006",
"rumtscho",
"user69037",
"user81427",
"user93209",
"ーPatrycja"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40140
|
Forgot sugar in sugar cookies
I believe that I forgot to add the sugar in my sugar cookie dough, but I'm not completely sure. If I did forget, how will the cookies turn out once baked? Will they be edible?
Why don't you taste the dough, as is? If it's sweet, you're on. If not, add sugar.
Sugar cookies without the sugar will be somewhat akin to hardtack crackers: they will not be sweet at all, and without the moisture retaining and softening affect of the sugar, they will be much harder.
They will certainly be edible, but probably quite nasty.
If you are not averse to risk from the raw eggs, taste your dough. It should be apparent whether there is sugar in it or not.
If you omitted it, you can try to mix some in now, but this will also continue to work the flour, creating more gluten, and thus giving you a tougher final cookie; therefore, you may choose simply to discard the batch and start again.
I wonder if you might be able to do some of the mixing in a food processor to avoid developing too much gluten?
@Jefromi well, bread dough in a food processor works, so I suspect that'd develop gluten.
@derobert But it should be crumbly, not like bread dough, so it won't tend to knead itself as much, and you would only go until it's mixed, not longer to knead, and you'd be using normal blades, not the dough attachment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.976976
| 2013-12-10T17:55:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40140",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"AkunaMatata",
"Allen Knutson",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Dan W",
"DaveF",
"Drakkar",
"Lori Wendt",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93280",
"kyu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112591
|
How to adjust for making candy from corn syrup instead of sugar?
I've recently started to experiment with making hard candy from straight corn syrup rather than conventional sugar, and so far it has worked remarkably well. Aside from increased sweetness and improved mouthfeel in the final product, the process is faster and more reliable — there is no need to wait for sugar granules to dissolve, and the corn syrup boils nearly uniformly from start to finish without any need to adjust the heat or any risk of going out of control. It's been consistent enough that I'm comfortable leaving the pot entirely unattended on a timer until nearly the final minute and doing other tasks while waiting for the syrup to come up to temperature.
However, hard candy recipes produced in this way seem to end up slightly softer than they do when making them with traditional sugar, and it's really not clear to me why this is — if this is due to the corn syrup requiring a higher temperature to reach the same moisture level; if fructose sugar glass just softer generally even at the same hydration, or something else.
For hard candy at least, I've considered trying to add back in some amount of regular sugar again to try to be able to make harder sugar glass, but I have especially for more specific candy types like nougat (that are sensitive to viscosity/hydration) it really isn't clear to me how to compensate for this difference.
Unfortunately despite searching I have yet to find even a shred of information on the subject of making candy using corn syrup in this way; all of the google search results are polluted with sources that do little else but spout the evils of corn syrup and decry the very concept of using anything but the One True Saccharide for candy-making, and with "fructose free" candy recipes that straight-up walk you through the process of hydrolyzing part of the sugar to make the fructose yourself, without bothering to mention that fact.
Does anyone have any sources or know where I can find actual information on how to use corn syrup for candy-making, and how to compensate when making a substitution for regular sugar?
In a perfect world I'd love if I could find a reference source with information on how to derive (or even just tables listing) the temperature/hydration and hardness curves for different sugar mixtures, but even just basic information and recipes would be great.
The particular syrup I'm using here is Golden Barrel High Fructose 55 (although my question isn't limited to just this syrup in particular). Here's the description from the datasheet:
High Fructose Corn Syrup 55 is a second generation high fructose syrup. The principle sugars, fructose and dextrose, give it a sweetness comparable in most foods and beverages to sucrose or invert sugar. The high sweetness level of high fructose corn syrup 55 provides desirable characteristics to carbonated drinks, still drinks, and processed foods.
Also, here's my best sugar glass recipe at this point, for reference:
Dispense 1 lb of HFCS55 into a pot. Place the pot on the stove on high and set a timer for 14 minutes. Return once the timer goes off and continue to heat for about another minute, until temperature reaches 310 F. Remove from heat and wait for it to cool below safe temperature for additives. Stir in color and flavor, and process into desired shape.
This document seemed like it might answer your question as it talks about the temperature it takes to crystallize supersaturated sucrose solutions in the presence of fructose glucose and corn syrup.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242257775_Crystallization_of_the_supersaturated_sucrose_solutions_in_the_presence_of_fructose_glucose_and_corn_syrup
From what I know about candy making it is because sugar starts out as a crystal it can recrystallize after heating easier. With hard candy (glass candy) you're manipulating the sugars to reform the crystals how you want them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.977147
| 2020-11-10T19:17:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112591",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41555
|
Help - Thawed frozen Lasagne issues
My wife purchased 2 M&M Family Frozen Meat Lasagnes and left them in a thermal freezer bag in the rear of the Escape. I found them two days later as I was taking her vehicle in for service, and they were thawed. Are these lasagnes still safe to eat if cooked, and if so, can they be refrozen? According to the ingredients the noodles are cooked and I assume the beef has been.
Does this answer your question? How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
Per Foodsafety.gov, you can refreeze a casserole if it "still contains ice crystals and feels as cold as if refrigerated", but if "thawed and held above 40 °F for over 2 hours", it must be discarded.
Basically, if they aren't still a bit frozen in the middle, chuck them.
Not re freezing food is more of a food safety standard than a rule. There is a type of bacteria called 'Super bacteria' which can be developed by constantly changing the temperature of bacteria. Personally I would fully cook the food and then either eat it or cool it quickly and freeze it. The worse thing to do is to leave it lingering in the hot/cold state.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.977437
| 2014-01-29T02:30:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41555",
"authors": [
"FernAFern",
"GdD",
"Iori",
"Louis Cohen",
"Sharyn S",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97269",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
40270
|
What's the best approach to get runny-yolk sunny side up fried eggs?
I like my eggs Sunny-side up, and ideally, with runny yolk but fully firmed up whites (including a millimeter-thin film of cooked yolk/whites on top of the yolk - not sure if there's a technical term for that).
This seems like an incredibly difficult balance - either the whole yolk starts to harden (very quickly - enough to get distracted for 15 seconds), or the whites are still runny and the yolk top is not cooked.
What's the best approach?
I tried covering my frying pan with a cover (helped a bit) and cooking over lower gas for a bit longer (didn't help much).
If it matters - I cook 4 eggs in a 12" enamel frying pan, regular gas stove. Same problem exists for any kind of eggs, but my current preference are extra large organic Whole Foods brown ones.
For one method, with lots and lots of pictures, see: http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2012/03/perfect-sunny-side-up-eggs/
Is over-easy out of the question? I just flip them after most of the white has cooked, and then immediately take them off the pan. You lose the perfect sunny side up presentation, but they taste the same and the yolk remains liquid.
@DougKavendek - I'm hopeless with flipping, so won't work for me
@DougKavendek Work the breakfast shift at a diner for a while. The perfect egg flip technique is something you will acquire after your 100th broken yolk.
My mother taught me how to do this when I was six. Any southern cook would know how, but I'll leave it to the excellent answers already provided.
@CareyGregory - where I grew up, it wasn't exactly a safe idea to cook soft-yolk sunny side up eggs.
A lot of people would say it still isn't no matter where you live.
Moderate heat, eggs at room temperature, non-stick egg pan (8" is good, with gently sloping sides) with a tight lid. Melt butter in the egg pan until it stops foaming. Crack your eggs into a bowl so you've got more control when you add them to the egg pan. Cook uncovered until just the bottoms of the white are set, the tops of the whites should still be transparent. Add 1Tbs water for two eggs, cover, check after 45 seconds and give the eggs a jiggle to be sure they will slide neatly out of the pan. They may be ready at this point, they may need another 30 seconds to a minute.
EDIT: I'm hungry anyway:
My pan isn't ideal, I'd rather have 8", this one is 10" but it has a lid. My eggs are at room temperature, I have butter ready and a tablespoon of water. A heat-proof rubber spatula is nice to have, but if everything goes right you don't even need it. I turn the heat to 1 click out of 10 below medium (YMMV [Your Mileage May Vary]). After giving the burner and pan a couple of minutes to heat up it should take room temperature butter about 10 seconds to fully melt and another 5 seconds to stop sizzling.
One thing that I like about cracking eggs into a bowl first is that it allows me to better center the yolks.
The whites should start to become opaque almost immediately, but they shouldn't take on any brown color or be sizzling hard, just gently. Once the bottoms of the eggs are completely opaque (this should take less than 30 seconds), add the water and cover immediately. Now the eggs are steaming.
Fortyfive seconds and a jiggle later they're just about there! (This is when I'll add salt and pepper, I'll wait until they're plated for the hot sauce I can't live without.)
10 more seconds under the lid, slide onto the plate. Voilà, completely set whites, completely runny yolks. OOPS, I forgot the tiny bit of white on top. That's easy, using a spoon, give the eggs a quick baste of the hot butter before adding water and placing the lid.
You can also just steam the eggs until the yolks have a bit of opaque white on top with or without basting them. With practice you can control just how done you get your yolks on a scale that runs between totally runny, to creamy, to still translucent looking but nearly solid, to dry and crumbly (after piercing the yolk, usually).
Flipping is a different technique to get a very similar result.
One more quick note: You may notice that I used quite a bit of butter. That's just personal preference when my jeans are fitting just fine. You may use much less butter if you prefer, another type of fat, or even just a spray of non-stick spray (Pam). If you use a minimum amount of fat, or even none, the "check and jiggle" step becomes even more important. Make sure you can slide the eggs around in the pan. If they're sticking at all, this is when the heat-proof rubber (silicone) spatula can be very helpful.
Amazing answer! One question: is the water added to the top of the yolk, top of the wites, or the butter where there's no egg?
I pour the water towards the edge of the pan where there is no egg and tilt the pan to give me the probably totally incorrect illusion that the water is sliding under the eggs.
Covering the eggs while cooking is really the key here. Learning that trick a couple years ago has changed my life for the better. (as much as egg-cooking techniques can improve one's life)
Instead of using a normal pan lid, I cover the pan with the plate I'll be using the serve the eggs. Then I don't have to wash the lid, and the eggs get served on a nice warm plate.
When you break the eggs into the pan, you will notice that the yolks are surrounded by a higher rounded portion of whites. The secret is to take your fingers and pinch this pile of whites gently until it breaks and the whites in this membrane will redistribute evenly in the pan. You will not have this rounded extra thick area of white that takes longer to cook than the rest of the whites. Once this is done I cover the pan and cook on a medium low flame until the whites are cooked. I think you will find that this solves your problem of the whites taking forever to cook.
And, the fresher and colder the egg, the more prominent that thicker layer of white will be.
Turn up the heat. When the yolk is lying on top of the whites, the whites conduct heat to it while cooking. If you use a hotter pan, the whites won't have conducted much heat to the yolk.
Use older eggs. Fresh egg whites are firm, older ones are more liquid. If you use fresh eggs, the whites layer will be thicker, and there will not only be a difference in the doneness between yolk and white, but also within the white itself. If you cook until the top layer of the white is done, the bottom layer will be overfried.
Use colder eggs. Then you have a larger thermal gradient between the yolk centre and the pan-heated whites.
If you don't mind using tricks: separate the whites from the yolk. Put a pinch of cream of tartar into the whites, and stir them until uniformly liquid. Don't use a whisk or a mixer with baloon beaters, you don't want to beat air into the yolks. Pour the whites into the pan, the whole yolks on top. The acid will cause the whites to firm up quicker, leaving you with a colder, so non-firm, yolk.
As for the thin cooked layer on top, I can't imagine it being possible in an open pan, you need heat coming from above for that. A closed pan is a much better idea. Frying the bottom in the pan first, then holding them for a few seconds under a grill or going over them with a gas torch will probably work better, but is also more hassle.
And yes, you recognized correctly that it is a difficult balance. All types of fried egg dish are quite hard to master (if you are looking for a specific quality, of course; a homogenous mass of rubbery texture is easy for everybody) and when you can do it, it will require constant watching without distractions. There is no way around that. Eggs are chemically complex, and cooking them is a very precise process with low tolerances.
The cooked layer on top is from spooning over the hot cooking butter or other fat, much like basting.
@SAJ14SAJ - I frequently manage the top layer even without basting - mostly, from steam when glass lid covers the pan. It's just not easy to get consistently :)
That may also work, but Rumtscho didn't mention covering.
What I do is turn on the broil setting on my oven before I put the eggs into the frying pan. I fry the eggs on the stove over low/medium heat for a few minutes, until only the top layer of white is uncooked. Then I just slip the frying pan into the broiling drawer for maybe two minutes, and it finishes off the rest of the whites, leaving that "film" of white you're talking about over the runny yolks. I've found this technique to be basically foolproof.
I separate the white and yolk. I put the yolk on my plate. I cook the whites and then put the cooked whites on top of the raw yolks...to me, this tastes the best and comes out consistent every time.
I achieve good results just using a small spatula and "spreading" the whites. With a bit of practice no one will see the difference :3
I crack two eggs into the med-heat skillet, and as soon as the eggs are able to be moved around in the pan, I gently pour them into another skillet already heated turning them over in the process being careful not to rupture the yolks. Add salt and pepper and cook about one to two more minutes and then pour onto a plate. The whites are just barely set and the yolks are runny.
I put 1tbsp of hot butter in skillet and then i crack egg into pan. I keep swirling the yolk around until the whites are spread thin and cooking. Eventually the yolk is totally seperated and rolling around freely. The whotes are easy to cook when coating bottom of 12" pan but it takes butter. Then i roll the yoke out of pan and reconstruct with the cooked whites. Usually on top of a hash brown.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.977616
| 2013-12-15T15:25:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40270",
"authors": [
"Aks..",
"Carey Gregory",
"DVK",
"David",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Fire Crow",
"Francisco José Letterio",
"Haruko",
"Ian Sharp",
"JElder",
"James Lynn",
"Jessica Weir",
"Joe F",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megatan spam",
"Python代写 spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sogaki",
"Spammer",
"Tara",
"TomuRain",
"YenForYang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94030",
"legalizetom",
"mrog"
],
"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
}
|
58071
|
Why do the Japanese eat a lot of raw fish?
Was trying to answer this question for a school age child writing an essay about Japan. Short of Wikipedia's "hundreds of years ago, you arranged for fresher fish by transporting it live" nothing meaningful popped up in my searches - and that doesn't offer explanation because of course you can cook fish after you transport it live.
So, is there some reason why eating raw fish became so popular/prevalent in Japan's seaward areas specifically (compared to other sea-adjacent areas of other nations)? Was it some specific quality of fish native to Japanese sea waters? Or just an accident of culture?
Japan is more than just sea-adjacent, much of its population lives near the coast. Most of the inland is mountainous so almost all of Japan's major cities are on the coast. Compare that to Great Britain where most of its urban areas are inland.
@dvk, "Everywhere" is a function of modern food distribution systems, now. Mountain people in Japan didn't historically eat raw fish (river fish were/are rarely consumed raw, access to ocean fish was limited prior to refrigerated transport).
@Dvk, May want to question that assumption as well. There are plenty of cultures that consume raw fish (though I'm less up to speed on the historical context for most of those). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raw_fish_dishes
@RossRidge - Ah. River port. I thought they were port cities on the sea? (not UK citizen). You can replace with SouthHampton and Portsmouth, which Google Maps tells me ARE coastal 100%
@JasonTrue - I am unsure of their popularity (most certainly, tuna tartare in USA is a foreign influence. Carpaccio is clearly native but I doubt it's as prevalent in Italy compared to cooked fish as Sashimi was in Japan.
@JasonTrue - also, Britain may be a problem geographically, as you pointed out. But France definitely has tons of seaside towns, as does Italy, Greece, and many other countries southerner of UK
Sushi only has a very small piece of raw fish.
@neil - 1. Sashimi does not. 2. Afaik, bite size sushi was a more recent invention.
Where did you find the line "hundreds of years ago, you arranged for fresher fish by transporting it live"? As far as I can tell it's not in either the main article on sushi or in the article on the history of sushi. Rather they say that sushi originally was a way of preserving fish by fermenting it, something you can also see in modern restaurants serving "original sushi".
You could try asking on history.stackexchange.com too, since no one here seems to know. (Or you could try asking here about what it takes for fish to be safe to eat raw, in case there's something unique to Japan there?)
I did a little bit of digging on the topic and found this TapTrip blog post: A brief history of Sushi: why do japanese eat raw fish?
It also references a Cultura Bunka article in Portuguese called Uma breve história do sushi.
To quote:
During Muromachi Period (1336-1573), japaneses [sic] used to transport the raw fish inside of baked rice to keep it conserved during long trips. Then, they started to eat this meal which was called sushi.
[...]
But, making sushi was hard because took a long time and was a little expensive. Only during Edo Period (1603-1868) japaneses started to eat the raw fish freshly caught from the ocean with rice thanks to a sushiman called Hanaya Yohei.
So it appears the short answer is indeed "just an accident of culture" (or history) so-to-speak.
I will also quote from a short article Japanese Food Culture of Eating Raw Fish *
Raw fish dishses have been eaten since the Nara-era. At first,
people ate raw fish pickled with vinegar as "Namasu". Then, from the Muromachi-era, people
started to eat "Sashimi".
And a bonus small bit on careful preparation of Sashimi:
Sashimi is the main dish in the Japanese cuisine,
and the cooks consider carefully the best way of
cutting the fish, arranging the fish, shellfish and
squid, give importance to the proper use of
condiments, and the best combination of fish species when serving. The thickness of sashimi is
determined according to the collagen (main protein
in the connective tissue)
content of the fish
used.
* [Foods Food Ingredients J. Jpn., Vol. 212, No.8, 20]
Keiko Hatae
Wayo Women's University
2-3-1, Kohnodai, Ichikawa-shi, Chiba 272-8533, Japan
Japanese do not eat "a lot" of raw fish. Sushi and sashimi are a delicacy. Neither is eaten more than once in few weeks or even months. Good fish is more expensive than meat. Many Japanese eat raw fish only few times a year, many even don't like raw fish.
Eating raw fish is quite recent, from last century, when fish boats got fridges. Before to get fish fresh enough for eating raw it had to be kept alive and that was very expensive, so usual people could not eat if they were not involved in fishing.
TapTrip blog is wrong, or better to say full of nonsense. Fish kept in rice was not raw, it was fermented. Yohei did not serve raw fish, edozushi he made was using marinated fish.
Fish pickled with vinegar is obviously not raw, it's pickled.
I think you're reading way too much into "a lot". Other cultures don't really eat raw fish, while in Japanese cuisine (delicacy or not) it's a significant thing.
@Jefromi I just compare it with some americans came to Japan and got surprised that they eat sushi more often than Japanese
Because they like it that way.
I guess this is basically the same as saying that it's the last option from the question, "just an accident of culture", but perhaps you could provide some evidence or elaborate a bit?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.978768
| 2015-06-07T01:28:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58071",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DVK",
"Dan McAtee",
"Harvey Porter",
"Jake Millar",
"JasonTrue",
"John Bourne",
"Linda Grasser",
"Merino Teflon",
"Millie Davis",
"Neil Meyer",
"Pat Rumble",
"Rambalac",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sherry Huffman",
"Terri McClure",
"c fraser",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39644"
],
"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
}
|
70948
|
Kosher veal steak more salty than kosher beef steak - is it expected and why?
When I make veal vs. beef steak from kosher meat, it consistently seems to me that the veal is significantly more salty.
The steak isn't salted by me at all (aside from whatever saltiness remains from koshering process).
The difference persists between different methods (grilling in a stove pan vs. in convection oven).
The steaks (shoulder) are sourced from the same supermarket and to the best of my knowledge are sourced from the same producer by them.
Is this difference in saltiness something expected (or just in my head) and if so, why?
The steaks aren't rinsed (either one).
Is the veal saltier than you would like?
@Jolenealaska - not really. The question is more driven by curiousity about encountering something I didn't expect at all.
I don't know how much you know about the process, but I learned quite a bit from this: https://oukosher.org/the-kosher-primer/. I found several recipes that specifically call for kosher veal to be rinsed by the cook, even though kosher meat is always rinsed as a part of the process. Also, are the beef steaks bigger than the veal?
@Jolenealaska - same size
As a calf ages and matures into a cow, the structure, texture, and taste of the meat changes. Veal will naturally have a milder flavor and finer texture than beef.
The younger the calf, the less developed and dense the muscle structure will be. The less dense the muscle structure is, the more the flavor will penetrate the meat.
So, even in the same process, veal should pick up more of the flavor than beef would.
Also, because the flavor of veal is much milder, it would stand to reason that salt (or any other flavors) would stand out more prominently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.979223
| 2016-06-26T03:08:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70948",
"authors": [
"DVK",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40711
|
Substituting Chicken Breast for Chicken Legs in Korma
I am looking at Madhur Jaffrey's Chicken Korma recipe as given at http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/creamychickenkormawi_90196; however I only have chicken breasts. In what manner should I modify the final simmering process or the spice/flavor balance or make up for this discrepancy?
The recipe calls for chicken parts, and specifically says to cut breasts in half. What are you asking?
Only thing I would worry about is not to cook the breast for too long, otherwise it will be dry and nobody likes dry chicken
If a recipe calls for assorted chicken parts, you can swap out all white meat or all dark meat to your liking safely. I do it fairly often, depending what cut is on sale or what I have lying around in my freezer. It shouldn't change much.
Chicken hind quarters have a much larger proportion of connective tissue which gives stews and braises a more unctuous flavor after those tissues have been rendered. Chicken breast, on the other hand, while much lower in fat, gives less flavor in stews.
3lb of chicken meat about what one would expect to get when stripping all the meat off of a roaster, so I assume this recipe intended to have some thigh or drum meat.
I like a lot of meat flavor in my stews. If I were making this stew with chicken breast, I would replace some or all of the water called for in the recipe with chicken stock to reintroduce those flavors.
Logically speaking cooking chicken legs means less flesh which requires less time than cooking chicken breast which is whole flesh.
for 1 kg of chicken legs = 250 gms of chicken(in India,I don't know the chicken size in your country) so modify everything in propotion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.979395
| 2013-12-30T22:01:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40711",
"authors": [
"AnEngineerPerson",
"Dan Singer",
"Divi",
"Emma Zhu",
"Martin 'Kvík' Baláž",
"Miklosh",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Steve Bang",
"T. Laferriere",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95743"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90090
|
Of Vegetables that are spiralized how would you sort them from easy to difficult end of spectrum to Spiralize?
Of Vegetables that are spiralized how would you sort them from easy to difficult end of spectrum to Spiralize?
Which veggies do you find most difficult to spiralize? Even with a counter top Spiralizer?
It could be because of the vegetables hardness & inability of sharpness/ Blades to cut correctly
It could be because of vegetable fiber being too strong or too weak causing the spiral/ pieces to fall apart or disintegrate or liquefy/ juice up too much
Whatever other factors play into the process of Spiralizing veggies?
What makes vegetables suitable for spiralization? (Easier and/ or more difficult? with examples?)
Note: It's absurd to talk about spiralizing things that dont have typical structure for doing so. e.g. Peas, Cherry Tomatoes. Let's not go to such absurd areas.
PS: Size & structure that fits a spiralizer well or a typically spiralizable.
Why am I asking? I've never spiralized before.
I've been reading various articles, books, reviews on spiralization and spiralizors and some mentioned Zucchini are easy, some kind of Squash and Sweet Potatoes are hard etc etc.
These are all over the place and variable. If someone people here are regular executions of Spiralizing then they could chime in and share their easy vs difficult spectrums and it would be more trustable.
Yes some answers may differ a little bit but the spectrum from easy to difficult will largely have some consistency / bindings.
e.g. A carrot may not suddenly become easiest or softest as per someone.
Are you facing a problem spiralizing specific vegetables or types of vegetables? As written, this seems to me to just be soliciting individual complaints rather than seeking a single answer.
@Stephie - Now I've updated for it to mean both.. Could be difficult due to hardness or other reasons.
I removed your invite to make this into a "mini wiki". Years of experience have shown that this does not work well on the SE platform. The question is already borderline, with a high risk of ending up as an opinion poll - I hope the answerers will have enough awareness to not let that happen. Requesting even more formats makes it more difficult to keep it within the acceptable limits for an SE question.
What is the motivation for your question? It seems quite opinion-based and the potential answers not very useful. Brocolli is hard to spiralize, but what are you going to do with such information?
@JohnEye - Are you going to spiralize peas? Unlikely. It's assumed that these are vegetables that are typically spiralized because of their structure; and are on the difficult end of spectrum, versus some that are on easier end of spectrum.
@AlexS Sure, I understand that, but why are you asking the question? What value will the answers provide to you?
Poster may be inventing a new type spiralizer and wanting to demonstrate its advantages.
Seems like a reasonable question to ask if you're considering buying a spiralizer, though in that case I would suggest framing as what it can and can't do, and including the range in between from easy to difficult.
Broccoli stem might actually spiralize real well :)
@JohnEye - As someone who has never spiralized is it not a valid question to ask from people who have experience doing so?
@LorelC. - Yes, such information would be beneficial for anyone interesting in devising better spiralizers.
@Cascabel - Yes, under such a scenario it would help to know for someone to go about looking at Spiralizers as well as "ranges of veggies" from Easy to Difficult. How do I do this - "suggest framing as what it can and can't do, and including the range in between from easy to difficult." Please feel free to add to question/ update it..
A suggestion: please take any meta content (e.g. why you feel this question is valid, how it compares to other questions) to the [meta] portion of the site. Let your question stay focused on what you really want to know, about spiralizing :)
@Erica - Look at the number of off track comments and questions ^ peas and so on. Why do I wish to spiralize? To cook and eat.
I understand the way the site works can be complicated, but everybody is trying to help you formulate this question in as best a way as possible to reach that answer. Discussing that is what [meta] is for, so your question can be what's the focus of this page rather than a conversation about your question (which is what the comments have become!). Again, it is a suggestion, not a criticism or insult.
@AlexS: Well, if I was in your shoes, I would probably ask something like "What makes vegetables suitable for spiralization". Then the answers would be general enough for a reader to be able to apply the advice to any of the hundreds of kinds of vegetable in the world.
@JohnEye - I've mentioned that in my question - Hardness, Fibrousness etc. and even if I changed the question to your title, these are not Metals or Polymers that they'd be able to give "physics like" attributes to the Range of them.
Lotus root must have evolved under the constant threat of spiralizing animals, it is perfect at frustrating spiralization: extremely brittle, and having large cavities that would interrupt any spiral.
Apart from that: anything that simply does not come in a size that fits a spiralizer well (green beans, thin asparagus) or without a lot of prep (hokkaido pumpkin, winter melon). Or anything that is too soft and tough to cleanly be cut with an unsharpenable blade like found in a spiralizer, eg mushrooms, tomatoes, citrus fruit or eggplants.
I've heard that the center of the vegetable is also important .... you can spiralize a young zucchini, but older ones are too mushy in the middle that the style where you spear it onto a post don't work. (the ones that are like a giant pencil sharpener might be okay)
Overstored zucchini can be rather woody/pithy in the middle, too ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.979584
| 2018-05-31T11:38:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90090",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"JohnEye",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108648
|
How to get Garlic & other strong Spices' smell out of my Zojirushi Flask/ Thermos acquired via a herbal Immunity decoction?
How to get Garlic & other strong Spices' smell out of my Zojirushi Flask/ Thermos acquired via a herbal Immunity decoction?
Update:
After 1.5 yr of keeping it away, the silicone rubber section still smells a bit. Lets see if there's any more ideas on doing this. Have yet to try update suggestions from @Chris
Major components of this decoction were:
Garlic cloves
Black Pepper seeds
Cinnamon
Bay Leaf
Ginger
Cumin seeds
Turmeric powder
Coriander powder
Fennel seeds
Flask Product & Materials info:
https://www.zojirushi.com/app/product/smkhe
Its SlickSteel® finish interior is corrosion resistant and repels stains.
Durable and sanitary 18/8 stainless steel interior with SlickSteel® finish
Made of BPA-free plastic and stainless steel
Structure, design & details as pulled from product website
Mine is the Stainless Steel colored 16 oz one:
More data from Manufacturer's website FAQ and Manuals:
[QUOTE]
Q3: How can I clean my vacuum bottle?
A: Always rinse out your vacuum bottle after each use and rinse the stopper under running water. Do not soak the vacuum bottle in water or place in a dishwasher to clean.
The exterior, stopper and cup(s) can be cleaned using a moist sponge or soft cloth and mild dishwashing liquid.
The interior can be cleaned using a mild dishwashing liquid and then rinsed thoroughly.
Please refer to your instruction manual for more.
[/QUOTE]
Manual: https://www.zojirushi.com/servicesupport/manuals/manual_pdf/smkhe.pdf
Could you please add what you have tried already? This may help getting to a good solution quicker.
it would also be helpful to add what's the material on the inside of your flask
If soap and water won't do it, I'd try vodka. A lot of spices contain oils that are not very water soluble.
I suspect the smell is in the plastic parts rather than the stainless. Am I right?
@ChrisH - Let me check, although it was still inside flask as well. Maybe separate and keep to check
I don't know if it'll help with the scent problem or not, but I have a foam wand thing that was sold as a 'decanter scrubber' (looks like this, but I don't know if that's the same brand/model or not. It works pretty well to get into the corners of of things with narrow necks, like water bottles and scrub them
@ChrisH After 1.5 yr of keeping it away, the silicone rubber section still smells a bit. Lets see if there's any more ideas on doing this.
Baking soda and vinegar. Add as much vinegar as you want and then add a teaspoon of baking soda. Once it's finished bubbling you can add another teaspoon and another. If there is still an odor repeat. It's amazing how well this works. I clean gas engine carburetors with this solution.
I the smell is stuck in there after many months, you have to decide if it's usable as is, because if not it's time to try riskier methods. In no particular order, I would try:
Soaking the offending part in vinegar for a few days
Soaking in a strong solution of bicarbonate of soda for a few days
Soaking in hot water for a few hours: put the seal inside the flask, fill with boiling water, and put the lid on (keep upright), or put in a bowl of boiling water, with a lid, and place in an oven at 60--100°C. A few drops of detergent would be a good idea.
Soaking in diluted bleach for a few hours.
Covering in cooking oil for a few hours. Some of the flavour compounds are likely to be more soluble in oil than in water.
In between all steps, wash in hot soapy water, or even better a dishwasher, even if it says not to.
Note that may of these are specifically against the manufacturer's guidelines, but are unlikely to do real damage (they may cause premature aging or discoloration). These slightly risky ideas are mean for something that's otherwise going to go to waste.
If it's true silicon rubber, I've had some success baking my Instant Pot gaskets at 350°F/180°C for half an hour. It doesn't remove the smell completely, but certainly reduces it by quite a bit. It's in the nature of this material to absorb odors, and there's not much you can do about it. I have separate gaskets for savoury meals and non-spicy things like cheesecake or oatmeal for this reason.
For something like a water bottle, I'd just buy a new one at this point, and make sure it's single use. E.g. only water, only coffee, or only strange concoctions.
Wash out with warm soapy water. A toothbrush could help in the scrubbing. While still wet, add baking soda into the flask and scrub.
Pour an inch or two of white vinegar into a clean carafe, then fill most of the way with hot tap water.
Not tried this one, but seems a few people have had good results. 4 Alka-Seltzer tablets with water.
Adding freshly ground coffee, which will help to mask the smell if it is still there.
Edit:
Just read through the manufacturer's instructions, and have updated my advice as a result.
Note that the smell is far more likely to linger in the plastic components than the steel, you you will need to treat those especially.
I got something similar on another group 1."Fill up your flask with hot water and 4 tbls of white vinegar, leave over night. Rinse well next day! Usually works for strong odour " 2."Bi carb should soak up smells too." 3. "People often put a container in their fridge to absorb smells so maybe try that overnight then do the wash" - Will have to ask the house ladies what they've tried so far and then execute a mix of all suggestions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.980033
| 2020-05-27T08:16:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108648",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120122
|
Precise Digital Temperature Control? & ideas to correctly threshold melt & cool Cocoa Butter for stable Recrystallization at home?
Precise Digital Temperature Control? & ideas to correctly threshold melt & cool Cocoa Butter for stable Recrystallization at home?
Trying to look at Hot water dispensers, kettles/ flasks, multi function water / other heating devices and ideas, hacks and techniques around this.
I am not trying to just make chocolate but also better learn how to "handle cocoa butter" in the kitchen - for non chocolate purposes and but as a unique ingredient usable in other recipes as well.
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/article/74041/an-overview-of-the-crystallinity-of-cocoa-butter/
Form V
β2
34-35
Form VI
β1
36
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/19/the-polymorphs-of-chocolate/
https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/808827/Chocolate__The_Noblest_Polymorphism_II.html
How to achieve Form V / VI at home?
Any experiences? Ideas? Suggestions?
Can't get more precise than this at home: https://modernistpantry.com/products/the-control-freak.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwoduRBhA4EiwACL5RP6CyOIMcbJwBxrLHqyv2LDcjFYhEfunoC0Tte4ovh7tcfuX9jjvYchoC84oQAvD_BwE
@moscafj - Seems like medical lab equipment turned into kitchen control - as named :)
Yes, lot's of today's newest kitchen tools were birthed in science labs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.980568
| 2022-03-20T12:25:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120122",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68583
|
What is the optimal method for making box macaroni and cheese?
I have two young children (3 and 4.5), who both love Kraft Macaroni And Cheese, or similar variants. As a child, I also loved it, and between the two I've made a few hundred batches, at least.
However, I don't know that I have found the optimal method for making the sauce at the end, despite all of that practice. I've at different times thought that each of the following was correct:
Add the milk, then the powder, combine, then add softened butter
Add the butter, mix thoroughly until melted, then the poweder, combine, then the milk
Add some milk, then the powder, then some more milk, then some more milk, then softened or melted butter
Remove the macaroni, just add butter to the warm pan (but not on the burner) until melted, add the powder, combine thoroughly, then the milk, then the macaroni (This is the "Annie's" box method)
Yet, I don't think ultimately it's ever really made a significant difference. You always end up with a sauce that's so-so at first, a bit grainy and liquidy, and only after it's sat for a while (10-15 minutes) does it end up perfect - which for a 3 or 4 year old is eternity when faced with their favorite dish.
Is there an optimal way to make Macaroni and Cheese box mix? If the ingredients need to be altered slightly, I'm fine with that, though it needs to stay close still to the original - no adding significant amounts of cheese or Velveeta.
And - yes, I know, homemade macaroni and cheese is amazing, food-of-the-gods. However, my children don't entirely agree, and while I have children with incredibly broad palates, they're still children, and this one I'm willing to give them...
"Optimal" is largely a matter of opinion. I have my favorite method but that may not be the best for everyone... it may also depend on the brand. I know that Annie's recommends version 4... but that may just be for them.
@Catija I meant Amy's not Annie's for version 4, got that one wrong. (Version 4 is Version 2 but with the macaroni removed.)
HA HA HA and I changed mine! You're actually right, though.
@Catija Lol. "Annie's" is indeed correct, not "Amy's". Amy's does make good Mac and Cheese though, just in the freezer :)
I've always liked their method, personally... but I saute sausage chunks in the pot first and use the fat from that with a smaller amount of butter and then follow their directions from there...
@Catija Well, sounds like a good answer then :) I've never thought of sauteeing the sausage first (I do often serve it with sausage, if perhaps only a precooked polish sausage)
Yeah, I use precooked jalapeno sausage and I toss in frozen peas in the last 10 seconds of the boil to make a full meal out of it.
I use method number 2 and mix in about a third of the cheese powder at a time. The main reason I do that way is that way is that the milk can end up cooling down the macaroni too much making it harder to mix in the butter. I've never had a problem with the sauce being grainy or liquidy though. I also cook the macaroni in the microwave and I'm in Canada so our Kraft Dinner may not be the same as your Kraft Mac and Cheese.
Cook pasta, grate extra sharp cheddar very fine (so it melts easily) and pile it on, mix it in. Nirvana. Not all the fuss/time of baked M&C, not weird orange cheese-like powder. I prefer radiatori or angel hair over elbows.
It’s refreshing to see a down to earth question. Don’t know about Annie’s but I’d assume that for Kraft the industrial chemists have had a big hand in the recipe, so I’d start with their instructions . The key thing about optimal is what do your kids like? I’d be adding some fresh grated cheddar and parmigiana (50/50) to amp up the flavour but they may not like that (kids lean bland)
The 4th version you gave is optimal from a chemistry standpoint; the process of using heat to melt a soft fat and dissolve a powder into a liquid by stirring is going to be at it's most efficient when the ingredients can fully interact with each other without all that pasta in the way.
It seems the main issue at hand here is the 10-15 minute wait for perfection that you mentioned. The thickening agents in the cheese powder need a few minutes to do their molecular bonding magic, and there's nothing we can do to speed that up. All 4 methods you mentioned are going to force this wait for creamy goodness because you aren't starting the sauce until after the macaroni is done.
While I don't have impatient kids to cook for, I do have an occasionally 'hangry' wife so I understand the value of efficiency here. What I would highly reccomend you try (and the method I use at home) for Kraft mac & cheese is basically the 4th one in your question, but instead of waiting until the macaroni is done and using the same pan for the sauce, just grab a second pan and prepare the sauce while the macaroni is cooking.
Put the second pan over med-low heat and throw in your butter (hard or soft, doesn't matter). After the butter has melted, add the cheese powder and stir until it's mostly wet clumps instead of dry powder. Then add your milk and stir everything together until the powder is dissolved. Just keep an eye on it and occasionally stir while the macaroni finishes cooking. You'll definitely notice it thickening up after a few minutes. When the macaroni is done, drain it and return it to the pot like normal, and stir in your sauce; by this time it should be the perfect consistency or very close. Voila, mac & cheese "aged to perfection" without actually having to wait.
Other than dirtying another pan, this method is ingenious. :)
Hmm, that's a very good point. As far as chemistry goes - is dissolving the powder in the milk first vs. dissolving in the butter first different? I assume coating the cheese granules with fat has some impact but I can't figure out what. Roux you do fat plus starch then liquid - but is this the same, or does Kraft etc. do something to make it more easily dissolved In liquid.
@JoeM butter and milk would dissolve the powder pretty much the same way. I just go in the order I gave above because it seems faster; you have to melt the butter either way and an empty pan does it almost instantly whereas heated milk would take longer to do it. The goal is to get the sauce together as quickly as possible so it has as much time to thicken as possible before the macaroni finishes.
You'd be better off adding the macaroni to the sauce in your last step... when you add the sauce to the macaroni, you now have lost some of the sauce... which makes me sad. :(
My family laughs because I'm adamant about the way Mac n cheese from the box is cooked. Lol
Even though I swear the kraft blue box has changed its recipe since the 80's it's still the best out there that isn't homemade.
I always have my big bowl ready (I always make 2 boxes) with melted butter and add in the milk, stir, whisk in the powder well - when Mac is done I drain well and add to the bowl and gently fold. Im carefull not to overcook. I want unaltered and bruised unbroken and still firm macaroni..... I get it 100 percent of the time with this method. Nice consistency to the pasta. No ripped pieces. Most mush. Everyone of the pasta is seperate- no cling.
Mmmmmmmm
A friend and I figured out the 2nd method. Never considered the 4th. It was way back when we were on break from school. In the 2nd method you get butter to melt, add the cheese stuff and it all combines so well right away. Then add the milk as desired. Normally use a little more butter and less milk, but do as you desire in this!
Your answer would be more helpful if you described the methods you tried instead of giving numbers. With numbers, I have to go back to whatever post you refer and figure out what you meant instead of reading it right here. It would also make your post still valid when the original post gets edited and the order changes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.980704
| 2016-04-26T20:26:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68583",
"authors": [
"Barkode",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe M",
"Marti",
"RFlack",
"Robert",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832"
],
"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
}
|
112343
|
Preparing chicken burgers for sous vide then freezing while keeping shape
I am having a hard time finding good, reasonably low fat precooked chicken burgers currently, presumably due to COVID; I used to buy these for reference. As such, I figured I'd prepare my own.
I'm shredding (in a Cuisinart) raw, boneless/skinless chicken thighs (with most of the fat removed that's external but leaving the intramuscular fat), and then adding caramelized onions, cooked garlic/bell peppers, and spices or BBQ sauce, then forming into patties, placing in a vacuum bag, sealing, and cooking in my sous vide at 150 for an hour or so. Then I let them cool for a bit, and put them in the freezer. I prepare them from frozen in a pan (directly, no oil or steam beyond what they produce themselves).
Batch one went well, except that they don't keep their shape well. Between sous-vide and freezer, they end up in really odd shapes or even bent (presumably because I don't have a perfect spot).
Are there things I can add to the recipe, or to my technique, to help them stay a bit more flat and less thin? The main thing I've seen that I'm not including is bread/breadcrumbs; I'd prefer to not include that (as it's empty calories), but if this is the specific reason it's in there I could reconsider. I'm also using thighs, not breasts, in part as they have the fat profile I think is best - but if breast meat would do better in this application, I could certainly switch.
You're missing a binder of some kind. You're adding some fairly moist fillings to ground meat, which is already moist and whose structure has been destroyed. You need something to soak up the juices of your burgers as they cook, and that's the purpose of the breadcrumbs you're missing. I know you said you would prefer not to include them, but that is the easiest and probably best solution. Egg (or just egg white) is another common binder, but with all those already-moist ingredients and no breadcrumbs, I wouldn't recommend it.
However, there are a couple of other options you could try.
You could try adding a few tablespoons of cornstarch or potato starch to your meat mixture. That would have the effect of thickening up juices as they're released during cooking-- if the temperature is high enough for the starches to gel.
Another option is more of a technique (which I confess I've never tried, so I can't personally vouch for its effectiveness). This recipe uses no binders, no breadcrumbs or cornstarch at all. Instead, it calls for a portion of the ground meat to be fried off beforehand and then mixed in with the rest of the ingredients. The mixing in this case is actually kneading; the recipe specifies that kneading very very well is key to maintaining the structure of the finished patty.
In any case, as far as the patties being misshapen from the freezer goes, consider making an attempt to rearrange a flat spot for your burgers, at least when you first freeze them. Once they're solid, they can be moved to a more convenient spot in the freezer.
Yeah, the freezer space definitely is part of it, and would be something I'd do differently next time; but the patties are already very oddly shaped by the time they get there (they're flat, but they're not rounded discs or anything close to what I can get with (store-)ground beef).
@JoeM I understand the freezer space thing, I have the same issues. If you have something big and solid in the freezer, like a big chunk of meat, those can often be moved to the refrigerator for an hour or so to make some room. The frozen thing shouldn't thaw much (if at all) in the fridge over that short a time, just make sure you don't forget to put it back! Have you considered using a ring mold or burger press to shape your patties? You'd still have to be very careful when moving them around until fully cooked, but if they freeze in the right shape they should end up the right shape.
Yeah, I was just thinking about using a mold; I already use those for the egg I cook with them (silicone ring on the stove, partially break yolk, cover with small bit of water around the mold for steam). Would have to get some more as I only have four but they’re not expensive.
I completely agree with @senschen's answer, you need a binder and breadcrumbs are the logical choice. You could also sweat down the watery ingredients to reduce the water content or use powdered or dried ingredients instead and you may just get away without using a binder.
Adding to that there's technique, you are sous vide cooking them which isn't good for what you are trying to achieve. Sous vide locks in moisture, there's nowhere for the excess water in your already wet burgers to go. If you were looking for a tender meatball then sous vide is fine. You are also trying to put a crust on using a frying pan, but you're doing it after the fact. This isn't a terrible idea in general, many sous vide recipes call for that and it works great for steaks, but a steak is already together. All burgers are relatively crumbly, it's the crust that makes them stick together, so sous vide cooking them first is the wrong order. You need to fry them off first, get a crust on both sides, then you can finish them off in the sous vide machine if you still want to use that method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.981307
| 2020-10-27T17:31:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112343",
"authors": [
"Joe M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.